1869 réponses à ce sujet

[Aldandil]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Aldandil wrote...

I'd also like to add that saying that since Have, the Dalish and Rivain are still around, their mages apparently don't turn into abomination is silly. The bubonic plague killed half the population of Europe, and we're still here. Something can be very dangerous and still not end the world.

Maybe you can enlighten me on who said this, because I didn't read anyone making the claim that Rivain, the Dalish, and Haven have never had an abomination. I did see how people dismantled Lotion's arguments that  imprisoning mages is necessary by pointing out the alternative lifestyles of such places, pointing out how the Chantry has supressed mages from having any lives outside of their prisons (Magi Origin), how templars can execute mages without any evidence (D'Sims, Aenirin, Anders and the Warden), and has inspired a multitude of mages to seek their freedom even if it means a war with the Chantry (Broken Circle, Wynne in Awakening). Given the likely war between Mages and Templars in DA2, and the kind of bloodshed that's likely to cause in Andrastian nations across Thedas, it doesn't seem like imprisoning and dehumanizing mages is the correct course of action. In fact, in examining the History of the Circle codex entry, one can see how mages were isolated from the rest of society because of their non-violent protest in an Orlesian cathedral.

LobselVith8 wrote...
Given that the ancient elves lived in Thedas for centuries before humans
ever arrived, it's a fair point to address - if the abominations are so
much a threat that the Chantry must imprison mages, then how were the
elves able to be so prosperous for centuries without their existance?
Why wasn't Tevinter overrun with abominations without the need for the
Chantry or its templars? Even the reason that mages are imprisoned had
absolutely nothing to do with protecting innocents from blood mages or
abominations, so I don't see why you keep harping on the Chantry's model
of imprisoning and killing mages as the only viable means for mages to
exist.

I'm just saying that a state can be considered bad enough to take action against, even if it won't kill every living thing. Hence the comparison with the Plague. I'll admit to an exaggeration of your arguments, but you were exaggerating what those who claim abominations to be a danger were saying.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Aldandil wrote...

Your statement no. 1 is rather important for this discussion. I don't think the burden of proof is on the pro-circle side. [/quote]

When Lotion makes the argument that the Chantry is the safest option, I respectfully disagree.

[quote]Aldandil wrote...

Quite the contrary. If you are arguing that something needs to be changed, you should be able to prove that it won't lead to a drop in security. [/quote]

If the current system is provoking mages to run away or start rebellions to be emancipated, it needs some overhaul.

[quote]Aldandil wrote...

You are saying that we can't prove that it will. Well, you can't prove that it won't. This is what Beerfish said a few pages back, and I'm starting to agree with him about the futility of this discussion.

What we have going for the likely increase of deaths by abomination is the undisputed fact that mages turn into abomination in an unpredictable fashion, and if they do they kill people. It seems to be a dead certain truth that since this happens no matter what, the amounts of people killed would significantly increase if mages were spread throughout the countryside. [/quote]

Anyone can be possesed, and people under possession are dangerous. If a cat can kill three trained templars under the possession of a demon, this is perfectly clear. Demons can possess virtually anything - people, corpses, animals, and even trees. Since anyone can be possessed, should everyone be imprisoned, then?

[quote]Aldandil wrote...

I don't see why this can't be regarded as fact, but to further this argument we have this post by David Gaider, something that has been brought up before, which is:
[quote]
That is, of course, ignoring the fact that the world back then was a much more dangerous place. An abomination tearing up the countryside was simply something that happened and needed to be dealt with. You also
had an empire ruled by mages that oppressed everyone else, and (if Chantry dogma is to be believed) started the Blight. I think an argument can definitely be made that magic is inherently dangerous, yes.
[/quote]

What he says here, is that before the Circle, abominations were dealt with reactively. [/quote]
 
What DG said was that abominations were dangerous back then, but he never says that the Chantry rectified the issue or that it's appropriate to indefinitely imprison and dehumanize mages. In fact, the History of the Circle codex openly reads that it was due to a "worker's strke" (in Ian's words) that the segregation of mages happened - not because of any safety issues.

