140 réponses à ce sujet

[ShrinkingFish]

Anarya wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

There is always a choice. It may not be a pretty one. It may not end well in either case. But you and everyone in this world always have a choice.

That's a pretty soundbyte but it's just not true, realistically. Semantically, maybe.

Realistically it is true.

When it comes down to it... you can always choose to die. All you need is the will to do so. No semantics here.

Or, you can choose to endure. In the worst case scenario it all boils down to that choice.

Die or endure.

Modifié par ShrinkingFish, 15 octobre 2010 - 07:40 .

[Anarya]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Anarya wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Also. Has anyone ever given a moments thought to the possibility that Qunari mages don't want to be "rescued"? That they don't need "rescuing"?

I would actually like to see Bioware implement a scenario where a self-righteous Hawke takes down a handler and breaks the chains of his mages to set them "free". And have them react as they would likely react.

With fear, misunderstanding, and sadness that their handler is dead. Perhaps even seeking revenge on Hawke for slaying their protector, their guardian, their master.

Perhaps they would even cut their own throats for fear that they, without their handlers, would in turn harm the people around them, the Qunari, or others.

To think that one could "liberate" a Qunari mage is arrogant and assumptive, someone too intent on how right and good they are to pay attention to the harm and destruction they cause.

Okay, but a feral child would react the same way. Or those families that get locked in a room and molested for 20 years by the patriarch. It does not mean that what was done to them was okay or healthy, even if they develop Stockholm syndrome and don't want to be rescued.

Are you suggesting the Qunari ritually molest their mages? Because there is certainly a line there that should not be and is not crossed and I am not willing to be dragged into an argument of extremes for the sake of extremes.

And I'm missing the point about the feral child. Is it morally unacceptable for a child to be feral? Or is it a state of being?

That's not at all what I'm suggesting. Google feral children if you want, they're very interesting. I'm saying just because a victim does not "want" rescuing does not mean their treatment becomes validated.

[upsettingshorts]

Anarya wrote...
If you're comfortable blaming victims for what happens to them be my guest.

Blame doesn't factor in to it, from my perspective - it simply is.  For example the oppressors also have a choice to stop oppressing.   Because they do not does not mean the choice does not exist.

[ShrinkingFish]

Anarya wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Anarya wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Also. Has anyone ever given a moments thought to the possibility that Qunari mages don't want to be "rescued"? That they don't need "rescuing"?

I would actually like to see Bioware implement a scenario where a self-righteous Hawke takes down a handler and breaks the chains of his mages to set them "free". And have them react as they would likely react.

With fear, misunderstanding, and sadness that their handler is dead. Perhaps even seeking revenge on Hawke for slaying their protector, their guardian, their master.

Perhaps they would even cut their own throats for fear that they, without their handlers, would in turn harm the people around them, the Qunari, or others.

To think that one could "liberate" a Qunari mage is arrogant and assumptive, someone too intent on how right and good they are to pay attention to the harm and destruction they cause.

Okay, but a feral child would react the same way. Or those families that get locked in a room and molested for 20 years by the patriarch. It does not mean that what was done to them was okay or healthy, even if they develop Stockholm syndrome and don't want to be rescued.

Are you suggesting the Qunari ritually molest their mages? Because there is certainly a line there that should not be and is not crossed and I am not willing to be dragged into an argument of extremes for the sake of extremes.

And I'm missing the point about the feral child. Is it morally unacceptable for a child to be feral? Or is it a state of being?

That's not at all what I'm suggesting. Google feral children if you want, they're very interesting. I'm saying just because a victim does not "want" rescuing does not mean their treatment becomes validated.

Who says the Qunari mages are victims?

Edit: I know what feral children are. I was asking those questions rhetorically. Not in seeking information.

Modifié par ShrinkingFish, 15 octobre 2010 - 07:43 .

[Anarya]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Anarya wrote...
If you're comfortable blaming victims for what happens to them be my guest.

Blame doesn't factor in to it, from my perspective - it simply is.  For example the oppressors also have a choice to stop oppressing.   Because they do not does not mean the choice does not exist.

You ARE blaming victims when you say they choose their circumstances. It puts responsibility for their situation in their hands.

My argument is, I don't think they have any responsiblity in a practical sense since they did not and cannot choose to change their circumstances, because to do so is beyond their means.

