1092 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Are there any anarchist dwarves we can steer towards?

[Tirigon]

Sarah1281 wrote...

This argument may have moved past Hitler but now it's debating the merits of anarchy which is really, REALLY off-topic.

Funnily, the thread title says "You´ve got to be kidding me". You can discuss almost everything with such a title:happy:

[Monica21]

Tirigon wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

How you feel, and whether you are, are different things.

Maybe. Doesn´t mean you are threatened by drug addicts, though. The only thing that may put you in danger is being robbed because they need money for their stuff, and this would be much less probable if drugs were legal.

I can't believe that you actually need someone to explain to you why drugs are bad. This discussion with you has more than become a waste of time.

[Tirigon]

Monica21 wrote...

You claim that the speed limit is a limitation on your freedom and you choose to speed if you can be reasonably assured that you won't get caught. The problem is that speed limits exist for a reason. If you're speeding and cause an accident, that accident could injure someone else. You've just limited someone else's freedom by injuring them. It doesn't matter if you didn't mean to, the fact is that you broke the law and you will likely have witnesses against you to indicate that you were driving at dangerous speeds or erratically.

But I kow quite well how fast I can safely drive and  what is too fast. Only idiots need a speed limitation to drive safely, and quite frankly, if you don´t know how to drive you shouldn´t do it at all.

[Sarah1281]

Tirigon wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

This argument may have moved past Hitler but now it's debating the merits of anarchy which is really, REALLY off-topic.

Funnily, the thread title says "You´ve got to be kidding me". You can discuss almost everything with such a title:happy:

Funnily, the first post is talking about Loghain. Who is not an anarchist. And who doesn't even address anarchy. He would presumably find it preferable to Orlesian rule, however.

[Tirigon]

Monica21 wrote...

I can't believe that you actually need someone to explain to you why drugs are bad. This discussion with you has more than become a waste of time.

I need one to explain that because they aren´t. Many great works of music and literature have been produced under influence of drugs.

Of course, they can be bad for your health, and you might die and all, but that´s your own business. If you want to kill you with an overdose, go ahead. Enough people on this world anyways.

[Tirigon]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Funnily, the first post is talking about Loghain. Who is not an anarchist. And who doesn't even address anarchy. He would presumably find it preferable to Orlesian rule, however.

Maybe i start liking him after all:innocent:

[Dean_the_Young]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

This argument may have moved past Hitler but now it's debating the merits of anarchy which is really, REALLY off-topic.

Funnily, the thread title says "You´ve got to be kidding me". You can discuss almost everything with such a title:happy:

Funnily, the first post is talking about Loghain. Who is not an anarchist. And who doesn't even address anarchy. He would presumably find it preferable to Orlesian rule, however.

Would he prefer Grey Warden rule, then, so long as none of them have funny accents?

[Eudaemonium]

The Grey Wardens are all puppets of Orlais. At least this seems to be what he thinks when he accuses you in the Lansmeet, despite being a new recruit and certainly not Orlesian by any count.

[Tirigon]

Eudaemonium wrote...

The Grey Wardens are all puppets of Orlais. At least this seems to be what he thinks when he accuses you in the Lansmeet, despite being a new recruit and certainly not Orlesian by any count.

Well, he´s a bit dumb. <_<

[Giggles_Manically]

It dosent matter if its nice or not, if it meant sparing all the baddies in DA to stop the blight then I would do it. When it was done I may send them right into the deep roads, though.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Ah yes, I remember an old Loghain thread also derailing into a discussion of anarchy and percieved freedoms when a certain person showed up

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...

Eudaemonium wrote...

The Grey Wardens are all puppets of Orlais. At least this seems to be what he thinks when he accuses you in the Lansmeet, despite being a new recruit and certainly not Orlesian by any count.

Well, he´s a bit dumb. <_<

Except that Wardens are active in the Imperial court and as the recent timeline said, also greatly supported the Orlesian Chantry set up by Orlesian Emperor Drakon.

It's irrelevent from where the recruit is, as they get orders from Weishaupt. Of course our warden did not get any orders, but they were supposed to.
While Loghain's suspicions were exaggerated, they were not without reason.

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Ah yes, I remember an old Loghain thread also derailing into a discussion of anarchy and percieved freedoms when a certain person showed up

It´s what I do.

Also it fits. After all, maric was an anarchist.

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


Except that Wardens are active in the Imperial court and as the recent timeline said, also greatly supported the Orlesian Chantry set up by Orlesian Emperor Drakon.

It's irrelevent from where the recruit is, as they get orders from Weishaupt. Of course our warden did not get any orders, but they were supposed to.
While Loghain's suspicions were exaggerated, they were not without reason.