[quote]Aldandil wrote...

We know that before the Circle, Abominations were tearing up the countryside and that the world was more dangerous. Your response to this is arguing absence of evidence. Since it doesn't say "there were more abominations before the Circle", you're saying that it's not the case. If we accept that form of reasoning, your point about the purpose of the Circle also falls flat. [/quote]

A person only has to read DG's quote to see that there's absolutely nothing there indicating that what the Chantry is doing is the correct course of action. In fact, Ian earlier addressed how the Chantry system is likely creating more abominations than there previously were.

[quote]Aldandil wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

The mechanics of
possession haven't changed one iota.  If the circle were formed to protect mundanes, the codex would have said so especially given that it was written by the chantry.  That makes the Chantry's claims today nothing short of a bald faced LIE. [/quote]

For starters, you're making another absence of evidence argument. "If there was more to the truth, the text would have said so". [/quote]

Pointing out that the History of the Circle codex explicitly reads that the mages strike was responsible for their segregation from society (and not blood mages or abominations) is evidence.

[quote]Aldandil wrote...

If we ignore the fact that other texts say so, we still get back to the fact that the text doesn't say "Contrary to popular belief, the Circle wasn't founded to increase public safety". By your line of reasoning, your text isn't evidence of anything either. Personally, I think that the "History of the Circle" loses some credibility based on the humorous nature that it's written in. [/quote]
 
How is it written in a humorous nature? It's written by a Chantry scholar mentioning the non-violent protest made by mages who weren't unhappy with their lives, and it's listed under History of the Circle.

[quote]Aldandil wrote...

I don't doubt that it's an accurate account for the events that took place, but to base people's motivation on such a story isn't basis of evidence. It can definitely be held in doubt. If we also consider that other texts - neutral ones at that, that does not have any in game writer - who does not even contradict your text, but instead adds to it, it's clear that the absence of evidence is not proof of anything in this case. [/quote]

There's no neutral evidence that says or implies otherwise. You're implying that the abomination codex is evidence to support the contrary, when the opening sentence begins with what amounts to the entire entry being heresay, not fact.

[quote]Aldandil wrote...

Finally I'd like to say that it's a bit cheap to set yourself in a position where the only knowledge we have access to is Chantry knowledge, and you can accept texts you like as truth and condemn it for being propaganda if it doesn't agree with you. It's an ugly way of discussing. You haven't provided any proof of that the texts not written by an in-world person are Chantry propaganda. They don't change depending on origin. [/quote]

No other texts from Chantry scholars or the like contradict the History of the Circle codex. Even the abomination codex you're referring to has an entry that openly reads as heresay on this issue, not fact. I addressed this point when the abomination codex was first brought up, in fact.

[quote]Aldandil wrote...

We end up with the matter of where the burden of proof lies. I don't think you could prove with certainty to the King/Queen of Ferelden that mages should be let out of the Circle and not be dangerous for the population. Giving them more freedom inside the Circle is one thing, but it can't be proven that they could be let out safely. [/quote]

Actually, the ruler of Ferelden agrees that mages have earned the right to govern themselves (Magi boon).

[quote]Aldandil wrote...

I'll go out with a final DG quote
[quote]
I guess it depends on what you consider punishment. The Chantry looks on the Circle as a mercy -- what is the alternative, after all? The mages would say "let us watch ourselves", but then we're back to the specter of the magisters. And what if there are mages who don't care for the idea of other mages coming after them, either? Would that not place them in the position of being oppressed, as well?
There is no easy answer, here, which is just as I like it.
[/quote]

I'm thinking that if letting the mages free would make the world safer, that would be an easy answer. That would make DG sad. [/quote]

All DG says with that quote is that it would be an issue because people remember the tyranny of the Tevinter Imperium (added with all the anti-mage propaganda spit forth by the Andrastian Chantry), and in lore we have precedents of mages and non-mages living together outside of the Chantry - Haven, the Dalish clans, Rivain, and even the Dalish did that with the nation of the Dales. As for the answer, it isn't segregation, imprisonment, or dehumanization.