[Leonia]

Anarya wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Anarya wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Also. Has anyone ever given a moments thought to the possibility that Qunari mages don't want to be "rescued"? That they don't need "rescuing"?

I would actually like to see Bioware implement a scenario where a self-righteous Hawke takes down a handler and breaks the chains of his mages to set them "free". And have them react as they would likely react.

With fear, misunderstanding, and sadness that their handler is dead. Perhaps even seeking revenge on Hawke for slaying their protector, their guardian, their master.

Perhaps they would even cut their own throats for fear that they, without their handlers, would in turn harm the people around them, the Qunari, or others.

To think that one could "liberate" a Qunari mage is arrogant and assumptive, someone too intent on how right and good they are to pay attention to the harm and destruction they cause.

Okay, but a feral child would react the same way. Or those families that get locked in a room and molested for 20 years by the patriarch. It does not mean that what was done to them was okay or healthy, even if they develop Stockholm syndrome and don't want to be rescued.

Are you suggesting the Qunari ritually molest their mages? Because there is certainly a line there that should not be and is not crossed and I am not willing to be dragged into an argument of extremes for the sake of extremes.

And I'm missing the point about the feral child. Is it morally unacceptable for a child to be feral? Or is it a state of being?

That's not at all what I'm suggesting. Google feral children if you want, they're very interesting. I'm saying just because a victim does not "want" rescuing does not mean their treatment becomes validated.

Which sort of relates to the burqua example I brought up earlier. If a woman is raised to believe that dressing a certain way is socially expected of her, then she'll never know that she might be being oppressed by a male-dominated society until some other society says "Hey, that's oppressive and not cool, we won't allow that in our country!". Then she has to sit there and decide if she is being liberated or not, more than likely she will think the other society is the one trying to oppress her "freedom" (or so she sees it as freedom, clearly the women in the other sciety do not think she is given a choice in the matter and it is not freedom at all). One could argue that sure, she realistically has the choice to wear or not wear it, but if the risk of not wearing it means being cast out from the only society she knows or even being killed for it.. it's not much of a choice is it?

So who is right and who is wrong in that case? I personally have no answer to that. I believe when one immigrates to a country they should be willing to take on the cultural expectations of their new nation (whether that be a westerner immigrating to an eastern country or vice-versa) because the law dictates right and wrong, whether the citizens agree with it or not.

And to tie this back to Dragon Age..

When the darkspawn are given the option to not hear the song of the Old Gods in Awakening, they mostly go mad when the Architect "frees" them. Why is that? They were given a choice, right? But was choice really what they wanted?

Modifié par leonia42, 15 octobre 2010 - 07:47 .

[Herr Uhl]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Anarya wrote...
But I think that, from the perspective of a given individual, if the choice exists for other people but does not exist for the person in question, you can't say that person chose to not take it.

This is where I say, "Why not?" and the debate returns to here.

So, unless they consider it worth dying for, they're not oppressed?

leonia42 wrote...

Coming late to this but.. I see where Shorts is going. It's a lot like the burqua debate.. should one culture dictate what another culture can wear because it thinks that other culture is being oppressive to women? But the women of that culture don't think they are being oppressed and don't want the other culture to control what they can wear.

Whose morality rules supreme?

You compare clothing to cutting out the tongues of people and putting them in cages? And I personally feel that this debate is closer to the one about honor killing if anything.


As to the whole "would they thank you" bit, probably no. They are past that stage and Hawke is something completely alien to them. They would probably be frightened of you.

[Anarya]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Who says the Qunari mages are victims?

Edit: I know what feral children are. I was asking those questions rhetorically. Not in seeking information.

Feral children are the result of total neglect by their guardians. They don't happen by themselves. They would be every bit as damaged and developmentally stunted as a Qunari mage would be, and if you remove one from his situation he will be frightened and probably won't want to go. A feral child and a Qunari mage are not mentally competent enough to make a choice like that regarding their care, any more than a severe schizophrenic would be to dictate whether he wants to take his meds or not.

[ShrinkingFish]

leonia42 wrote...

Anarya wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Anarya wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Also. Has anyone ever given a moments thought to the possibility that Qunari mages don't want to be "rescued"? That they don't need "rescuing"?

I would actually like to see Bioware implement a scenario where a self-righteous Hawke takes down a handler and breaks the chains of his mages to set them "free". And have them react as they would likely react.

