Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Pilau Rice wrote:

Pada wrote:also tau dont trust everyone that says that he is whith the Greater Good

So where does that fit in?

I don't even know what it refer to ... I mean, how the authentic Greater Good is determined is a secondary question. First, we have to determine what they even mean by Greater Good.

Pilau Rice wrote:

Pada wrote:also tau dont trust everyone that says that he is whith the Greater Good

So where does that fit in?

you may say that you are whith the Greater Good and you mean it.but maybe they dont believe you and will send you do the "dirty jobs". only because you are "not from the stadard
races whith greater good"

Pilau Rice wrote:Would you like me to give you a run down of how my dimmer switch works? So if it's not pitch black, it's not dark?

There's you're problem. You want to answer a question about how bright or dim the light is. But the question is, are the lights on or off?

Pada wrote:

Pilau Rice wrote:

Pada wrote:also tau dont trust everyone that says that he is whith the Greater Good

So where does that fit in?

you may say that you are whith the Greater Good and you mean it.but maybe they dont believe you and will send you do the "dirty jobs". only because you are "not from the stadard
races whith greater good"

Do you have any examples of this?

Manchu wrote:

Pilau Rice wrote:Would you like me to give you a run down of how my dimmer switch works? So if it's not pitch black, it's not dark?

There's you're problem. You want to answer a question about how bright or dim the light is. But the question is, are the lights on or off?

My light has switched to on, because it has made the click noise to suggest that it is now on, but as I haven't turned it up to the point that the light comes on i.e makes the filament glow, it is still dark. So to me, the light is on, but the light bulb is not lit yet.

I believe that Manchu is the perfect allegory for the Tau. He/They are fighting for the greater good of what He/They see as a very concrete, subjective, goal. To them, the ultimate achievement would for everyone to have their lights firmly turned on, but as with all Imperialist, single tracked, egotistic races, this is simply a front to their subversive goal of manipulation, intimidation, and eventual subjugation of those who think differently than themselves.

There is no true answer to this poll because on one hand, the Tau truly have created a functional communistic society in which everyone who is part of, benefits. Like the Roman empire, or the American empire, or even the Soviet or Chinese empires, those who willingly took up arms for the greater cause, regardless of being naturalized citizens or not were granted rights and citizenship upon the completion of their duty. And yet, the poll is deliberately skewed, as it focuses too much on the negative aspects of Imperialism portrayed in a Grimdark universe. Rarely do we actually see the actual effects of "The Greater Good." Because it goes against the paradigm of "There is only War."

DemetriDominov wrote:There is no true answer to this poll

I hope that would be obvious! I believe the fluff supports either of the poll options. As I said, they are both reasonable interpretations of the published material. The poll just says, 'of these two reasonable interpretations, which do you prefer?'

Pilau Rice wrote:

Pada wrote:

Pilau Rice wrote:

Pada wrote:also tau dont trust everyone that says that he is whith the Greater Good

So where does that fit in?

you may say that you are whith the Greater Good and you mean it.but maybe they dont believe you and will send you do the "dirty jobs". only because you are "not from the stadard
races whith greater good"

Do you have any examples of this?

they trusted kroot after long time of war.
vespds, well maybe they guilde their leaders

Pilau Rice wrote:So to me, the light is on, but the light bulb is not lit yet.

But this is just a semantic quibble as the room is still totally dark -- at least regarding the light source in question. The switch being turned on while the bulb is not actually producing light is technically another option but it is not meaningfully different from "off." In fact, it is just another way of saying "off."

Manchu wrote:

DemetriDominov wrote:There is no true answer to this poll

I hope that would be obvious! I believe the fluff supports either of the poll options. As I said, they are both reasonable interpretations of the published material. The poll just says, 'of these two reasonable interpretations, which do you prefer?'

I cannot answer a poll in which neither option is more agreeable than the other. The lights may be on or off, but if the reality is that the answer lies in the muted dimness between the two, I cannot offer a preference of juxtaposed extremes.

Pada wrote:they trusted kroot after long time of war.
vespds, well maybe they guilde their leaders

1.) It is very difficult to understand what you want to say, when you write something so far away from standard English. I can only guess what you mean by "guilde".
2.) "The Greater Good" is not a religion and you can't be "With the Greater Good". It is a social principle that working together is better than killing each other (see my sig on Utilitarianism). And yes, they are a bit cautious with people who like killing each other more than working together. And yes, from experience they don't trust everyone claiming to not kill them anymore. But usually they are open to new alliances.