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
Hard choices. Grey areas. That's what the situation is all about. (and mages are not slaves) [/quote]

Imprisoning mages is the easy choice, actually. Segregating people is always the easy choice. As for it being slavery, the fact that people have even perceived it on the Merrill thread as slavery proves otherwise. I'm certain the mages themselves would debate this issue.[/quote]

Irrelevant. And it's not the "easy choice". Not in the least.
If it was the easy choice, there would be no debate, no greyness.
[/quote]

Actually "locking up a problem and throwing away the key" is the "easy" solution.  It the social equivalent of "out of sight/out of mind".  If the mages are locked up where no one can see them and no one can witness the abuses, and any resulting problems are supressed from the general public, then there is no incentive to change anything or admit that mages are an issue at all.....until it blows up in your face and that's about to happen apparently.

The HARD (but much better) solution is the admit there is an issue and find a mutually acceptable way of dealing with it but the Chantry clearly doesn't want that and since Ambrosia II never has.


[quote]
[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
I never said the circle system is morally the best choice. I said it was the best choice from a practical standpoint. [/quote]　

Considering that it looks to be the reason behind the war between templars and mages in DA2, I don't see how it's practical. An effective system wouldn't make people feel that they're being oppressed and need to fight for their freedom.[/quote]

Practicality has nothing to do with riots.
I refer to you thge prisons and prison uprising that always happen periodicly. Yet no one would argue that prisons aren't an effective system to keep security.
[/quote]

Actually it does.  When there is a major prison riot (and remember unlike the circle towers, these prisoners are they for a REASON and most know it!), there is a great deal of investigation and soul searching to figure out what went wrong and in many cases that involves (get this)learning to treat prisoners better!

So practicality has everything to do with riots.  From a prison PoV, at worse most mages would be considered "low risk" which in a modern prison system would be work release or even outright parole....at which point we are back to mages living alongside mundanes which is the normal case for most of human history in Thedas.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

Aldandil wrote...

I'd also like to add that saying that since Have, the Dalish and Rivain are still around, their mages apparently don't turn into abomination is silly. The bubonic plague killed half the population of Europe, and we're still here. Something can be very dangerous and still not end the world.

So you provided a quote of me saying nothing of the sort as proof? Okay...

Aldandil wrote...

I'm just saying that a state can be considered bad enough to take action against, even if it won't kill every living thing. Hence the comparison with the Plague. I'll admit to an exaggeration of your arguments, but you were exaggerating what those who claim abominations to be a danger were saying.

No, you outright lied and claimed I said something I didn't.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...
I will explain how.  Let's say before the circle was founded, you would get an abomination once every thirty years.  Naturally (by definition) that would be an abomination outside the circle that would have to be dealt with.

Now let's assume under the circle system we get 2 abominations per year (which with harrowings and the like is probably a low number but go with me here).  That would be 60 abominations in the same thirty years.  Now let's take your number and assume that 9 out of 10 occured within the tower and were thus (again to use your term) "quarantined".  That's still 6 abomination incidents outside the circle or six times as many.

It's pretty clear from an honest reading of the game material that the rate of abominations within the circle system is higher than outside...perhaps much higher (especially when the Chantry itself causes many of them with harrowings).  The question is this:  Is the overall rate so much greater that the rate of abominations outside the circle is actually the same or has even gone up, and the strong implication of the game lore is YES IT HAS!

NO IT HASN'T.
there is nothing in the game or lore to support that other than your wish for it to be so.

You pull out numbers from you a**, assuming that abomination (both inside and outside) happen 20 times more often with the circle system..Exactly how? Or why? Where' the reaosning behind that or the numbers?

! abominations every 30 years...HAH...try 30 and run that trough your exmaple and what do you get?

By your own pathetic exmaple, in order for the circle system to be less effective, the difference in abominations per year would have to be MASSIVE. And you got nothing to justify that massive numbers...


But there's another interesting tidbit for you - no one has more experience in dealing with abominations than the templars. If there was such a huge difference, such massive ineffectivenes, wouldn't they have noticed it by now?

