WTLF is a Retro?

I've always found it a bit odd that we leap to the conclusion that factions in the Wing Commander universe are necessarily *good* simply because they oppose something *bad*.
 
Re: Quarto v mpanty

Originally posted by Penguin
My take:
The Retros are hypocrites because they use technology, even though they officially condemn it.
Confed isn't a hypocrite because it never condemned the widespread destruction of lives and property for the sole purpose of protecting the Confederation.
Big gaping hole in the argument, as proven by the fact that you had to add a qualifying statement (italicised) to make it work. The Retros could add a similar qualifier - they've never condemned the use of technology for the sole purpose of "protecting" humanity from the "evils" of technology. Sounds stupid and illogical, but so does never condemning widespread destruction of lives for the sole purpose of protecting lives.

My point is, even if we disapprove of what the Retros do, and even if we think they're a bunch of nuts, we really can't criticise them for hypocrisy. They are hypocrites, but so are the rest of us.
 
Building off what Nemesis said, one of the taunts used by the Retros is "Die by the very weapons you adore!" ...or something like that, as I haven't played Privateer in a while and never got around to actually completing Righteous Fire.

I never liked the Retros, personally. They annoyed the hell out of me, shot at me without provocation, and I could never be friends with them. Plus their ships were moderately fast...not good for a merchant like me.

Quarto, the Confederation isn't the same as the human race, and vice versa. As a privateer, someone CAN criticize the Retros for hypocrisy. Privateers hold little but profit as sacred, so how are they hypocrites?
 
Originally posted by Nemesis

As for the destruction of Kilrah, I’m not sure the expression fits very well. It strikes me as a gross misstatement and/or understatement to say that we destroyed Kilrah because the Kilrathi tried to destroy Earth (and did effectively destroy or heavily damage some of the other worlds), or simply because we wanted to prevent the Kilrathi from doing so in the future.

The way I see it is this.
No matter what, a civilian population is going to die. The destruction of one civilian population will continue the cycle, while the destruction of the other will provide the opportunity to save countless other civilian populations.
Now you, as Blair, have a choice. You can either destroy one population or the other. Perhaps you're not actually pulling the trigger in one case, but inaction is just another form of action.
So which population dies?
 
pfeh. might as well just leave at the fact that Retros are what's wrong with religion in Gemini sector. They claim to hate technology, but are found using it all over Priv and RF. not only that, but they make deals to obtain Kilrathi technology. That's their hypocrisy.

This could turn into a religious debate really really fast.
 
Originally posted by Nep Parth
I never liked the Retros, personally. They annoyed the hell out of me, shot at me without provocation, and I could never be friends with them. Plus their ships were moderately fast...not good for a merchant like me.
I liked one particular Retro... but I stopped liking him after I realised that the bastard wouldn't give me my gun back :(.

Quarto, the Confederation isn't the same as the human race, and vice versa. As a privateer, someone CAN criticize the Retros for hypocrisy. Privateers hold little but profit as sacred, so how are they hypocrites?
Absolutely right :). However, most people seem to identify with Blair more than with Burrows or Arris, so...
 
They claim to hate technology, but are found using it all over Priv and RF. not only that, but they make deals to obtain Kilrathi technology. That's their hypocrisy.

I agree with Quarto on this point. It’s one thing to charge a person with hypocrisy (for example, an adulterer), but quite another so to judge a group and its belief system. That’s just weak, for any “non-believer” almost always sees contradictions in the faith and actions of the “believers”, and being so ignorant or disdainful is inclined to stack the deck in his favor. Consider Burrows’ take on the Retros from the game manual: “. . . those bark-eating, anti-urban, anti-stellar, neo-pagan, hypocritical, knowledge-destroying fanatics.” Even if he hadn’t used the word “hypocritical”, it’s a foregone conclusion at this point.

But whatever judgements we can fairly make about the Retros, what is the sense in charging them with hypocrisy? Given their extreme views, how could they possibly not use the technology of a space-faring culture to oppose that culture? To charge them with hypocrisy under these circumstances only begs the question. What is it we would have them do to “satisfy” our objection? Renounce their crusade against technology by any chance? In other words, end their “hypocrisy” (as we see it) in the one instance by becoming even more “hypocritical” (as they would see it) in the other?