With fear, misunderstanding, and sadness that their handler is dead. Perhaps even seeking revenge on Hawke for slaying their protector, their guardian, their master.

Perhaps they would even cut their own throats for fear that they, without their handlers, would in turn harm the people around them, the Qunari, or others.

To think that one could "liberate" a Qunari mage is arrogant and assumptive, someone too intent on how right and good they are to pay attention to the harm and destruction they cause.

Okay, but a feral child would react the same way. Or those families that get locked in a room and molested for 20 years by the patriarch. It does not mean that what was done to them was okay or healthy, even if they develop Stockholm syndrome and don't want to be rescued.

Are you suggesting the Qunari ritually molest their mages? Because there is certainly a line there that should not be and is not crossed and I am not willing to be dragged into an argument of extremes for the sake of extremes.

And I'm missing the point about the feral child. Is it morally unacceptable for a child to be feral? Or is it a state of being?

That's not at all what I'm suggesting. Google feral children if you want, they're very interesting. I'm saying just because a victim does not "want" rescuing does not mean their treatment becomes validated.

Which sort of relates to the burqua example I brought up earlier. If a woman is raised to believe that dressing a certain way is socially expected of her, then she'll never know that she might be being oppressed by a male-dominated society until some other society says "Hey, that's oppressive and not cool, we won't allow that in our country!". Then she has to sit there and decide if she is being liberated or not, more than likely she will think the other society is the one trying to oppress her "freedom" (or so she sees it as freedom, clearly the women in the other sciety do not think she is given a choice in the matter and it is not freedom at all). One could argue that sure, she realistically has the choice to wear or not wear it, but if the risk of not wearing it means being cast out from the only society she knows or even being killed for it.. it's not much of a choice is it?

So who is right and who is wrong in that case?

When the darkspawn are given the option to not hear the song of the Old Gods in Awakening, they mostly go mad when the Architect "frees" them. Why is that? They were given a choice, right? But was choice really what they wanted?

Where you aware that it is illegal for a girl to wear a burqua in the United States public school system?

[Leonia]

ShrinkingFish wrote...
Where you aware that it is illegal for a girl to wear a burqua in the United States public school system?

No I was not aware, I live in Australia and it's something that's just been a recent argument down here so I thought it paralleled nicely with the debate in this thread. Was the only decent example I could compare this to off the top of my head.

Modifié par leonia42, 15 octobre 2010 - 07:52 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

leonia42 wrote...
Whose morality rules supreme?

Mine. Because I'm the only one that's right.

[upsettingshorts]

Anarya wrote...
You ARE blaming victims when you say they choose their circumstances. It puts responsibility for their situation in their hands.

My argument is, I don't think they have any responsiblity in a practical sense since they did not and cannot choose to change their circumstances, because to do so is beyond their means.

No, if we go back to what I was actually talking about it was the concept of inalienable rights vs. legal positivism.  If I don't believe in the existence of the former - as I am personally unable to justify them without acknowledging a supreme being or universal font of moral authority - it follows I then can't say that the Qunari mages have an inalienable right to freedom.  Their society posits what is morally and legally right and wrong, and that society must be responsible for making its own decisions on how it ought to change from within.  

You seem to be implying that my specific example of when I would consider intervention means I am transfering the responsibility for acting from myself to the - as you say - victims.  I would argue that my intent is quite different.  My intent is to explain that without a concept of inalienable rights I have no responsibility to transfer in the first place, except to my own conscience, and that isn't important enough to ascend to the moral high ground and demand that the Qunari change.

It would just be self-righteousness.

Herr Uhl wrote...
So, unless they consider it worth dying for, they're not oppressed?

Not what I was saying at all. 

Despite giving a small bit of credence to the idea - despite its inaccuracy - that it was what I was saying, I never said the Qunari mages themselves had to revolt.  What's stopping any Qunari from revolting on their behalf?  Or chucking aside the Qun for the "benefit" of everyone?  

What I bring up as a specific example of what kind of hurdles may or may not be lifted isn't necessarily some kind of clever backdoor into breaking down my philosophical position.  Start with the actual argument.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 15 octobre 2010 - 07:58 .

[ShrinkingFish]

Anarya wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Who says the Qunari mages are victims?