Least of all, Greogir is convinced the circle system protects the people. He should know best, being a KC.

That is the point you are missing.  You can not assume that the overall abomination rate for all mages is a constant number.  That is not at all a given.  It's well known that if you put a mage into a desperate situation under negative emotions, then the odds of abomination go way up....and guess what the circle system does......

And you cannot assume that it goes up by several orders of magnitude just so it can fit in your little theory.

Why would that number go up so drasticly? Malcontent mages?
Most of them seem content with the current situation, so the biggest source of in-circle abominations would be hte libertarians. And yet we see planety of them in the circle and they didn't go all abomination (save Uldred)

There is no indication that abominations are exceedingly common within the circle

Heck, evne if there is an overall rise in the number of abomination incidents, there is no indication is hte bigger by such a huge margin.
And most importantly, even if htere is a increase of abomination incidents, almsot all of htem would stil lhappen wihtin the circle, thus STILL making the coutnryside safer.

Ergo, your argument falls flat on it's face.

Sure it is.  The admittedly indirect evidence strongly indicates that the chantry rate of abominations is much, much higher than outside it AND that the overall abomination incident rate pre and post circle don't seem to be much different (again see Rivvain, Haven, Dales, and more).

There is no indication of it, you're making it up.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...
Nope.  I didn't lay that charge against SK.  I disagree with some of her conclusions but at least SK is honest enough to admit a valid point when it's made which quite frankly is something I have failed to see from you.  Since you ask, no, I really don't think you've engaged your critical reasoning skills here.

Given that I tihnk the same of you (dont' admin valid poitns, flawed reasoning and such), there is at least one thing we agree on.

No.  You haven't bothered to dig at all.  You start with the conclusion you want from the Chantry and then force all information to adhere to it.  I am not the only one that has called you out on this.

No,. I have been digging. You are the one with dellusions.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

No, it doesn't work against me. You are the ones who claim Chantry is evil and the system is horrible and other systems are far better (with ZERO proof I might add).

Why do you resort to saying that people are calling the Chantry "evil" when they disagree with the deplorable way that mages are treated? Are you trying to intentionally make people think that instead of being a debate over human rights and the ridiculous lack of rights mages have, it's an attack on religion?

Why do you call anyone who disagrees with you a "Chantry fanboy"?
Why do you ignore reason?

There's no proof that the Chantry provides any advantage at all, except having all the mages in Thedas in their collective pocket.

Security for the non-mages (and in some cases, even mages). Proven.

No one is saying they're evil, people are saying it's wrong that they imprison mages for their entire lives and dehumanize them.

Mages are not dehumanized. They are imprisoned.
It's a lesser evil.

[IanPolaris]

Aldandil wrote...

I'm just saying that a state can be considered bad enough to take action against, even if it won't kill every living thing. Hence the comparison with the Plague. I'll admit to an exaggeration of your arguments, but you were exaggerating what those who claim abominations to be a danger were saying.

Actually as long as we are careful not to take the analogy too far, and remember that the Plague was a disease while Abominations are not, there is one important comparison that can be made.  Specifically the plague happened seemingly at random (people then didn't understand the connection with fleas and rats), and killed as much as 80%+ in some urban areas.  This sounds very much like some of the abomiantion horror stories we hear.

We also know, however, that the plague completely altered the social fabric and population distribution of Europe essentially forever and had a lasting impace for centies thereafter.  If the abomination problem outside the chantry were anything like what the horror stories claim, we should be seeing a similiar footprint in non-circle societies and we do not.  Thus the model is at best incomplete and likely invalid.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[Mages are not dehumanized. They are imprisoned.
It's a lesser evil.

1.  Prison is inherently dehumanizing especially when it's done without overt cause.
2.  Evidence would be nice for the assertion it's a lesser evil.

-Polaris

[Naitaka]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Mages are not dehumanized. They are imprisoned.
It's a lesser evil.

