BEOWULF - THE KARMA SUITSYA

ldwechsler wrote:Has anyone worked on the notion that in some ways almost all of us are right?

Yes, if you commit a major genocide, you better be certain the other side gets scared. Note the Holocaust. The Germans did what they wanted and kept records. The records helped imprison at least a few.

I don't think the mandarins planned a genocide. They wanted major destruction...teach Beowulf a lesson. And, of course, their could have been tit for tat. Could really have been had Honor Harrington not pulled back.

And yes the situation had changed. Remember back a whole group of books ago and the Sollies seemed invincible. But they went down really fast. Times do change.

So all of this is true. Times changed and you do have to watch out for the other fellow.

One thing it would be interesting to know: what will happens when Hyacinth and a few others sue the League for damages?

cthia wrote:Again, ultimately it isn't about right or wrong. Ultimately, Beowulf was right to finally try to do something to get out of the mob. Her timing is suspect and she made some bad decisions along the way.

"Let's sneak out the back door!"

"Fine, but let's try not to make so much noise."

tlb wrote:Do we believe that the Detweilers had contingency plans that would result in damage to Beowulf; no matter what they attempted to do? Because they have their hooks sunk deepest into the SLN, it seems reasonable that they could contrive an incident which would be augmented; the same as the incident was with Byng. Not just the plan that may have unfolded in UH, but others in case Beowulf tried to do something else; such as staying in the League to block a formal war declaration.

PS. AAC describes the Moriarty system, it does not mention the system defense called Mycroft.

cthia wrote:That could very well be the case. In fact, blood in Detweiler eyes for Beowulf is more than a possibility. However, the fact that Beowulf made serious mistakes against their own founding will not change. If 20M die as a result of the SLN and it was intentional then Karma paid her debt.

If 20M dead is as a result of MA meddling, but their meddling was made possible because of SLN idiots who were in system, then Karma delivered her payload.

If 20M die directly by MA meddling, and the SLN is not in system and their ignorance could not have been used as patsies or puppets, then Karma has nothing to do with it and the blood of 20M people is all on Malign hands.

The SLN has no business in system under the circumstances, knowing full well that it and the RMN are totally incompatible and apt to spontaneously combust if brought together.

Having now read UH we know the answer: the blood is all on the Malign hands; both the blood of the citizens of Beowulf and the blood of all the SLN personnel who were tricked into false beliefs.

We also know that Mycroft suffers from some of the same problems that Moriarty had.

PS. Although it would not have helped in the conditions that prevailed, why would orbital living and working spaces lack the ability to generate a spherical side wall? What about shielding from meteors or traffic accidents?

tlb wrote:

ldwechsler wrote:Has anyone worked on the notion that in some ways almost all of us are right?

Yes, if you commit a major genocide, you better be certain the other side gets scared. Note the Holocaust. The Germans did what they wanted and kept records. The records helped imprison at least a few.

I don't think the mandarins planned a genocide. They wanted major destruction...teach Beowulf a lesson. And, of course, their could have been tit for tat. Could really have been had Honor Harrington not pulled back.

And yes the situation had changed. Remember back a whole group of books ago and the Sollies seemed invincible. But they went down really fast. Times do change.

So all of this is true. Times changed and you do have to watch out for the other fellow.

One thing it would be interesting to know: what will happens when Hyacinth and a few others sue the League for damages?

cthia wrote:Again, ultimately it isn't about right or wrong. Ultimately, Beowulf was right to finally try to do something to get out of the mob. Her timing is suspect and she made some bad decisions along the way.

"Let's sneak out the back door!"

"Fine, but let's try not to make so much noise."

tlb wrote:Do we believe that the Detweilers had contingency plans that would result in damage to Beowulf; no matter what they attempted to do? Because they have their hooks sunk deepest into the SLN, it seems reasonable that they could contrive an incident which would be augmented; the same as the incident was with Byng. Not just the plan that may have unfolded in UH, but others in case Beowulf tried to do something else; such as staying in the League to block a formal war declaration.

PS. AAC describes the Moriarty system, it does not mention the system defense called Mycroft.

cthia wrote:That could very well be the case. In fact, blood in Detweiler eyes for Beowulf is more than a possibility. However, the fact that Beowulf made serious mistakes against their own founding will not change. If 20M die as a result of the SLN and it was intentional then Karma paid her debt.