Edit: I know what feral children are. I was asking those questions rhetorically. Not in seeking information.

Feral children are the result of total neglect by their guardians. They don't happen by themselves. They would be every bit as damaged and developmentally stunted as a Qunari mage would be, and if you remove one from his situation he will be frightened and probably won't want to go. A feral child and a Qunari mage are not mentally competent enough to make a choice like that regarding their care, any more than a severe schizophrenic would be to dictate whether he wants to take his meds or not.

You assume a Qunari mage is developmentally stunted then? You know nothing of their development. Nothing of their education. All you know is how they operate in the world and even in that you know very little about them. You are simply assuming the worst case scenario without any proof what-so-ever.

Since mages do not manifest their powers at birth is would be assumed that, up until this manifestation becomes apparent, they are raised normally within their culture. And it does not fit the Qunari ideals to further damage an already broken tool. Who is to say that the Qunari mages are not fully educated individuals who are fully aware of their condition and surrender willfully to their leashes and handlers? Not me certainly. As I do not know. I've never met one. Never seen or even read about how they live and are raised. And neither have you.

So I ask again: Who says the Qunari mages are victims?

Modifié par ShrinkingFish, 15 octobre 2010 - 07:53 .

[Xewaka]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Mine. Because I'm the only one that's right.

This is asking for the application of Godwin's Law, but I am above that.
I will say, though, that morality in this case also has to aknowledge the fact that we're talking about possession beacons, here. They're dangerous and potentially harmful to a high percentage of the population. And it seems cultures in Thedas all run in an assumption of guilt, so they have their potential criminals incarcerated before they can commit the crime.

[Anarya]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Anarya wrote...
You ARE blaming victims when you say they choose their circumstances. It puts responsibility for their situation in their hands.

My argument is, I don't think they have any responsiblity in a practical sense since they did not and cannot choose to change their circumstances, because to do so is beyond their means.

No, if we go back to what I was actually talking about it was the concept of inalienable rights vs. legal positivism.  If I don't believe in the existence of the former - and I am personally unable to justify them without acknowledging a supreme being or universal font of moral authority - it follows I then can't say that the Qunari mages have an inalienable right to freedom.  Their society posits what is morally and legally right and wrong, and that society must be responsible for making its own decisions on how it ought to change from within.  

You seem to be implying that my specific example of when I would consider intervention means I am transfering the responsibility for acting from myself to the - as you say - victims.  I would argue that my intent is quite different.  My intent is to explain that without a concept of inalienable rights I have no responsibility to transfer in the first place, except to my own conscience, and that isn't important enough to ascend to the moral high ground and demand that the Qunari change.

No I'm not talking about a transference of responsibility. You don't have a responsibility to rescue anyone. THAT is a choice that you can make or not, if you're ever in a circumstance to make it. I'm saying that when you make a statement like "everyone in the world has a choice" (paraphrasing...don't remember your exact words) you're implying responsibility on the repressed parties' part for their repression which sounds a whole lot like blaming the victim to me.

You're certainly free not to believe in inalienable rights, I don't argue that. I just think it's incredibly callous to claim that people are responsible for their own repression in cases where they cannot remove themselves from the situation except by suicide.

[hangmans tree]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
* It's actually one of the three arguments I was genuinely waiting for.  The others both involve real world examples and they're actually more difficult for me to answer - but I'm not gonna give out counterarguments for free.  Well, unless you PM me.


...I'm not crazy...

Irak I imagine?

I never mentioned chaging their views with force. But as you said, neither is in the right to force one belifs. I would opt for  coexistance...but...what is chaining down mages go against social code in the land you emigrated to? There are laws that you are bound to adhere to. It's like with islamic minorities in europe. They want to live on our land but refuse to follow our rules. They also have a choice - go back to where their lifestyle is accepted, but instead there is rage that european social rules and laws are opressive.

Me? I follow the idealistic and atruistic in the nearest vicinity way. I know that all the good I can do is just a drop in the see in the big picture, so I always try to do good by the people I meet, I can personally help in direct or indirect way.

Modifié par hangmans tree, 15 octobre 2010 - 08:14 .

[Anarya]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Anarya wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Who says the Qunari mages are victims?

Edit: I know what feral children are. I was asking those questions rhetorically. Not in seeking information.