Funny you say that, ever read the Witcher novels? They have quite a bit to say about "lesser evils"

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Nope.  I didn't lay that charge against SK.  I disagree with some of her conclusions but at least SK is honest enough to admit a valid point when it's made which quite frankly is something I have failed to see from you.  Since you ask, no, I really don't think you've engaged your critical reasoning skills here.

Given that I tihnk the same of you (dont' admin valid poitns, flawed reasoning and such), there is at least one thing we agree on.

You haven't made any.  At least with SK, I can agree that her points were very valid....but I still could disagree with elements of them.

No.  You haven't bothered to dig at all.  You start with the conclusion you want from the Chantry and then force all information to adhere to it.  I am not the only one that has called you out on this.

No,. I have been digging. You are the one with dellusions.

You see, this is what I am talking about.  It's easy to use ad hominems against those that don't agree with you.  It's much harder to reexamine your own position.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
I will explain how.  Let's say before the circle was founded, you would get an abomination once every thirty years.  Naturally (by definition) that would be an abomination outside the circle that would have to be dealt with.

Now let's assume under the circle system we get 2 abominations per year (which with harrowings and the like is probably a low number but go with me here).  That would be 60 abominations in the same thirty years.  Now let's take your number and assume that 9 out of 10 occured within the tower and were thus (again to use your term) "quarantined".  That's still 6 abomination incidents outside the circle or six times as many.

It's pretty clear from an honest reading of the game material that the rate of abominations within the circle system is higher than outside...perhaps much higher (especially when the Chantry itself causes many of them with harrowings).  The question is this:  Is the overall rate so much greater that the rate of abominations outside the circle is actually the same or has even gone up, and the strong implication of the game lore is YES IT HAS!

NO IT HASN'T.
there is nothing in the game or lore to support that other than your wish for it to be so.

You pull out numbers from you a**, assuming that abomination (both inside and outside) happen 20 times more often with the circle system..Exactly how? Or why? Where' the reaosning behind that or the numbers?

! abominations every 30 years...HAH...try 30 and run that trough your exmaple and what do you get?

By your own pathetic exmaple, in order for the circle system to be less effective, the difference in abominations per year would have to be MASSIVE. And you got nothing to justify that massive numbers...


But there's another interesting tidbit for you - no one has more experience in dealing with abominations than the templars. If there was such a huge difference, such massive ineffectivenes, wouldn't they have noticed it by now?

Least of all, Greogir is convinced the circle system protects the people. He should know best, being a KC.

1.  You said that that notion that the rate of abominations outside the circle was lower, "was the only logical conclusion".  I showed you that it was not.

Before you post, you should read what others post first.  I never claimed that my numbers were anything other than a theoretical exercise.  I used reasonable (but hypothetical) numbers to show that you COULD lock away mages and still have an increase in the abomonation incident rate outside the tower.

Frankly, I think my numbers are reasonable guesses, but I never claimed any particular vaidity for them, so please don't put false claims in my mouth.  I used such reasonable numbers (and well within what we might expect given how the world is put together) to prove your wrong by counter-example.  You made a hard logical claim and that claim has now been debunked.

2.  The Templars would know?  You mean the same templars that are drugged into obedience by the chantry?  Those templars?   Consider this:  The Templars predate the circle and they certainly would have helped handle any abomination problems pre and post circle.  I can agree with you that far.  That would mean that the Templars would have indicent rates (because they surely keep records) of both periods of time.

So where ARE those records?  Why don't the Templar's proclaim both sets of numbers and end all doubt.....unless the real numbers don't say what they want them to say.......

That is the point you are missing.  You can not assume that the overall abomination rate for all mages is a constant number.  That is not at all a given.  It's well known that if you put a mage into a desperate situation under negative emotions, then the odds of abomination go way up....and guess what the circle system does......

And you cannot assume that it goes up by several orders of magnitude just so it can fit in your little theory.

Why not?  If you get to make assumptions about the abomination rate to fit your theory then I can as well!  However mine is an expressesly stated hypothetical rate...based on game reality but not one that I make any hard claim to.  It's an example (a counter example) of why your logic is wrong.  As for the rate going up by orders of magnitude, that actually seems very likely when you consider that the Chantry actually FORCES demons into mages in the Harrowing ritual, and given the highly emotional and negative atmosphere in the tower (as in any prison).

