TLV Inbox

[mandrakeroot]

Mandrake here.

Comments

[lestercraft]

"Oh, no- I-I'm not debating his power whatsoever," he says, and there's a hint of amusement there for a moment. "More that you have no reason to like him. I do- several, in fact."

[mandrakeroot]

What Nathaniel is hearing is that he's right. That's quite often what Nathaniel feels that he's hearing.

"I think that sort of power is another reason to have things - more orderly. You should use power to help people."

[lestercraft]

Arthur raises an eyebrow (and thanks the God he doesn't believe in that he still has that).

"Do you not consider what the Admiral does with them to be helping people? Or is it that his inscrutable methodology that you harbour issue with?"

[mandrakeroot]

"It's his methods I take issue with, not his intentions. Putting aside what complications someone could come up with about deals or graduation, I appreciate not being dead."

[lestercraft]

"And what complications are you foreseeing, personally?" he asks, and there's genuine curiosity in his tone.

[mandrakeroot]

"Some of the deals people have asked for have caused huge changes. I'm sure there are plenty of times when it's for the best for everyone, but sometimes what's wrong is less distinct and the ripple from the changes could cause all sorts of unexpected troubles."

[lestercraft]

"So you don't believe that any individual should have access to such unprecedented levels of... of power," he offers, "to simply be gifted the ability to perform such sweeping changes, for no apparent cost, that could cause untold harm due to... a lack of foresight, of comprehension as to the scale of their changes."

[mandrakeroot]

Nathaniel absolutely believes that an individual should have access to such levels of power. He, for example, would do great. And it's not just limited to him, he fully believes that plenty of Prime Ministers did great work with the power they had and would've done even better with more. Individuals on this ship have no offered him that sort of proof.

"I believe that many individuals don't necessarily think through the enormity of what they might be doing, and might discount, or not even think of, the harm that could come from it, yes."

[lestercraft]

"You believe no-one here does," he asks, but it's definitely a sentence, not a question. "So then, who?"

[mandrakeroot]

"I don't know everyone here well enough to know for sure." It's not evasion or even disagreement, exactly, more the product of a life where perfect accuracy is the difference between life or death. "There might be someone here, but that doesn't mean it's not a risk."

[lestercraft]

"So you believe in 'guilty until proven innocent'?" That one is a question. "That people should prove their- their worth, or intelligence o-or ability to produce sound reasoning, before you will listen?"

[mandrakeroot]

"Of course." That's just reasonable, and Nathaniel is nothing if not reasonable. "The burden of proof is different between listening to someone and believing they should have unlimited power to shape a world, but the basic principle is the same. Why should I assume someone should be listened to without evidence?"

[lestercraft]

"Because there are degrees of scale to which you should apply a rule like that. Burden of proof is reasonable for something as intense as the powers we're discussing, or something the person wishes to claim as fact - because of course we should need the proof to confirm its existence." He twists his hand in an idle gesture. "But to extend that same pressure to something like a basic conversation and social niceties only serves to alienate you from other people."

[mandrakeroot]

"As I said, there's a very different burden of proof. If someone says 'good morning', I say 'good morning'. I don't demand detailed verification under cross examination. I'm fully capable of having a simple conversation, because they generally don't involve claims of important facts." Not that he's against being alienated from other people, on a personal level, but, professionally, he knows how to do his job.

[lestercraft]

"So in discussions that contain actual facts or confirmation of matters, you cannot take it on faith that the person before you would tell you the outright truth." He can understand it, but by God that's a frustrating way to live. "Even if it would serve them no purpose to obfuscate or misrepresent this information."

[mandrakeroot]

"I can't take it on faith, but I can take it on prior knowledge of the person." Sometimes even depending on subject, or he wouldn't be able to get as much done reading. "If I don't know someone, how could I be sure that they wouldn't consider that saying something false would help them? People do things that serve no purpose all the time."

[lestercraft]

"So," he holds his hand up in a sort of pause motion, like he's trying to line everything up. "Disregarding your cordiality for a moment. You have no faith in any new persons, whatsoever. Until such a point that they can verify what they're trying to tell you - no matter what the fact, or the reason for it."

[mandrakeroot]

He thinks about that for a moment. It's inexact, but as a rough summary of his approach to the world - "Or I can verify what they're saying. Sometimes it's quite straightforward."

[lestercraft]

"And what if it's not?" His tone isn't hasty, but his questioning is relentless. "What if there's no way to verify the fact? Does this invalidate the person in your mind entirely, for being unable to substantiate their claims, or merely the fact itself?"

[mandrakeroot]

"It depends on the circumstances. I can't imagine very many facts that are important enough to have an effect on my impression of someone that couldn't be verified in some fashion. I'm not sure what one of those could be, unless we move to the territory of subjective 'facts', where it's a different matter again. If it's an argument made in - lets say - a philosophical discussion, than what matters is if it's a reasonable argument. I might not agree, but that doesn't mean that the person isn't worth listening to."

[lestercraft]

"I have noticed that," he says, and there's an approving warmth in his tone. "You've been quite reasonable with our discussion so far, and I greatly appreciate it."

He gives a thoughtful hum. "Could you give me an example of the sort of arguments you have where you have had a fact, one you'd deem important, unverifiable in a way that has impacted on your relationship with someone? Here or back home."

[mandrakeroot]

He pauses for a long moment. There's a straightforward answer, but Arthur has seemed reasonable, so far. The only way to verify that sort of judgement is to test it.

"I wouldn't say I've had arguments that have shaped my relationship with someone because they've offered unverifiable facts. I've had an argument that was based on being lied to, where I suppose you could say the unverifiable fact was if they truly believed it was something that didn't matter or that they weren't really lying."

[lestercraft]

Arthur just nods. That still sounds perfectly reasonable to him.

"So the issue becomes that of subjectivity. That you couldn't tell whether the fact was indeed fact, perhaps? Or that they were lying to you without your being able to confirm as much?"

[mandrakeroot]

"Sometimes it's obviously faked. But I don't like -" He breaks off, frowning as he tries to pin down the right words. "Subjective things are subjective. That doesn't mean they're not important or real. A lot of time, people act more on subjective opinion than anything else. But I don't like when people act like there's no difference, in an argument."

[lestercraft]

He gives an affirmative hum, but his tone is disparaging when he says, "People who treat their subjective opinions as objective truths of the world, and then have the audacity to tell anyone who points that out that this opinion is the only way the world works. Utter hypocrisy."