If 20M dead is as a result of MA meddling, but their meddling was made possible because of SLN idiots who were in system, then Karma delivered her payload.

If 20M die directly by MA meddling, and the SLN is not in system and their ignorance could not have been used as patsies or puppets, then Karma has nothing to do with it and the blood of 20M people is all on Malign hands.

The SLN has no business in system under the circumstances, knowing full well that it and the RMN are totally incompatible and apt to spontaneously combust if brought together.

Having now read UH we know the answer: the blood is all on the Malign hands; both the blood of the citizens of Beowulf and the blood of all the SLN personnel who were tricked into false beliefs.

We also know that Mycroft suffers from some of the same problems that Moriarty had.

PS. Although it would not have helped in the conditions that prevailed, why would orbital living and working spaces lack the ability to generate a spherical side wall? What about shielding from meteors or traffic accidents?

You know, that's a bit of a spoiler. I don't suppose there was any chance you were going to leave that discovery up to those of us who still haven't read it? I can't say I don't understand your actions, given this thread. I'm sure it wouldn't be decent of me to assume you were delighted to find out which of these possibilities were true. But I certainly won't bet against it. LOL

Do allow me to get back to you when I've had a chance to read it for myself, not that I have any doubts about how you or anyone else absorb the facts.

::fingers crossed::

But do remember, Beowulf's Karma could be asleep-n-beauty.* As opined upstream.

*See Harrington Doctrine

cthia wrote:You know, that's a bit of a spoiler. I don't suppose there was any chance you were going to leave that discovery up to those of us who still haven't read it? I can't say I don't understand your actions, given this thread. I'm sure it wouldn't be decent of me to assume you were delighted to find out which of these possibilities were true. But I certainly won't bet against it. LOL

Do allow me to get back to you when I've had a chance to read it for myself, not that I have any doubts about how you or anyone else absorb the facts.

::fingers crossed::

But do remember, Beowulf's Karma could be asleep-n-beauty.* As opined upstream.

*See Harrington Doctrine

You are right; I was thoughtless and I am sorry. All I can say in defense is that I did not say what happened to people at Beowulf.

tlb wrote:

cthia wrote:You know, that's a bit of a spoiler. I don't suppose there was any chance you were going to leave that discovery up to those of us who still haven't read it? I can't say I don't understand your actions, given this thread. I'm sure it wouldn't be decent of me to assume you were delighted to find out which of these possibilities were true. But I certainly won't bet against it. LOL

Do allow me to get back to you when I've had a chance to read it for myself, not that I have any doubts about how you or anyone else absorb the facts.

::fingers crossed::

But do remember, Beowulf's Karma could be asleep-n-beauty.* As opined upstream.

*See Harrington Doctrine

You are right; I was thoughtless and I am sorry. All I can say in defense is that I did not say what happened to people at Beowulf.

It DOES get tricky here. We've been talking UH for a while because of the eArc. And some of us read the final version. So it is not surprising there are snerks. It becomes very difficult to discuss anything about the book.

Could there be a way to separate topics by whether or not they allow snerks? I mean, we have people who have been writing about the book, often very wisely, and then we find out they haven't read it yet.

cthia wrote:You know, that's a bit of a spoiler. I don't suppose there was any chance you were going to leave that discovery up to those of us who still haven't read it? I can't say I don't understand your actions, given this thread. I'm sure it wouldn't be decent of me to assume you were delighted to find out which of these possibilities were true. But I certainly won't bet against it. LOL

Do allow me to get back to you when I've had a chance to read it for myself, not that I have any doubts about how you or anyone else absorb the facts.

::fingers crossed::

But do remember, Beowulf's Karma could be asleep-n-beauty.* As opined upstream.

*See Harrington Doctrine

tlb wrote:You are right; I was thoughtless and I am sorry. All I can say in defense is that I did not say what happened to people at Beowulf.

ldwechsler wrote:It DOES get tricky here. We've been talking UH for a while because of the eArc. And some of us read the final version. So it is not surprising there are snerks. It becomes very difficult to discuss anything about the book.

Could there be a way to separate topics by whether or not they allow snerks? I mean, we have people who have been writing about the book, often very wisely, and then we find out they haven't read it yet.