Now that’s hypocrisy!:)
 
Originally posted by Nemesis


I agree with Quarto on this point. It’s one thing to charge a person with hypocrisy (for example, an adulterer), but quite another so to judge a group and its belief system. That’s just weak, for any “non-believer” almost always sees contradictions in the faith and actions of the “believers”, and being so ignorant or disdainful is inclined to stack the deck in his favor. Consider Burrows’ take on the Retros from the game manual: “. . . those bark-eating, anti-urban, anti-stellar, neo-pagan, hypocritical, knowledge-destroying fanatics.” Even if he hadn’t used the word “hypocritical”, it’s a foregone conclusion at this point.

But whatever judgements we can fairly make about the Retros, what is the sense in charging them with hypocrisy? Given their extreme views, how could they possibly not use the technology of a space-faring culture to oppose that culture? To charge them with hypocrisy under these circumstances only begs the question. What is it we would have them do to “satisfy” our objection? Renounce their crusade against technology by any chance? In other words, end their “hypocrisy” (as we see it) in the one instance by becoming even more “hypocritical” (as they would see it) in the other?

Now that’s hypocrisy!:)

I had been trying to stay out of this, but.... :D

You bring up a point that I just can't help but remark about. You mention that non-beleivers find it easy to point out contradictions in the faith and actions of the believers.

Well, since "faith" is believing somehting in spite of everything else (including the facts), it's pretty apparent that "faith" (also called blind faith) is a bad thing. Those with the where-with-all to question all that's around them tend to not get caught up in the mass of contradictions other people call "faith" and therefore don't have to ignore them (the contradictions) and are free to point them out. It's _hardly_ "weak".

You also ask what sense there is in charging the retros with hypocrisy. I'd have to ask what sense there is in debating the political views of a fictional group of people in the first place.

Finally, there are many ways to oppose something that you beleive strongly against. Using it to destroy it is not the only way, and in fact, makes the least sense. It comes across as if they don't _really_ hate tech, just what it has brought, and (like most zealots, which includes democrats and republicans) have nothing better to do with their lives than to try to control or destroy everyone elses.

I would have to think that if they were truly so against technology, they would have reasons for it, and would not act like Catholics (the inquisition anyone?, or the destruction of priceless art in greece? or the holy wars?, or how about the inquisition-like behavior of the spanish in south america? 'nuff said), but instead would follow more of Ghandi method.

Finally, I'm not trying to turn this into another religious debtate that'll end up being locked. I'm not saying any religion is any better than any other. I'm also not saying any religion is any worse than any other. They _all_ have their bad points, and they all have their good points as well. I simply pulled a reference out of history that was appropriate to the point I was making.
 
Ehh, this entire line of thought is silly. I think it's pretty clear to all involved that the Church of Man exists in the game solely as a joke regarding their own hypocracy. Saying "Oh, but it can be the opposite of what they intended and I'll rant about that ceaselessly for no reason!" is the reason nobody really likes pseudo-intellectuals.
 
Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
Ehh, this entire line of thought is silly. I think it's pretty clear to all involved that the Church of Man exists in the game solely as a joke regarding their own hypocracy. Saying "Oh, but it can be the opposite of what they intended and I'll rant about that ceaselessly for no reason!" is the reason nobody really likes pseudo-intellectuals.
don't forget the intellectuals:D
 
Ehh, this entire line of thought is silly. I think it's pretty clear to all involved that the Church of Man exists in the game solely as a joke regarding their own hypocracy. Saying "Oh, but it can be the opposite of what they intended and I'll rant about that ceaselessly for no reason!" is the reason nobody really likes pseudo-intellectuals.

You surprise me. “Outsiders” with no particular respect for WC criticize us in exactly the same way seeing us plan encyclopedic summaries, construct time lines, round out storylines, and otherwise debate (sometimes quite eloquently) the lives of fictional characters that all derive from the commercial window-dressing for an old video game. I can hear them now: “Talk about your pseudo-intellectuals! What a waste!”