However, Weisshaupt isn´t even in Orlais. it´s in this northern country (Anderfels or sth like that).

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...
 After all, maric was an anarchist.

...sure.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


Except that Wardens are active in the Imperial court and as the recent timeline said, also greatly supported the Orlesian Chantry set up by Orlesian Emperor Drakon.

It's irrelevent from where the recruit is, as they get orders from Weishaupt. Of course our warden did not get any orders, but they were supposed to.
While Loghain's suspicions were exaggerated, they were not without reason.

However, Weisshaupt isn´t even in Orlais. it´s in this northern country (Anderfels or sth like that).

But like I said, they arleady supported Emperor Drakon and his chantry, what's to say they wouldnt' help them conquer Ferelden?

Orlais is the country that supports the Wardens the most, surely it has influence on them. How big is this influence is unclear, though probably not as big as Loghain thought.

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Tirigon wrote...
 After all, maric was an anarchist.

...sure.

Rebelling against the Emperor to free the people? Always caring for justice, though as king he could become a tyrant and do whatever he wants? Leaving the reign to fight for what he thinks is right (like in The Calling)?

Seems pretty anarchist to me.

[Sarah1281]

"Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy." Maric opposed the Orlesian occupation and then went right ahead and established his own regime. That's not anarchy. At all.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sarah1281 wrote...

"Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy." Maric opposed the Orlesian occupation and then went right ahead and established his own regime. That's not anarchy. At all.

lol I wouldn't argue with him about that. Tirigon has very self-convenient definitions of political terms.

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

"Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy." Maric opposed the Orlesian occupation and then went right ahead and established his own regime. That's not anarchy. At all.

lol I wouldn't argue with him about that. Tirigon has very self-convenient definitions of political terms.

Indeed.

Well, the way I see it Maric still had anarchist ideals. Sure, he was king, what is not very anarchist, but he was a king who served and protected his people instead of exploiting them. Also, people followed him voluntarily, not forced. Anarchy does not oppose following a leader, as long as doing so is convenient.

[Giggles_Manically]

Anarchy = No State

Monarchy = State.



The two are not mixable

[Monica21]

Tirigon wrote...
Indeed.

Well, the way I see it Maric still had anarchist ideals. Sure, he was king, what is not very anarchist, but he was a king who served and protected his people instead of exploiting them. Also, people followed him voluntarily, not forced. Anarchy does not oppose following a leader, as long as doing so is convenient.

The way you see it is wrong.

OED, Anarchy:
1. a. Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder.
b. A theoretical social state in which there is no governing
person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty
(without implication of disorder). [emp. mine]
2. transf. Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any sphere.
b. Non-recognition of moral law; moral disorder.
c. Unsettledness or conflict of opinion. [this definition is regarded as having nothing to do with the state or government but is more philosophical in nature]

I'm not sure what it is you think you're describing, but following a king "voluntarily" is not anarchy. Every citizen of Ferelden has sworn fealty to him either directly or by proxy. That is a monarchical government. Under your definition, every kind of government is an anarchy when the opposite is true. You cannot have both government and anarchy. The two are mutually exclusive.

For the sake of comparison, OED, Monarchy:
I. Senses relating to exclusive sovereignty or rule by a single sovereign.
1. a. Exclusive sovereignty, absolute power.
2. The territory of a monarch
3. A state with a form of government in which sovereign power is vested in a single person, esp. a king or queen. [emp. mine] Formerly also: a nation or state having dominating power over all other states.
4. Rule by a single sovereign; hereditary leadership of the state.
5. The office of monarch. Also: the person, family, or ancestry
of a monarch; the royal family. More recently in extended use: the
high-ranking members of any group of people.

Modifié par Monica21, 23 août 2010 - 02:24 .

[Bahlgan]

Ugh.. I want Loghain dead as much as anyone else who shares the ideas for new heroes to rise, but calling him an anarchist is a bit over the top. Then calling Maric an anarchist. Makes me wonder why I left this thread in a peaceful state, only to return and see it blossom into a "sundew".

[Tirigon]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Anarchy = No State
Monarchy = State.

The two are not mixable

They are. In fact, as long as the King is not a real king but a legendary hero like Aragorn, or Maric, they are practically the same.

Of course, such kings do not exist in Real Life, so you´re right when we´re talking about real politics.
But in a fantasy world they are indeed related, as kings like Aragorn are not dictators but heros that are followed by the people because they want, not because they´re forced to. It´s not suppression if you choose your leader yourself.
(One might argue that it´s stupid, yes, but total freedom sadly includes the right to be stupid).




@Monica: Where did you find these definitions? Except for (and maybe the last, though I never heard that before) they are all wrong.

Modifié par Tirigon, 23 août 2010 - 09:45 .