There are threads that have "Spoiler" in the title and that was where I should have put the remark about Mycroft.
The other two things I said are a bit murkier: to say that the blood of citizens of Beowulf is on the hands on Malign is so general that it actually says nothing about UH and there is a good chance that cthia will disagree in any case. Finally the remark about living and working spaces needing a spherical sidewall against accidents or meteors was unartfully phrased, but could have been said at any time and should not impact the reading of UH.
I will try to do better and I hope that my mistakes will not spoil anyone's enjoyment.

Redirected from . . .

Finally got me to expound? Because you didn't get it and you still don't. It was not a hidden clause of mine. It was common sense. Common sense that textev has supported. And it isn't so much what cthia (third person again because you are still not getting it) thinks, but obviously many citizens in the entire League, not just the Mandarins and officers. As supported by textev in the form of a snippet.

Your #1 is an outright untruth! A downright lie! . . .

tlb wrote:Where #1 is the following contention that we finally got you to state:
1. Beowulf was guilty of actual treason by breaking unwritten, implied obligations to the League that they had accrued by being a founding member.

Please try to finally understand this. You are drowning in the logic. Simple logic dictated by the laws of human nature, not the written legal laws of man. Crimes of passion are not crimes committed against any statute of laws. Crimes of passion are committed against people. When lovers stab lovers over dumping them and marrying their enemy, that isn't a crime against any law on the books. But books don't stab people 99 times long after they're dead. Scorned lovers do. That is as obvious in the books as the pages they're written on. If you cannot understand that, this conversation will always be over your head. That is why I used the analogy that Beowulf and the League were lovers. So that you can better understand the mechanics of the human element involved. I acknowledged that Beowulf may not have broken any legal laws on any books. But implied agreements made between people is two different balls of wax. Spitting in the palms and shaking hands isn't binding in court, but it sure is hell is binding between scorned people. Especially if one of those "people" is an abusive husband who is used to having everything his way. This is all common sense and I'm perplexed that I'm still having to argue it.

What I understand your obvious disconnect to be is that you agree the Mandarins would feel Beowulf's actions were treasonous. But you disagree on the reasons? You think that the League trumped up ill-founded charges of treason against Beowulf simply to get a declaration of war.

That's where you sadly go off the rails. First, of course they wanted a declaration of war. Of course they were using the charge of treason to get it! But if you don't think that they actually feel impugned in the manner of treason then you are delusional. They know it won't stand up in court. They know they don't have a record of spitting in palms and shaking hands. But deep down in their souls they certainly feel that Beowulf was a dirty bitch sleeping with the enemy behind their backs. Heck, Tsang is still having nightmares over the deceitful bitch's actions herself, unless UH killed her! You don't seem to understand the human element and human nature at all.

Scorned lovers seek justice of the heart, not of the courts.


This conversation should be held here in its proper thread and after I read UH. I understand that it is an exciting and entertaining thread. And it's obvious it is one of the main reasons you couldn't wait to get your hands on UH. Thanks for the compliment. My friends are excited about continuing this thread as well, but you'll have to wait until all of us catch up to UH. In the interim, use your time wisely - as Burdette should have done while his sword was being fetched* - and realize that the SLN's sensibilities were grossly impugned by Beowulf's actions.

cthia wrote:Yes, the first several pages of that thread and on up to half the thread was me arguing the simple fact that Beowulf's actions would be targeted as treasonous.

tlb wrote:Rather than a repetition of the entire discussion, the way I read the first half of that thread was as variations on the following paraphrased statements and responses:

Cthia writes "The Solarian League will consider Beowulf to have committed treason".
Someone else writes "What Beowulf did was legal and not treason at all".
Cthia writes "But Beowulf will have to consider the reaction of the Solarian League to its treason".
Someone else writes "Beowulf did what it needed to do and that was not treason".

About midway through the thread, we finally got you to expound and discovered that there was unspoken clause to your main statement. So it really went like this in your mind:

Cthia writes "The Solarian League will consider Beowulf to have committed treason (,because Beowuf had an obligation to the League that it was breaking)".

You just restated that hidden clause in the post above:

cthia wrote:Um, if you agree that the League would view Beowulf's actions as treasonous, then #1 is implied.

Where #1 is the following contention that we finally got you to state:
1. Beowulf was guilty of actual treason by breaking unwritten, implied obligations to the League that they had accrued by being a founding member.