But we know better (don’t we?). So I really don’t know what you’re on about. The long and the short of it is: if it’s okay to argue that Blair’s death can be seen as having a higher literary meaning (on which I agree with you), then surely it’s okay to think about the Retros in a less obvious, more philosophical light too. To each his own. (But if it helps, I draw the line, as does Quarto IIRC, at P2’s “synthi meat”.:))

Well, since "faith" is believing somehting in spite of everything else (including the facts), it's pretty apparent that "faith" (also called blind faith) is a bad thing. Those with the where-with-all to question all that's around them tend to not get caught up in the mass of contradictions other people call "faith" and therefore don't have to ignore them (the contradictions) and are free to point them out. It's _hardly_ "weak".

It’s easy to see you have “issues” with religion as well as politics (and on some level who doesn’t, right?) and I too am not anxious to pursue that kind of debate. I will argue, however, that “faith” is an inescapable state of mind. We all have and have to rely on many faiths about what is true, good, valuable, etc. in our lives. To take just one example, for many if not most of us science itself is more about faith than truth, since we must trust our “teachers” to tell us, among many other things, that despite appearances to the contrary the Earth really does revolve around the sun. I suppose it would be nice if we could always obtain and understand the “proof” of a claimed truth, but it’s just not practical.

You also ask what sense there is in charging the retros with hypocrisy.

Following on from what I said above, that is why I’m suspicious of general claims of hypocrisy, for they can easily be “cheap shots” taken at those who follow “faiths” different from our own, faiths whose complexity and subtleties we have yet to fully understand. I suppose as to the Retros then, my point (and for this I’m obviously taking them more seriously than LOAF and others would like) is to ask whether we know enough about them and their beliefs to judge them in this way. And to my way of thinking, we really don’t. (But if you take them much less seriously, then of course, we do.)

I'd have to ask what sense there is in debating the political views of a fictional group of people in the first place.

Well, if you mean beyond “having fun” with your imagination, then the sense is the same as in conducting thought experiments or debating hypotheticals–to get some kind of “handle” or perspective on what’s going on in the real world. Now in the case of the Retros, we’re essentially talking about terrorists who think it’s “just desserts” to use a modern culture’s own technology to attack and destroy it. The real world equivalent would be . . . let’s see . . . I thought there was something recent . . . maybe it’ll come to me . . . in the meantime, I think you were starting to answer your own question along these lines . . .

I would have to think that if they were truly so against technology, they would have reasons for it, and would not act like Catholics (the inquisition anyone?, or the destruction of priceless art in greece? or the holy wars?, or how about the inquisition-like behavior of the spanish in south america? 'nuff said), but instead would follow more of Ghandi method.


exactly. the evidence is quite concrete and unarguable.

Hmm . . . concrete, unarguable. Strange adjectives to apply to fiction, I think.:)
 
I apologize, I didn't quite make my point clear.

I'm not arguing against the idea of analying something's deeper meaning... but I am against extrapolating a completely unintended meaning based on technical arguments rather than anyones intentions. This is the same problem I have with many regular philosophical debates. It's clear that the Church of Man is intended as more than something else to blow up... but it's also clear that the intent is to be a commentary on the supposed hypocracy of religion. To then take this and decode something else *simply* for the sake of trying to sound impressive seems like a waste.

The difference with the case of Blair is that it's something we truly *don't* understand -- and so it becomes almost necessary to try and sort it out in our minds.
 
Nemisis - Please list who said what when you quote us. I know that I did not say anything about evidence being concrete and unarguable, that was Saturnyne, but since it's futher down and such a small post, others may miss that and think it was me. It could make it hard to follow. :)

This could get out of hand very quickly, but...I don't understand why you would think that faith is "an inescapable state of mind". You try to back it up by saying that we have to trust our teachers, but, the truth is, we don't.

For the most part, we can try the experiment(s) ourselves and see that they are true, somthing which can not be said for religion (or, sadly, history I'm afraid). For things where we can't recreate the experiments, either because they are too expensive or it's not a matter of experiment (ie - religion, and history), we are left to use logic and question what is presented to us. Remember, logic is your friend.