Feral children are the result of total neglect by their guardians. They don't happen by themselves. They would be every bit as damaged and developmentally stunted as a Qunari mage would be, and if you remove one from his situation he will be frightened and probably won't want to go. A feral child and a Qunari mage are not mentally competent enough to make a choice like that regarding their care, any more than a severe schizophrenic would be to dictate whether he wants to take his meds or not.

You assume a Qunari mage is developmentally stunted then? You know nothing of their development. Nothing of their education. All you know is how they operate in the world and even in that you know very little about them. You are simply assuming the worst case scenario without any proof what-so-ever.

Since mages do not manifest their powers at birth is would be assumed that, up until this manifestation becomes apparent, they are raised normally within their culture. And it does not fit the Qunari ideals to further damage an already broken tool. Who is to say that the Qunari mages are not fully educated individuals who are fully aware of their condition and surrender willfully to their leashes and handlers? Not me certainly. As I do not know. I've never met one. Never seen or even read about how they live and are raised. And neither have you.

So I ask again: Who says the Qunari mages are victims?

I'm extrapolating based on what has been said regarding Qunari mages here and what I know of human development in extreme cases.

But if you're going to make that argument, then it's equally true that YOU can't say that they AREN'T victims, because you don't know any better than I do.

[ShrinkingFish]

Anarya wrote...

No I'm not talking about a transference of responsibility. You don't have a responsibility to rescue anyone. THAT is a choice that you can make or not, if you're ever in a circumstance to make it.

I actually disagree with this entirely.

It is the responsibility of anyone in a position of power to rescue anyone incapable of rescuing themselves when the opportunity arrises.

To allow an evil to be perpetrated is just as morally corrupt as to perform it.

[ShrinkingFish]

Anarya wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Anarya wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Who says the Qunari mages are victims?

Edit: I know what feral children are. I was asking those questions rhetorically. Not in seeking information.

Feral children are the result of total neglect by their guardians. They don't happen by themselves. They would be every bit as damaged and developmentally stunted as a Qunari mage would be, and if you remove one from his situation he will be frightened and probably won't want to go. A feral child and a Qunari mage are not mentally competent enough to make a choice like that regarding their care, any more than a severe schizophrenic would be to dictate whether he wants to take his meds or not.

You assume a Qunari mage is developmentally stunted then? You know nothing of their development. Nothing of their education. All you know is how they operate in the world and even in that you know very little about them. You are simply assuming the worst case scenario without any proof what-so-ever.

Since mages do not manifest their powers at birth is would be assumed that, up until this manifestation becomes apparent, they are raised normally within their culture. And it does not fit the Qunari ideals to further damage an already broken tool. Who is to say that the Qunari mages are not fully educated individuals who are fully aware of their condition and surrender willfully to their leashes and handlers? Not me certainly. As I do not know. I've never met one. Never seen or even read about how they live and are raised. And neither have you.

So I ask again: Who says the Qunari mages are victims?

I'm extrapolating based on what has been said regarding Qunari mages here and what I know of human development in extreme cases.

But if you're going to make that argument, then it's equally true that YOU can't say that they AREN'T victims, because you don't know any better than I do.

I know... I even said that in my post...

We don't know. Neither of us do.

I also happen to be extrapolating based on what has been said regarding the Qunari as well as their treatment of mages and what I know of human development in both extreme and more mundane cases... So which one of us is more right?

[Leonia]

I also happen to be extrapolating based on what has been said regarding
the Qunari as well as their treatment of mages and what I know of human
development in both extreme and more mundane cases... So which one of us
is more right?

Even if we had all the information at our fingertips right now, how would we decide right or wrong in this case? I don't think anyone in this thread can be "more right".

Suicide is a choice. The dead cannot be repressed.

Even this can be argued. Absolutes are usually wrong. Unless they are proven laws of nature/physics.

Modifié par leonia42, 15 octobre 2010 - 08:10 .

[ShrinkingFish]

Anarya wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Anarya wrote...
You ARE blaming victims when you say they choose their circumstances. It puts responsibility for their situation in their hands.

My argument is, I don't think they have any responsiblity in a practical sense since they did not and cannot choose to change their circumstances, because to do so is beyond their means.

No, if we go back to what I was actually talking about it was the concept of inalienable rights vs. legal positivism.  If I don't believe in the existence of the former - and I am personally unable to justify them without acknowledging a supreme being or universal font of moral authority - it follows I then can't say that the Qunari mages have an inalienable right to freedom.  Their society posits what is morally and legally right and wrong, and that society must be responsible for making its own decisions on how it ought to change from within.  

