140 réponses à ce sujet

[Leonia]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

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.

Party-pooper.

[hangmans tree]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

hangmans tree wrote...
Irak I imagine?

Actually,
the two scenarios I was thinking of were slavery/abolitionism and the
American Civil War, and N*zi Germany and the holocaust.

I thought you were at the forced intervention, not the socially accepted rule (be it **** or other dictatorship of sorts).

[ShrinkingFish]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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

Itis 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.

Oh there is definitely a distinction. No doubt about that. But my post does address "evils" and I have been attempting to raise the question of what that term actually means and to whom. Just because something is evil according to our culture does not make it so in theirs. So perhaps it is simply hubris that makes us assume we know what is best for Qunari mages.

[Anarya]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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 scenarios I was thinking of were slavery/abolitionism and the
American Civil War, and N*zi Germany and the holocaust.

ShrinkingFish is the one advocating suicide for repressed people. You just said that choosing to rebel as an individual and getting executed is a valid choice. Okay, so your intent was not to blame the victim. That isn't at all what I got out of your earlier postings but maybe that's my fault. The bolded is where I guess we have to agree to disagree. I still say that a choice that involves minimal to no chance of success for an average person of average means is not much of a choice at all.

[upsettingshorts]

hangmans tree wrote...
I thought you were at the forced intervention, not the socially accepted rule (be it **** or other dictatorship of sorts).

I didn't say what about those particular examples either worked for or against my point of view.  Like I said before I'm not handing out counterarguments that I would then refute.  Just that they came up in my own internal dialogue.

Anarya wrote...
ShrinkingFish is the one advocating suicide for repressed people.

Well, suicide is of course a choice and one that leads to a definite change in circumstances.  But I certainly wouldn't advocate it as much of a path towards sociopolitical change.  Though Buddhist monks of the Vietnam era might disagree.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 15 octobre 2010 - 08:19 .

[Anarya]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

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.

They can't be repressed. They can't be free either. They're dead. Nonexistence isn't freedom.

Also my argument was in no way "extremism for the sake of extremism".

[Leonia]

Anarya wrote..
I still say that a choice that involves minimal to no chance of success for an average person of average means is not much of a choice at all.

I'm right there with you!

Sadly I need to depart now for dinner (and Jon Stewart!) but this has been a very interesting debate. I'm glad we can have such civil conversations here.

Modifié par leonia42, 15 octobre 2010 - 08:18 .

[ralph2190]

I love watching the way these threads evolve.

[ShrinkingFish]

Anarya wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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 scenarios I was thinking of were slavery/abolitionism and the
American Civil War, and N*zi Germany and the holocaust.

ShrinkingFish is the one advocating suicide for repressed people. You just said that choosing to rebel as an individual and getting executed is a valid choice. Okay, so your intent was not to blame the victim. That isn't at all what I got out of your earlier postings but maybe that's my fault. The bolded is where I guess we have to agree to disagree. I still say that a choice that involves minimal to no chance of success for an average person of average means is not much of a choice at all.

I never advocated suicide. I actually advocate endurance. I was just pointing out that there is always, always, a choice. Even in the most grim of situations. You're right. It isn't much of a choice. But it is still a choice. Individuals always retain personal power. This power must be willfully surrendered in order for an individual to be dominated.

But then, I'm one of those people who dies early on in any occupation. I would not have made it through the holocaust. I'm not a survivor, I'm a fighter.

[Anarya]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Anarya wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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 scenarios I was thinking of were slavery/abolitionism and the
American Civil War, and N*zi Germany and the holocaust.

ShrinkingFish is the one advocating suicide for repressed people. You just said that choosing to rebel as an individual and getting executed is a valid choice. Okay, so your intent was not to blame the victim. That isn't at all what I got out of your earlier postings but maybe that's my fault. The bolded is where I guess we have to agree to disagree. I still say that a choice that involves minimal to no chance of success for an average person of average means is not much of a choice at all.

I never advocated suicide. I actually advocate endurance. I was just pointing out that there is always, always, a choice. Even in the most grim of situations. You're right. It isn't much of a choice. But it is still a choice. Individuals always retain personal power. This power must be willfully surrendered in order for an individual to be dominated.