The first step is to look at possible intent of the writer. Do they have a reason to lie? Well, in the case of history, yes, most of the time. History is always written "officially" by the victor. Case in point, how often have you heard this phrase - "How the west was won"? How @$#%ing arrogant, not to mention utterly untrue. Fortunately, there are many people (archeologists for one) who tend to be quite politically neutral who will use physical evidence to recontruct that past. And in other cases, gov'ts (like ours) tend to rather obsessive with paper work, so all it takes is some "dissident" to come along, get ahold of that, and publish what really happened.

As for religion, well, good bad or indifferent, religion is and always has been used as a mean to control people. Not all religions obviously, but many, if not most, and certainly the western ones. That, combined with the fact that they all seem to be interested in converting people, even through the use of torture if need be, _and_ the contradictions that I find in the various ones. Then you add the contradictions with the physical world, and people who desire proof are forced to look elsewhere.

So, in conclusion (that didn't come out nearly as structured or eloquent as I wanted, but what the hell, it's early and I'm at work, I can live with that. :) ), you _can_ question everything, I do it myself, and do not have to accept _anything_ on "faith" unless you choose to.
 
Er, DetailedTarget, doesn't it strike you as silly that you repeat in every post that you're worried this will turn into a religious discussion... but then, later in your post you always insist there's something wrong with the Western religions? :)
I'm not going to either agree or disagree with your point of view, but I'm pretty sure that it's statements like that that always start up religious discussions.
 
Originally posted by Quarto
Er, DetailedTarget, doesn't it strike you as silly that you repeat in every post that you're worried this will turn into a religious discussion... but then, later in your post you always insist there's something wrong with the Western religions? :)
I'm not going to either agree or disagree with your point of view, but I'm pretty sure that it's statements like that that always start up religious discussions.

Actually, while not every post, you are correct. And honestly, it's not my intention. I was simply replying to something somebody else said, but, like I said, you're right. So, I'll withdraw now (before it's too late. ;) )
 
Originally posted by DetailedTarget
You try to back it up by saying that we have to trust our teachers, but, the truth is, we don't.

Invoking the royal "we", are we now? Why shouldn't you trust what your teacher says? What, did you only read the title of the book Lies My Teacher Told Me? Truth is subjective, but what most teachers do is an excellent service to the community. Putting up with thintellectuals is just one thing they have to endure, leave them alone. Saying that scientific law is another religion doesn't fly...especially when it comes to life after death <G>

History is always written "officially" by the victor. Case in point, how often have you heard this phrase - "How the west was won"?

What the hell are you talking about? The west wasn't some foreign country. Are you basing a logical argument off a folk saying? That's like saying, "You are what you eat," and then claiming you're Jesus because you consumed the sacrament.

As for religion, well, good bad or indifferent, religion is and always has been used as a mean to control people. Not all religions obviously, but many, if not most, and certainly the western ones. That, combined with the fact that they all seem to be interested in converting people, even through the use of torture if need be, _and_ the contradictions that I find in the various ones. Then you add the contradictions with the physical world, and people who desire proof are forced to look elsewhere.

Take a philosophy course before you pass judgement on religions. Also, that's an awfully pessimistic view of religion...claiming that establishing a workable moral code is "controlling people" is technically correct, but not really applicable, since people chose to obey the religion or not. Most religions establish a moral code that allows for trust and cooperation in a community. Religions, in themselves, are without contradictions...their holy writ may be, however. I'm assuming you're referring to the seeming contradictions in the Bible, which can actually be dealt with if you're a firm believer. Saying that religions are utterly without proof is saying that proof exists elsewhere, and it doesn't. Where are you going to look?

EDIT: To reiterate my point, I never liked the Retros. They bugged the hell out of me, and I killed them with the very weapons I adored. Hooray!
 
As for religion, well, good bad or indifferent, religion is and always has been used as a mean to control people. Not all religions obviously, but many, if not most, and certainly the western ones. That, combined with the fact that they all seem to be interested in converting people, even through the use of torture if need be, _and_ the contradictions that I find in the various ones. Then you add the contradictions with the physical world, and people who desire proof are forced to look elsewhere.

These are vapid, meaningless claims, though -- the sort of things you might use to incite a reaction towards *anything*. We need to *stop* making such claims -- you will find that there can be contradictions in *everything* and that *everything* can be used to control people. These are constants -- so you have to look at what *other* purposes religion serves...
 
Back
Top