In my opinion, A does not imply B; but if B were true, then it would justify A.

cthia wrote:Your post is really confusing. Your closing argument uses numbers (#1 and #2) then switches to letters (A and B) that either aren't related or the logic is orphaned. Additionally, you cannot argue "paraphrased statements," instead of the actual statements. Paraphrased statements are your interpretation of what was actually stated and meant.

--snip--

Please argue actual posts, not paraphrases. Paraphrases sre simply gossip. I have a difficult enough time hoping everyone will properly digest what's actually written.

Let's take this discussion to the ring where it belongs. LOL

cthia wrote:Finally got me to expound? Because you didn't get it and you still don't. It was not a hidden clause of mine. It was common sense. Common sense that textev has supported. And it isn't so much what cthia (third person again because you are still not getting it) thinks, but obviously many citizens in the entire League, not just the Mandarins and officers. As supported by textev in the form of a snippet.

Your #1 is an outright untruth! A downright lie! . . .

-- snip --
What I understand your obvious disconnect to be is that you agree the Mandarins would feel Beowulf's actions were treasonous. But you disagree on the reasons? You think that the League trumped up ill-founded charges of treason against Beowulf simply to get a declaration of war.

That's where you sadly go off the rails. First, of course they wanted a declaration of war. Of course they were using the charge of treason to get it! But if you don't think that they actually feel impugned in the manner of treason then you are delusional. They know it won't stand up in court. They know they don't have a record of spitting in palms and shaking hands.

Now you have me very confused: Is statement #1 implied by the statement "The Solarian League will consider Beowulf to have committed treason" as you said in the other thread or is statement #1 a lie (meaning not representative of your thought) as you say now?

I used paraphrasing, because otherwise I would have to copy the first half of this thread. People are free to judge how close I came to catching the spirit of the discussion.

Let's discuss the logic where you say I am drowning.

You say (as I understand it) that "The Solarian League will consider Beowulf to have committed treason" (the antecedent A) implies "Beowulf had an obligation to the League that it was breaking" (the consequent B).

I said that if "Beowulf had an obligation to the League that it was breaking" (B) were true, then "The Solarian League will consider Beowulf to have committed treason" (A) would be valid; but there are various others statements whose truth could also lead to that result being valid. Among them is the statement that "The Mandarins want a declarations of war that Beowulf can block, unless it is treated as criminal". You agreed, but said it would not stand up in court; of course they can get it to stand up in court, they also control the court.

The point is that "The Solarian League will consider Beowulf to have committed treason" can have multiple reasons to be true, so it does not imply any single one of them to be correct. This is not just logic, but also cause and effect: "The Solarian League considers Beowulf to have committed treason" is an observed effect; but the exact cause cannot be selected without additional information, if there are multiple causes that could be true. Perhaps multiple causes did result in the effect, but that would also need additional information to sort out.

As I see it, the Mandarins are solely concerned with their power which they have accrued slowly over the years through fees and corrupt deals with the interstellar corporations. Beowulf's independent line poses a threat to that power and that is powering the Mandarin's reaction. It is not that Beowulf is committing "treason" against the League, but that their actions threaten the power base of the bureaucracy.

cthia wrote:Yes, the first several pages of that thread and on up to half the thread was me arguing the simple fact that Beowulf's actions would be targeted as treasonous.

tlb wrote:Rather than a repetition of the entire discussion, the way I read the first half of that thread was as variations on the following paraphrased statements and responses:

Cthia writes "The Solarian League will consider Beowulf to have committed treason".
Someone else writes "What Beowulf did was legal and not treason at all".
Cthia writes "But Beowulf will have to consider the reaction of the Solarian League to its treason".
Someone else writes "Beowulf did what it needed to do and that was not treason".

About midway through the thread, we finally got you to expound and discovered that there was unspoken clause to your main statement. So it really went like this in your mind:

Cthia writes "The Solarian League will consider Beowulf to have committed treason (,because Beowuf had an obligation to the League that it was breaking)".

You just restated that hidden clause in the post above:

cthia wrote:Um, if you agree that the League would view Beowulf's actions as treasonous, then #1 is implied.

Where #1 is the following contention that we finally got you to state:
1. Beowulf was guilty of actual treason by breaking unwritten, implied obligations to the League that they had accrued by being a founding member.