But then, I'm one of those people who dies early on in any occupation. I would not have made it through the holocaust. I'm not a survivor, I'm a fighter.

Nonexistance is not freedom. I do not consider a choice between repression and death a valid choice. You obviously do. We're not going to change each others' minds and to be honest, when I was a starry-eyed teenager who romanticized suicide I probably would have agreed with you. I just can't see it that way anymore.

[1xs3thx1]

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.

It is true realistically and it is also true literally.

Take my example: Person A assaults someone they live with, person B, every single day of their life.

Each person has several choices, and I shall list a few.

Person A:

Choice 1) Continue to assault person B and make no change to regular routine.

Choice 2) Kill person B.

Choice 3) Let them person B go, and person A reports themself in to the police department.

Person B:

Choice 1) Continue allowing the assaults to occur from person A with no change to regular routine.

Choice 2) Kill person A.

Choice 3) Make an escape attempt to avoid further assaults and if succesful report person A to the police department.

As you can see, I have listed three similar choices for person A and B. There are endless possibilities. Person B could attempt to stop the assaults in any number of ways, be that suicide, self defense, murder, or burning down the house. Person A could continue to assault person B in any number of ways, I shall not list something that graphic though.

Person B may be chained in a basement by person A and only fed once every three days, only enough so that they will survive so that person A can continue the beatings. Person B could attempt to escape even in these circumstances, or they could choose to not attempt to escape. Person B could also bow down and try to beg for mercy, could wail extremely loudly, they could ask for person A to buy them a goldfish for Christmas.

There's always a choice, whether it be to breathe or not to breathe, to drive above the speed limit or not, to drink excessive amounts of alchohol, to propose. No matter what the circumstances are there's always a literal choice available to be made. Person B in that scenario had the choice to blink or not had they wanted to.

Anything is possible, thus there are always choices that one can make.

[ShrinkingFish]

Anarya wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

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.

They can't be repressed. They can't be free either. They're dead. Nonexistence isn't freedom.

Also my argument was in no way "extremism for the sake of extremism".

Then we have a distinct disconnect in our philosophical viewpoint...

For me, death is the ultimate freedom. So there you have it.

Also, comparing Qunari mages to a family who is locked in a basement and molested for 20 years by a patriarch is extremist. The statement is intended to force the opponent and readers to balk and agree with you that the molestation scenario is horrible and therefore agree that the Qunari mage situation is also horrible even if no real connection exists between the two. Attempting to remove the debate from the realm of intellect and base it entirely on morality and emotions. Making the comparison is extreme...

[ShrinkingFish]

Anarya wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Anarya wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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 scenarios I was thinking of were slavery/abolitionism and the
American Civil War, and N*zi Germany and the holocaust.

ShrinkingFish is the one advocating suicide for repressed people. You just said that choosing to rebel as an individual and getting executed is a valid choice. Okay, so your intent was not to blame the victim. That isn't at all what I got out of your earlier postings but maybe that's my fault. The bolded is where I guess we have to agree to disagree. I still say that a choice that involves minimal to no chance of success for an average person of average means is not much of a choice at all.

I never advocated suicide. I actually advocate endurance. I was just pointing out that there is always, always, a choice. Even in the most grim of situations. You're right. It isn't much of a choice. But it is still a choice. Individuals always retain personal power. This power must be willfully surrendered in order for an individual to be dominated.

But then, I'm one of those people who dies early on in any occupation. I would not have made it through the holocaust. I'm not a survivor, I'm a fighter.

Nonexistance is not freedom. I do not consider a choice between repression and death a valid choice. You obviously do. We're not going to change each others' minds and to be honest, when I was a starry-eyed teenager who romanticized suicide I probably would have agreed with you. I just can't see it that way anymore.

I actually believe that suicide is the most disgusting, horrible and weak action a person can undertake... in most circumstances.

And clearly, you are a survivor. You will endure. I wont. I will fight and I will die and I will be happy to do so. In the end, when the trouble passes and the storm finally disapaits, you'll still be standing. Free and in control.

And I'll be dead.

[Anarya]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Then we have a distinct disconnect in our philosophical viewpoint...