As for individual people, I respect Gregoire, but Gregoire has been raised all his life to believe in the chantry line, and thus is too close to the issue to be objective.

Why would that number go up so drasticly? Malcontent mages?
Most of them seem content with the current situation, so the biggest source of in-circle abominations would be hte libertarians. And yet we see planety of them in the circle and they didn't go all abomination (save Uldred)

Most mages are far from content with the current system especially how mages are treated in the tower.  See the codex entry on the Mage's collective.  Neither the Libertarians (which is rapidly gaining strength) nor the Aequartarians are happy in the least about the tower system and that right there is a majority of mages.   Frankly given that Annulment Rate alone compared with what we see elsewhere (and how almost all the abominations we see or hear about were caused at least in part by the actions of the chantry) such a radical increase in abominations seems very reasonable really.

There is no indication that abominations are exceedingly common within the circle

Heck, evne if there is an overall rise in the number of abomination incidents, there is no indication is hte bigger by such a huge margin.
And most importantly, even if htere is a increase of abomination incidents, almsot all of htem would stil lhappen wihtin the circle, thus STILL making the coutnryside safer.

Ergo, your argument falls flat on it's face.

Define "exceedingly common".  If they aren't common, then there is no justification for th circle system at all.  If they are, then we find that the circle has exacerbated the problem.  Make up your mind.

Sure it is.  The admittedly indirect evidence strongly indicates that the chantry rate of abominations is much, much higher than outside it AND that the overall abomination incident rate pre and post circle don't seem to be much different (again see Rivvain, Haven, Dales, and more).

There is no indication of it, you're making it up.

No I'm not.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 23 janvier 2011 - 06:08 .

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Why do you call anyone who disagrees with you a "Chantry fanboy"?
Why do you ignore reason?

Lotion, instead of making false claims against me, feel free to provide any evidence or link to support your accusations, because the name-calling and the incessant lying is getting very tired.

Furthermore, I disagree with you about the Chantry. You've provided no proof supporting your claim that the imprisonment and dehumanization of mages is necessary.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

There's no proof that the Chantry provides any advantage at all, except having all the mages in Thedas in their collective pocket.

Security for the non-mages (and in some cases, even mages). Proven.

Proven how? Because you say so? That isn't proof.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

No one is saying they're evil, people are saying it's wrong that they imprison mages for their entire lives and dehumanize them.

Mages are not dehumanized. They are imprisoned.
It's a lesser evil.

Mages are taken from their families, denied basic human rights, outright blamed for the Blights, can be killed with no evidence and mere heresay, and they are forced to live in a prison their entire lives, but you don't think that's dehumanizing?

Imprisoning mages isn't the right way to do things, it's the easy way.

[Huntress]

FurousJoe wrote...

Wow that's a pretty intense discussion.

My own stance is that mages shouldn't be free, in fact they're too dangerous to keep around.
I'd execute everyone of them on the bonfire if I were in charge. They are simply too powerful and could easily enslave the rest of the free world.

Hahaha! you have forgotten that even NO mages in a family that this families can produce a mage-child. Magic is NOT actually in the person,  magic is all around Thedas, even life is/can be magical experience.

If  we start killing everything that can make something magical and right well, there goes the Chantry and their dogs the templars. Can't wait!

[IanPolaris]

Huntress wrote...

FurousJoe wrote...

Wow that's a pretty intense discussion.

My own stance is that mages shouldn't be free, in fact they're too dangerous to keep around.
I'd execute everyone of them on the bonfire if I were in charge. They are simply too powerful and could easily enslave the rest of the free world.

Hahaha! you have forgotten that even NO mages in a family that this families can produce a mage-child. Magic is NOT actually in the person,  magic is all around Thedas, even life is/can be magical experience.

If  we start killing everything that can make something magical and right well, there goes the Chantry and their dogs the templars. Can't wait!