In my opinion, A does not imply B; but if B were true, then it would justify A.

cthia wrote:Your post is really confusing. Your closing argument uses numbers (#1 and #2) then switches to letters (A and B) that either aren't related or the logic is orphaned. Additionally, you cannot argue "paraphrased statements," instead of the actual statements. Paraphrased statements are your interpretation of what was actually stated and meant.

--snip--

Please argue actual posts, not paraphrases. Paraphrases sre simply gossip. I have a difficult enough time hoping everyone will properly digest what's actually written.

Let's take this discussion to the ring where it belongs. LOL

cthia wrote:Finally got me to expound? Because you didn't get it and you still don't. It was not a hidden clause of mine. It was common sense. Common sense that textev has supported. And it isn't so much what cthia (third person again because you are still not getting it) thinks, but obviously many citizens in the entire League, not just the Mandarins and officers. As supported by textev in the form of a snippet.

Your #1 is an outright untruth! A downright lie! . . .

-- snip --
What I understand your obvious disconnect to be is that you agree the Mandarins would feel Beowulf's actions were treasonous. But you disagree on the reasons? You think that the League trumped up ill-founded charges of treason against Beowulf simply to get a declaration of war.

That's where you sadly go off the rails. First, of course they wanted a declaration of war. Of course they were using the charge of treason to get it! But if you don't think that they actually feel impugned in the manner of treason then you are delusional. They know it won't stand up in court. They know they don't have a record of spitting in palms and shaking hands.

tlb wrote:Now you have me very confused: Is statement #1 implied by the statement "The Solarian League will consider Beowulf to have committed treason" as you said in the other thread or is statement #1 a lie (meaning not representative of your thought) as you say now?

I used paraphrasing, because otherwise I would have to copy the first half of this thread. People are free to judge how close I came to catching the spirit of the discussion.

Let's discuss the logic where you say I am drowning.

You say (as I understand it) that "The Solarian League will consider Beowulf to have committed treason" (the antecedent A) implies "Beowulf had an obligation to the League that it was breaking" (the consequent B).

I said that if "Beowulf had an obligation to the League that it was breaking" (B) were true, then "The Solarian League will consider Beowulf to have committed treason" (A) would be valid; but there are various others statements whose truth could also lead to that result being valid. Among them is the statement that "The Mandarins want a declarations of war that Beowulf can block, unless it is treated as criminal". You agreed, but said it would not stand up in court; of course they can get it to stand up in court, they also control the court.

The point is that "The Solarian League will consider Beowulf to have committed treason" can have multiple reasons to be true, so it does not imply any single one of them to be correct. This is not just logic, but also cause and effect: "The Solarian League considers Beowulf to have committed treason" is an observed effect; but the exact cause cannot be selected without additional information, if there are multiple causes that could be true. Perhaps multiple causes did result in the effect, but that would also need additional information to sort out.

As I see it, the Mandarins are solely concerned with their power which they have accrued slowly over the years through fees and corrupt deals with the interstellar corporations. Beowulf's independent line poses a threat to that power and that is powering the Mandarin's reaction. It is not that Beowulf is committing "treason" against the League, but that their actions threaten the power base of the bureaucracy.

You are confused because you have yet to grasp my posts. And now you are trying to translate something you fail to understand in the first place, further confusing you.

It is an outright lie that I said Beowulf is guilty of actual treason as you erroneously said I stated here . . .

tlb wrote:Where #1 is the following contention that we finally got you to state:
1. Beowulf was guilty of actual treason by breaking unwritten, implied obligations to the League that they had accrued by being a founding member

It is bad form to argue paraphrased statements of someone. Paraphrases are dangerous, prone to error of translation and subject to your understanding in the first place. Don't do it. Use actual quotes so that you won't misconstrue what the poster said. I shouldn't have to say "WTF, I didn't say that!"

As witnessed by the above case in point. If I can't trust you to properly digest and translate John Harington's quote, I shouldn't have to trust you to properly digest and translate mine. Use actual quotes please. No less of a consideration than I would require of myself.

You are sadly still struggling with the fact that the SLN truly feels impugned by Beowulf's actions and feel those actions were treasonous, regardless of whether they broke any statutes on the book. If the SLN was the USN and Beowulf was an American ally (say England) who did the same shit that Beowulf did under the exact same circumstances, YOU YOURSELF would be screaming bloody murder of treason against an implied relationship during a state of war, de facto or otherwise.