For me, death is the ultimate freedom. So there you have it.

Also, comparing Qunari mages to a family who is locked in a basement and molested for 20 years by a patriarch is extremist. The statement is intended to force the opponent and readers to balk and agree with you that the molestation scenario is horrible and therefore agree that the Qunari mage situation is also horrible even if no real connection exists between the two. Attempting to remove the debate from the realm of intellect and base it entirely on morality and emotions. Making the comparison is extreme...

The connection that exists in that comparison is the psychological and developmental state of the victim which is why I also in the same post mentioned feral children. So you take exception to that particular example. Fine, but there aren't a whole lot of examples of human beings treated like dogs from a young age that aren't going to be horrible and sad.

[Anarya]

1xs3thx1 wrote...

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.

It is true realistically and it is also true literally.

Take my example: Person A assaults someone they live with, person B, every single day of their life.

Each person has several choices, and I shall list a few.

Person A:

Choice 1) Continue to assault person B and make no change to regular routine.

Choice 2) Kill person B.

Choice 3) Let them person B go, and person A reports themself in to the police department.

Person B:

Choice 1) Continue allowing the assaults to occur from person A with no change to regular routine.

Choice 2) Kill person A.

Choice 3) Make an escape attempt to avoid further assaults and if succesful report person A to the police department.

As you can see, I have listed three similar choices for person A and B. There are endless possibilities. Person B could attempt to stop the assaults in any number of ways, be that suicide, self defense, murder, or burning down the house. Person A could continue to assault person B in any number of ways, I shall not list something that graphic though.

Person B may be chained in a basement by person A and only fed once every three days, only enough so that they will survive so that person A can continue the beatings. Person B could attempt to escape even in these circumstances, or they could choose to not attempt to escape. Person B could also bow down and try to beg for mercy, could wail extremely loudly, they could ask for person A to buy them a goldfish for Christmas.

There's always a choice, whether it be to breathe or not to breathe, to drive above the speed limit or not, to drink excessive amounts of alchohol, to propose. No matter what the circumstances are there's always a literal choice available to be made. Person B in that scenario had the choice to blink or not had they wanted to.

Anything is possible, thus there are always choices that one can make.

"Anything is possible" is literally untrue unless you can manipulate reality to your will, in which case you're a better class of human than me. Sure there are always choices to be made if you break it down to things like "blink or don't blink". The choice that was being talked about there is the choice to escape from your terrible situation or not. In most cases you can think of, escape is an option. In some cases, it's impossible and therefore you can't choose it.

Modifié par Anarya, 15 octobre 2010 - 08:36 .

[ShrinkingFish]

Anarya wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Then we have a distinct disconnect in our philosophical viewpoint...

For me, death is the ultimate freedom. So there you have it.

Also, comparing Qunari mages to a family who is locked in a basement and molested for 20 years by a patriarch is extremist. The statement is intended to force the opponent and readers to balk and agree with you that the molestation scenario is horrible and therefore agree that the Qunari mage situation is also horrible even if no real connection exists between the two. Attempting to remove the debate from the realm of intellect and base it entirely on morality and emotions. Making the comparison is extreme...

The connection that exists in that comparison is the psychological and developmental state of the victim which is why I also in the same post mentioned feral children. So you take exception to that particular example. Fine, but there aren't a whole lot of examples of human beings treated like dogs from a young age that aren't going to be horrible and sad.

Both comparisons assume a system of abuse and neglect that does not necessarily exist. Both are examples of worst case scenario practices and results. Both inhabiting the extreme position of claiming that "The Qunari Mages are the same" even though this is not necessarily true. As such the argument takes the exteme position by assuming that Qunari mages are abused in each and ever way possible. As such the argument is meant to polarize the readers and opponent, either forcing them to agree or to take the opposing extreme in order to argue, and no one is going to say that molestation or neglect is morally correct. Any argument meant to polarize the subject is an extremist argument.

[1xs3thx1]

Anarya wrote...

1xs3thx1 wrote...

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.

It is true realistically and it is also true literally.

Take my example: Person A assaults someone they live with, person B, every single day of their life.

Each person has several choices, and I shall list a few.