You seem to be implying that my specific example of when I would consider intervention means I am transfering the responsibility for acting from myself to the - as you say - victims.  I would argue that my intent is quite different.  My intent is to explain that without a concept of inalienable rights I have no responsibility to transfer in the first place, except to my own conscience, and that isn't important enough to ascend to the moral high ground and demand that the Qunari change.

No I'm not talking about a transference of responsibility. You don't have a responsibility to rescue anyone. THAT is a choice that you can make or not, if you're ever in a circumstance to make it. I'm saying that when you make a statement like "everyone in the world has a choice" (paraphrasing...don't remember your exact words) you're implying responsibility on the repressed parties' part for their repression which sounds a whole lot like blaming the victim to me.

You're certainly free not to believe in inalienable rights, I don't argue that. I just think it's incredibly callous to claim that people are responsible for their own repression in cases where they cannot remove themselves from the situation except by suicide.

Suicide is a choice. The dead cannot be repressed.

[upsettingshorts]

Anarya wrote...
I'm saying that when you make a statement like "everyone in the world has a choice" (paraphrasing...don't remember your exact words) you're implying responsibility on the repressed parties' part for their repression which sounds a whole lot like blaming the victim to me.

You're certainly free not to believe in inalienable rights, I don't argue that. I just think it's incredibly callous to claim that people are responsible for their own repression in cases where they cannot remove themselves from the situation except by suicide.

Where did I say they had to kill themselves?  In your example of the kidnapped people choosing to attempt to escape every day of their lives is a choice.   In your example of certain oppressed populations such as North Korea, trying to form some kind of underground movement is a choice.  

The captive person might very well get caught trying to escape and be punished by their captor.  The North Korean underground might very well be infiltrated and executed by the state.

A choice is simply an opportunity to weigh risk and reward.  The notion that the success of a particular course of action has to be likely for there to be a choice doesn't make sense to me.  While I would absolutely agree that similar language can be used to blame the victim, I am trying to make it clear how for me that isn't the case at all.   In your scenarios, if I'm blaming anyone - I'm blaming the kidnapper or the so-called "Worker's Party of Korea."

hangmans tree wrote...
Irak I imagine?

Actually, the two other scenarios I was thinking of were slavery/abolitionism and the American Civil War, and N*zi Germany and the holocaust.  I'll leave it up to the rest of the thread to figure out why those two.

Iraq is a different can of worms and too contemporary to discuss on an internet forum with strangers without bias and modern political context dragging the conversation utterly off topic.  Suffice to say I consider that more about an attempt at exporting a political philosophy rather than a social or religious one.

ShrinkingFish wrote...
I actually disagree with this entirely.

It is the responsibility of anyone in a position of power to rescue anyone incapable of rescuing themselves when the opportunity arrises.

To allow an evil to be perpetrated is just as morally corrupt as to perform it.

Which is why in an earlier post I do try and make a distinction between intervening on behalf of some Qunari mages being a different issue than overthrowing the Qun and forcibly changing a society's values.

Though your use of the term evil raises quite a red flag.  The concept can't exist without moral absolutism.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 15 octobre 2010 - 08:13 .

[Anarya]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

I know... I even said that in my post...

We don't know. Neither of us do.

I also happen to be extrapolating based on what has been said regarding the Qunari as well as their treatment of mages and what I know of human development in both extreme and more mundane cases... So which one of us is more right?

I'm not sure what asking "who's more right?" accomplishes.

[hangmans tree]

huh, the thread is spinning too fast, I am not able to catch up with you when I try to answer several new posts appear discrediting or validating and supporting or negating my words...several times over, heh...but I like it

[ShrinkingFish]

Anarya wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

I know... I even said that in my post...

We don't know. Neither of us do.

I also happen to be extrapolating based on what has been said regarding the Qunari as well as their treatment of mages and what I know of human development in both extreme and more mundane cases... So which one of us is more right?

I'm not sure what asking "who's more right?" accomplishes.

It deflates the argument. Which was my intent.

I said I refused to get pulled into an extremist argument for the sake of extremism... so I tore it down. Now anything either of us says on the issue is a moot point.