Crimes of passion come down to the spirit of relationships and agreements, not the letter of. Especially when there's an 800# bully with a copy of the agreement.

Perhaps England could have abstained from the fight as a conscientious objector if they were in bed with the enemy, but to assist the enemy - especially in all the ways that Beowulf assisted the Manties - is bullshit! And if you don't think every single officer and US citizen (even you) wouldn't think so regardless of the law, is stinkier bullshit! Especially since the USN and the US would likewise be in a fight for its life!

tlb wrote:As I see it, the Mandarins are solely concerned with their power which they have accrued slowly over the years through fees and corrupt deals with the interstellar corporations. Beowulf's independent line poses a threat to that power and that is powering the Mandarin's reaction. It is not that Beowulf is committing "treason" against the League, but that their actions threaten the power base of the bureaucracy.

cthia wrote:You are confused because you have yet to grasp my posts. And now you are trying to translate something you fail to understand in the first place, further confusing you.

It is an outright lie that I said Beowulf is guilty of actual treason as you erroneously said I stated here . . .

tlb wrote:Where #1 is the following contention that we finally got you to state:
1. Beowulf was guilty of actual treason by breaking unwritten, implied obligations to the League that they had accrued by being a founding member

It is bad form to argue paraphrased statements of someone. Paraphrases are dangerous, prone to error of translation and subject to your understanding in the first place. Don't do it. Use actual quotes so that you won't misconstrue what the poster said. I shouldn't have to say "WTF, I didn't say that!"

As witnessed by the above case in point. If I can't trust you to properly digest and translate John Harington's quote, I shouldn't have to trust you to properly digest and translate mine. Use actual quotes please. No less of a consideration than I would require of myself.

You are sadly still struggling with the fact that the SLN truly feels impugned by Beowulf's actions and feel those actions were treasonous, regardless of whether they broke any statutes on the book.

I have not said anything about Harrington's quote.

So you want actual quotes.
On page 45 of this thread:

cthia wrote:Hell, I even began talking in the third person. No one could understand that the League, Mandarins and SL citizens would be passionate about Beowulf's implied responsibilities to its founding.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9380&start=440

On page 46 of this thread:

cthia wrote:Thank you tlb. You've come a long way. Though I fear the ceramecrete still hasn't quite set up. I'll accept your explanation that it is a "theory" of "implied responsibilities." Though I consider it more an obvious fact. And I'd much prefer the more descriptive longhand version to dissuade misunderstanding. . .

It is a theory of implied responsibilities on Mandarin/SLN/certain SL citizen sensibilities as felt by them. I'm not sure it is quite clear that the charge of treason is what is felt by the above participants. It is obvious to me and I chose to share it. And yes, I think the Mandarins may have a point - regardless of how criminal they are.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9380&start=450

On page 449 of the other thread:

cthia wrote:Um, if you agree that the League would view Beowulf's actions as treasonous, then #1 is implied. . .

1. Beowulf was guilty of actual treason by breaking unwritten, implied obligations to the League that they had accrued by being a founding member.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5723&start=4480

Tlb, please read it slowly. Pay special attention to the word . . .

im·plied

[imˈplīd]
ADJECTIVE
1. suggested but not directly expressed; implicit.
2. "she was aware of his implied criticism"

Suggested and not directly expressed means it isn't written anywhere in stone or in ink that can be placed on exhibit. It is an implied agreement between people. The SL didn't get it written on paper as most judges in a court of law would advise you to do next time. Over time the SL wouldn't have thought it necessary to worry about the letter of the law because they were the law. But there is no way in hell the SLN thought Beowulf would ever help sabotage their operations, or that the SLN would believe that Beowulf wouldn't know that it believed it can count on them during any confrontation with an enemy.

These are truths written in arrogance in the minds and hearts of the SL citizens.

But yes! I do agree that the SL has a point that that implied relationship - which is not legally treason - has been transgressed. My sister, who is a lawyer, informed me long ago during this thread that even implied relationships can be sustained without poof if it is obvious what was expected.

I refer you back to this post . . .

Crimes of passion are not transgressions made against the law.
Crimes of passion are transgressions made against people.

These are truths written in blood in the minds and hearts of every human. HUMAN NATURE.