DemetriDominov wrote:I cannot offer a preference of juxtaposed extremes.

That's absurd. Generalization makes choice easier. It helps that both options contain an enormous amount of room for personal interpretation of secondary matters.

Pilau rice wrote:

Manchu wrote:At some point, the lights are off and and some point the lights are on. Dim light is still light. Darkness is never light

Would you like me to give you a run down of how my dimmer switch works?

Please do.

Switch : on or off
Dimmer: on 100-0% or off
Lights: on ( 100% ) or ( switch = off ) ( dimmer = 99% down to the light sources specific minimum ) or off.

Dimming the lights creates shades of grey. Exactly what 40k is.....

Kroothawk wrote:"The Greater Good" is not a religion and you can't be "With the Greater Good". It is a social principle that working together is better than killing each other.

This is an excellent way of putting it and provides for a useful way to rephrase the poll options:

Tau work with other races as an end in itself.

-OR-

Tau work with other races as a means to ends specific to the Tau race.

1hadhq wrote:Dimming the lights creates shades of grey.

Again, the question is not about the brightness of the light but whether it is on or off.

I voted Greater Good, because I believe that option one sums up the Tau fairly well.

Peace through galactic unification.

I can imagine the Tau forming non-aggression pacts with smaller Alien races if they didn't want to join the Tau. Perhaps they would fight them if they were an unreasonable threat, driving them back to the Alien home system and then annexing the home-world rather than resorting to wiping out the species completely.

We might see a more aggressive Tau in the next codex, due to the many unpleasant experiences they have had in the fluff since their last book.

Good point, MoD. There would come a point, I think, when fighting small pockets of resistance would not contribute to the Greater Good. I don't think the Tau are ideological zealots like the Imperium.

Manchu wrote:

DemetriDominov wrote:I cannot offer a preference of juxtaposed extremes.

That's absurd. Generalization makes choice easier. It helps that both options contain an enormous amount of room for personal interpretation of secondary matters.

Generalization also erases many truths. With that logic, I could in essence argue that the holocaust was good for the human race, and by extension Hilter was good for the human race because he instated massive depopulation across the globe, easing what problems would be around today should he not have massacred millions. My personal interpretation could be then that Hilter was therefore a good person and did us all a favor by exterminating millions of people. All of which simply goes to show how absurd generalization is in an argument, especially one of arguing utilitarianism. Utopia is not possible, and the Tau embody the hypocrisy of humanity's search for it, we could either see it as a noble goal that none will achieve but all should strive to, or folly for even trying. Either way, the fact remains they are nobly trying a moot idea in a realm where everything is under personal interpretation anyway.

Even putting Godwin's law aside, you're really missing the point. The issue is actually very simple here. I have re-stated it in so many ways over the past few pages but I think the latest one, inspired by Kroothawk, will do fine for responding to you:

Tau work with other races as an end in itself.

-OR-

Tau work with other races as a means to ends specific to the Tau race.

Now -- which do you prefer as a general approach to the Tau? Very simple. No need to talk about the Holocaust.

Kroothawk wrote:

Pada wrote:they trusted kroot after long time of war.
vespds, well maybe they guilde their leaders

1.) It is very difficult to understand what you want to say, when you write something so far away from standard English. I can only guess what you mean by "guilde".
2.) "The Greater Good" is not a religion and you can't be "With the Greater Good". It is a social principle that working together is better than killing each other (see my sig on Utilitarianism). And yes, they are a bit cautious with people who like killing each other more than working together. And yes, from experience they don't trust everyone claiming to not kill them anymore. But usually they are open to new alliances.

no you understood what i said
also :Greater Good is the idea that "all together we can make it"
so as i see the poll is " all we can make it by helping each other ( Greather Good) "
or "we can make it by geting the Tau as leaders"
thats is a way that i see it

Manchu wrote:

Tau work with other races as an end in itself.

-OR-

Tau work with other races as a means to ends specific to the Tau race.

Simply put, you still need a third option, it's quite possible that the Tau are actively doing both: serving themselves and believing they are serving the entire galaxy by their manifest destiny. I have a dozen Non-Godwin law examples of real life events that just as terrifying as the holocaust, and they apply terrifically to what the Tau are doing.

Nope. You cannot do something as an end in itself and at the same time do that thing only as a means to some other end.