Person A:

Choice 1) Continue to assault person B and make no change to regular routine.

Choice 2) Kill person B.

Choice 3) Let them person B go, and person A reports themself in to the police department.

Person B:

Choice 1) Continue allowing the assaults to occur from person A with no change to regular routine.

Choice 2) Kill person A.

Choice 3) Make an escape attempt to avoid further assaults and if succesful report person A to the police department.

As you can see, I have listed three similar choices for person A and B. There are endless possibilities. Person B could attempt to stop the assaults in any number of ways, be that suicide, self defense, murder, or burning down the house. Person A could continue to assault person B in any number of ways, I shall not list something that graphic though.

Person B may be chained in a basement by person A and only fed once every three days, only enough so that they will survive so that person A can continue the beatings. Person B could attempt to escape even in these circumstances, or they could choose to not attempt to escape. Person B could also bow down and try to beg for mercy, could wail extremely loudly, they could ask for person A to buy them a goldfish for Christmas.

There's always a choice, whether it be to breathe or not to breathe, to drive above the speed limit or not, to drink excessive amounts of alchohol, to propose. No matter what the circumstances are there's always a literal choice available to be made. Person B in that scenario had the choice to blink or not had they wanted to.

Anything is possible, thus there are always choices that one can make.

"Anything is possible" is literally untrue unless you can manipulate reality to your will, in which case you're a better class of human than I. Sure there are always choices to be made if you break it down to things like "blink or don't blink". The choice that was being talked about there is the choice to escape from your terrible situation or not. In most cases you can think of, escape is an option. In some cases, it's impossible and therefore you can't choose it.

I never said anything and everything is easy to accomplish. It could take a generation of a family to work out how to do one specific technological advancement, yet they still accomplish it eventually.

Just because we do not know how to manipulate reality does not mean that we cannot accomplish things in more difficult ways. There are many things I do not know how to do, but quite a few other people can. I have no idea how to spin a basketball on my fingers, yet a lot of my friends can. I wouldn't even know where to start to create a house, or to write a book. Just because we don't know how to do something, it doesn't mean it's not possible. At any minute we could somehow work out how to do it, or how to get to the desired goal faster.

Edit: Let me rephrase my point. Anything is possible. Some things will seem impossible because no one knows how to do it. Eventually though people come along and prove that it is possible.

Modifié par 1xs3thx1, 15 octobre 2010 - 08:42 .

[Anarya]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Anarya wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Then we have a distinct disconnect in our philosophical viewpoint...

For me, death is the ultimate freedom. So there you have it.

Also, comparing Qunari mages to a family who is locked in a basement and molested for 20 years by a patriarch is extremist. The statement is intended to force the opponent and readers to balk and agree with you that the molestation scenario is horrible and therefore agree that the Qunari mage situation is also horrible even if no real connection exists between the two. Attempting to remove the debate from the realm of intellect and base it entirely on morality and emotions. Making the comparison is extreme...

The connection that exists in that comparison is the psychological and developmental state of the victim which is why I also in the same post mentioned feral children. So you take exception to that particular example. Fine, but there aren't a whole lot of examples of human beings treated like dogs from a young age that aren't going to be horrible and sad.

Both comparisons assume a system of abuse and neglect that does not necessarily exist. Both are examples of worst case scenario practices and results. Both inhabiting the extreme position of claiming that "The Qunari Mages are the same" even though this is not necessarily true. As such the argument takes the exteme position by assuming that Qunari mages are abused in each and ever way possible. As such the argument is meant to polarize the readers and opponent, either forcing them to agree or to take the opposing extreme in order to argue, and no one is going to say that molestation or neglect is morally correct. Any argument meant to polarize the subject is an extremist argument.

The writers have said that Qunari mages are chained and "treated like dogs", considered "defective" and "dangerous". They walk with a feral, hunched posture and wear masks that completely obscure their faces, which is dehumanizing. We do know all of that concretely. I never said that they are sexually abused. You're pulling that out of one of my examples which was meant to serve as a parallel for the purposes of comparing mental condition. It was not intended to force anyone to agree that molestation and neglect are morally correct. I don't know how you read that out of my argument.

