Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,248
OOC@Jehoshua- I certainly do wish that my response had been longer and more elegantly written, as is befitting of a man such as Ole, who is quite fond of intellectual wrangling. While do not follow how you think that diplomacy is impossible with traditional proles, I do follow the rest of your points, though I disagree with them in character.
OOC: Im not saying diplomacy is impossible, Im saying any dialogue ideologically with them is impossible. Ergo you can of course make treaties and so forth regarding trade, or border arrangement and so forth with proletarist powers, but ultimately trying to get a proletarist state to allow other opinion, or otherwise act against its ideology (pertinent in Jamaica's case since the end goal presumably would be to end the proletarian tyranny) is a fruitless endeavour.
Vinland, being primarily Protestant with many Orthodox influences, has a religious tradition that lacks the unified, centralized nature found in predominately Catholic nations. I imagine it's quite likely that the Vatican would point to this as a leading reason for Vinland's tendency towards interpretation and relativity. Additionally, Gudrunsson, and the democratic, social proletarist intellectual position that he represents, tends to extend this outlook even further. While Ole holds himself to a moral code informed by his Vinlandic Lutheran culture and upbringing, he has come to recognize the diversity of outlooks that exist, and has generally become disenchanted with the idea that there are universally-agreeable moral criteria. It is possible for groups to possess flawed moral systems. Thus, in his view, democracy makes way for moral governance by electing the party whose views most closely reflect the predominant morality of the populace.
Ergo, religious error has translated into ideological error (although Eastern Orthodoxy does have a definitive moral platform like the Catholic Faith) and Gudrunsson, being proletarist himself is as such part of the very problem I point out which explains his opposition despite the inherent reasonability of the Holy Sees commentary and his own implicit recognition of the problem
Anyway, to address a few specific points: there was no diplomacy before Brazil's invasion. The diplomacy I mentioned took place after the rather unexpected invasion.
Ahk, amended my IC messge slightly to ditch the factual error. Still my main point remains that diplomacy was tried and that it failed, and that its subjective to say that Brazils action, in its own calculus, was not a last resort.