You can do it . but then it is on the first

In real life, the British Colonies and later the United States of America believed that their manifest destiny of conquering the native american population and converting them to Christianity was their begrudging duty to God. They believed wholeheartedly in this idea, mind, body, and spirit that by relieving the Indian's of their land and giving it to the Europeans they could civilize the "savages" that were not improving it. The Tau are no different as they can plainly see that the Galaxy is being wasted under unrelenting bloodshed and feel as though only they can lead the galaxy to a new age of progression. Their manifest destiny therefore spans both options easily.

An inability to achieve a Utopian state/order by humanity doesn't mean that no sentient race wouldn't be able to. That is exactly the Imperium's problem when perceiving anything out of it's sphere of influence/knowledge.

Humanity is the greatest race in existence, anything that we cannot achieve is either impossible or gotten through heretical means!

DemetriDominov wrote:In real life, the British Colonies and later the United States of America believed that their manifest destiny of conquering the native american population and converting them to Christianity was their begrudging duty to God. They believed wholeheartedly in this idea, mind, body, and spirit that by relieving the Indian's of their land and giving it to the Europeans they could civilize the "savages" that were not improving it. The Tau are no different as they can plainly see that the Galaxy is being wasted under unrelenting bloodshed and feel as though only they can lead the galaxy to a new age of progression. Their manifest destiny therefore spans both options easily.

there is the difenece : if Tau believe that they should lead or not

@DemetriDominov:

The Europeans sought to bring Native Americans into civilization for their own betterment; possession of the land was a separate issue.

-OR-

The Europeans sought to destroy Native American society in order to take possession of the frontier lands; they had no concern for the Native Americans themselves.

So I am asking you to choose which you prefer to emphasize. When it comes to IRL considerations of writing history, we have to take both into account. To do otherwise would be immoral and inaccurate. But the question at stake is a faction of toy soldiers from an imaginary world.

Medium of Death wrote:An inability to achieve a Utopian state/order by humanity doesn't mean that no sentient race wouldn't be able to. That is exactly the Imperium's problem when perceiving anything out of it's sphere of influence/knowledge.

Humanity is the greatest race in existence, anything that we cannot achieve is either impossible or gotten through heretical means!

You're saying that aliens have the means of humanity's utopia? Sounds legit. After all.. we probably got the idea of heaven from them anyway. Then again, if it were by means of the Tau, I find it difficult to believe that the Tau would be capable of achieving a utopia with not only their own race, but every race that they've incorporated into their greater good. As far as a xeno's utopia, the Orks and Tyrannids seem to have already achieved it, there is endless violence across the galaxy, and near limitless supplies of food, both of which are to humanity's great displeasure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:@DemetriDominov:

The Europeans sought to bring Native Americans into civilization for their own betterment; possession of the land was a separate issue.

-OR-

The Europeans sought to destroy Native American society in order to take possession of the frontier lands; they had no concern for the Native Americans themselves.

So I am asking you to choose which you prefer to emphasize. When it comes to IRL considerations of writing history, we have to take both into account. To do otherwise would be immoral and inaccurate. But the question at stake is a faction of toy soldiers from an imaginary world.

You do the human race a disservice by separating history for your own means. I find your post inaccurate, and its substance immoral, history tells that both options are true... so what then are we arguing over? The Tau are exactly the same thing.

DemetriDominov wrote:You do the human race a disservice by separating history for your own means. I find your post inaccurate, and its substance immoral, history tells that both options are true.

Wow it's almost as if you didn't actually read anything that I posted.

Manchu wrote:When it comes to IRL considerations of writing history, we have to take both into account. To do otherwise would be immoral and inaccurate.

Read it again, I had to write and read it a few times.

DemetriDominov wrote:Read it again, I had to write and read it a few times.

It's still sanctimonious nonsense.

We do not have the same moral responsibilities to make-believe toy soldiers as we do to real people. As I have said time and time again, both poll options have support in the fluff. It's reasonable to take either view. The point of the thread is to say, given these two reasonable approaches -- which do you prefer?

Manchu wrote:

DemetriDominov wrote:Read it again, I had to write and read it a few times.

It's still sanctimonious nonsense.

We do not have the same moral responsibilities to make-believe toy soldiers as we do to real peoples. As I have said time and time again, both poll options have support in the fluff. It reasonable to take either view. The point of the thread is to say, given these two reasonable approach -- which do you prefer?

And I asked you.... why not both?