You forget that it's not magic unless the Divine says it is.  She of course knows all about magic

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[Mages are not dehumanized. They are imprisoned.
It's a lesser evil.

1.  Prison is inherently dehumanizing especially when it's done without overt cause.
2.  Evidence would be nice for the assertion it's a lesser evil.

-Polaris

There is a casue (security)

Letting the mages roam free, which would result in hunderds of villagers killed every year
OR
Imprisoning the mages, which results in a few mage and templar death each year.

Sucks either way, but for differrent reasons.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

No.  You haven't bothered to dig at all.  You start with the conclusion you want from the Chantry and then force all information to adhere to it.  I am not the only one that has called you out on this.

No,. I have been digging. You are the one with dellusions.

You see, this is what I am talking about.  It's easy to use ad hominems against those that don't agree with you.  It's much harder to reexamine your own position.

-Polaris

So why don't you try?

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

1.  Prison is inherently dehumanizing especially when it's done without overt cause.
2.  Evidence would be nice for the assertion it's a lesser evil.

-Polaris[/quote]

There is a casue (security)

Letting the mages roam free, which would result in hunderds of villagers killed every year
OR
Imprisoning the mages, which results in a few mage and templar death each year.

Sucks either way, but for differrent reasons. [/quote]

And I assume you have proof that mages would result in the deaths of hundreds of villagers every year, or is this more "fear the mages" propaganda?

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Irrelevant. And it's not the "easy choice". Not in the least.
If it was the easy choice, there would be no debate, no greyness. [/quote]

Segregating people is always the easy choice. History has taught us that plenty of times.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

No argument can sway you, rememeber? You are impervious to reason... [/quote]

The fundamental problem with your argument is that you think you're always right, and if someone disagrees then they're "stupid," wrong because their view is different than yours, or they are "impervious to reason."

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...


It proves nothing, because it doesn't prove nothing.
You cling to that codex like it's a holy grail that proves all your points, but it's doesn't. Other peopel have already pointed out a million times why. [/quote]

The History of the Circle codex entry explains why the Circle was formed, and since it wasn't formed as a means of protection, there's no evidence that it actually serves that purpose.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

"End of world" argument has been debunked a thousand times already. Get some new material or drop it. [/quote]

Then feel free to stop making it sound like that's what would happen if the Chantry wasn't imprisoning mages when that isn't the case.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

What you say is irrelevant to the point, but I'll answer it anyway -  in case of an invasion, the mages are still there.
Abominations that are killed would be of no help to anyone anyway. [/quote]

Of course what I say is irrelevant, because I disagree with you.

As for the mages, they were necessary to win the war against the Qunari in the New Exalted Marches, and proved instrumental in the Blights that threatened all of Thedas. Dehumanizing mages and imprisoning them is going to cause them to fight for their freedom.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...


"Appropriate" or nice is irrelveant.
like trough human history, peopel in power often have to make rahter uncomfortable choices...practicaltiy often wins against "niceness" [/quote]

Nobody mentioned being nice. It's counterproductive to dehumanize and imprison mages, Lotion. Oppressing mages to the point where they feel the need to fight for their freedom doesn't sound that practical to me, Lotion. Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Practicality has nothing to do with riots.
I refer to you thge prisons and prison uprising that always happen periodicly. Yet no one would argue that prisons aren't an effective system to keep security. [/quote]

Mages aren't fighting because they were sentenced for crimes, Lotion, they're fighting to be free from a system that oppresses them. When a templar can kill someone on mere suspicion that the person is a mage (like in the case of the Magnificient D'Sims), then you have a real problem that needs to be addressed. Continually ignoring the problem isn't doing any good, but causing resentment and tension that's going to explode into an all-out war between the Chantry and the mages.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

Nope.  I didn't lay that charge against SK.  I disagree with some of her conclusions but at least SK is honest enough to admit a valid point when it's made which quite frankly is something I have failed to see from you.  Since you ask, no, I really don't think you've engaged your critical reasoning skills here.[/quote]