[upsettingshorts]

Treated like dogs? Does that mean they are encouraged to sleep all day, have to go to the bathroom outside, get their bellies scratched at random, occasionally indulge in games of keepaway or tug of war, and are forced to eat cold leftover Chinese food?

Okay fine, I get it, but... /goes to pet dog.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 15 octobre 2010 - 08:47 .

[Anarya]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Treated like dogs? Does that mean they are encouraged to sleep all day, have to go to the bathroom outside, get their bellies scratched at random, and are forced to eat cold leftover Chinese food?

Okay fine, I get it, but... /goes to pet dog.

Yes. The poor dears. MSG gives them migraines. It's inhumane.

[Felfenix]

Leaked Spoiler: Hawke stops the Qunari invasion and becomes the Champion of Kirkwall by luring the Qun's armies away with a trail of cookies.

[upsettingshorts]

Anarya wrote...
Yes. The poor dears. MSG gives them migraines. It's inhumane.

Mmm... MSG.  A victim of a scurrilous PR campaign.  It is delicious, I wish my local Chinese place would add it.  But they made the choice to conform to public expectation, so there isn't any in my dog's food. 

[ShrinkingFish]

Anarya wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Anarya wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Then we have a distinct disconnect in our philosophical viewpoint...

For me, death is the ultimate freedom. So there you have it.

Also, comparing Qunari mages to a family who is locked in a basement and molested for 20 years by a patriarch is extremist. The statement is intended to force the opponent and readers to balk and agree with you that the molestation scenario is horrible and therefore agree that the Qunari mage situation is also horrible even if no real connection exists between the two. Attempting to remove the debate from the realm of intellect and base it entirely on morality and emotions. Making the comparison is extreme...

The connection that exists in that comparison is the psychological and developmental state of the victim which is why I also in the same post mentioned feral children. So you take exception to that particular example. Fine, but there aren't a whole lot of examples of human beings treated like dogs from a young age that aren't going to be horrible and sad.

Both comparisons assume a system of abuse and neglect that does not necessarily exist. Both are examples of worst case scenario practices and results. Both inhabiting the extreme position of claiming that "The Qunari Mages are the same" even though this is not necessarily true. As such the argument takes the exteme position by assuming that Qunari mages are abused in each and ever way possible. As such the argument is meant to polarize the readers and opponent, either forcing them to agree or to take the opposing extreme in order to argue, and no one is going to say that molestation or neglect is morally correct. Any argument meant to polarize the subject is an extremist argument.

The writers have said that Qunari mages are chained and "treated like dogs", considered "defective" and "dangerous". They walk with a feral, hunched posture and wear masks that completely obscure their faces, which is dehumanizing. We do know all of that concretely. I never said that they are sexually abused. You're pulling that out of one of my examples which was meant to serve as a parallel for the purposes of comparing mental condition. It was not intended to force anyone to agree that molestation and neglect are morally correct. I don't know how you read that out of my argument.

"... serve as a parallel..."

Parallel lines run along the exact same routes... just saying, poor word choice in defense of your argument not claiming a direct connection between the treatment of Qunari mages and molestation.

Perhaps you didn't write that comparison in an attempts to vilify me and my opinion but that is certainly how it can be read. But by making the comparison you imposed a great many evils onto a situation that was otherwise without them.

And yes, you never said "Qunari mages are sexually abused" but you did imply it by making that comparison.

And I do not believe your intent was to get anyone to say "molestation and neglect are morally correct" but rather to agree with you in order to avoid saying that. That is the definition of an extremist argument.

Politicians use the method all the time to obscure real issues regarding controversial subjects such as abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia and the many others.

People who use extremist arguments don't win, they just make intelligent discussion impossible.

[ShrinkingFish]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Anarya wrote...
Yes. The poor dears. MSG gives them migraines. It's inhumane.

Mmm... MSG.  A victim of a scurrilous PR campaign.  It is delicious, I wish my local Chinese place would add it.  But they made the choice to conform to public expectation, so there isn't any in my dog's food. 

It gives me migraines too...

Wait...

[upsettingshorts]

ShrinkingFish wrote...
It gives me migraines too...

At the risk of making a bad pun:

It's all in your head.