Given that I tihnk the same of you (dont' admin valid poitns, flawed reasoning and such), there is at least one thing we agree on. [/quote]

Then again, SK doesn't feel the need to call people stupid when she disagrees with people.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

No.  You haven't bothered to dig at all.  You start with the conclusion you want from the Chantry and then force all information to adhere to it.  I am not the only one that has called you out on this.
[/quote]

No,. I have been digging. You are the one with dellusions. [/quote]

You provided DG quotes that didn't mean what you claimed they did, you ignored the History of the Circle codex because it runs counter to your claim that the Chantry is necessary for the protection of all, you dismiss how the templars sparked most of the abominations in the codex entries, and you ignored how the incident at the Circle Tower was caused because mages wanted to be freed from their oppressors.

[Huntress]

IanPolaris wrote...

Huntress wrote...

FurousJoe wrote...

Wow that's a pretty intense discussion.

My own stance is that mages shouldn't be free, in fact they're too dangerous to keep around.
I'd execute everyone of them on the bonfire if I were in charge. They are simply too powerful and could easily enslave the rest of the free world.

Hahaha! you have forgotten that even NO mages in a family that this families can produce a mage-child. Magic is NOT actually in the person,  magic is all around Thedas, even life is/can be magical experience.

If  we start killing everything that can make something magical and right well, there goes the Chantry and their dogs the templars. Can't wait!

You forget that it's not magic unless the Divine says it is.  She of course knows all about magic

-Polaris

I suppose this Divine is a Human? Who gave this Human the power to dicide what is right to be magical and what is NOT? their Maker?.. we got to talk to this Maker guy, oh wait he left,

Maybe we should ask nicely to this Divine to get the hell of of thedas? ArG I hate not to be  Dalish-warden next game/series to Back-stab her divine bottoms.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...
1.  You said that that notion that the rate of abominations outside the circle was lower, "was the only logical conclusion".  I showed you that it was not.

No, you didn't. You failed to show that.

Before you post, you should read what others post first.  I never claimed that my numbers were anything other than a theoretical exercise.  I used reasonable (but hypothetical) numbers to show that you COULD lock away mages and still have an increase in the abomonation incident rate outside the tower.

Your numbers weren't reasonable.

I could claim that a single abomination can kill millions and call it reasonable. That doesn't make it so.

If you used a double - heck, even TRIPPLE - the reate, I'd say that number was reasonable.

But you oncreased the abomomination ratio in your "reasonable" example by 6000%. That's not reasonable. That's bull****.

2.  The Templars would know?  You mean the same templars that are drugged into obedience by the chantry?  Those templars?   Consider this:  The Templars predate the circle and they certainly would have helped handle any abomination problems pre and post circle.  I can agree with you that far.  That would mean that the Templars would have indicent rates (because they surely keep records) of both periods of time.

The tamplars know basic math.
Gregoir, who puts so much emphaiss on protecting the innocent folk of Ferelden, is fully convinced that the Circels protect that folk..and even some mages.
As you said - the templars would know.

So where ARE those records?  Why don't the Templar's proclaim both sets of numbers and end all doubt.....unless the real numbers don't say what they want them to say....

for all you know poeple of Thedas may know those numbers. We dont' have them in the coidex, but that's a LOT we don't have in the codex. The Dev's created a massive world and didn't put everythnig in the game.

But those numbers aren't really necessary, as basic logic dictates the numbes should be smaller.

Why not?  If you get to make assumptions about the abomination rate to fit your theory then I can as well!  However mine is an expressesly stated hypothetical rate...based on game reality but not one that I make any hard claim to.  It's an example (a counter example) of why your logic is wrong.  As for the rate going up by orders of magnitude, that actually seems very likely when you consider that the Chantry actually FORCES demons into mages in the Harrowing ritual, and given the highly emotional and negative atmosphere in the tower (as in any prison).

There is no indication that abominations are exceedingly common within the circle

Heck, evne if there is an overall rise in the number of abomination incidents, there is no indication is hte bigger by such a huge margin.
And most importantly, even if there is a increase of abomination incidents, almost all of them would still happen wihtin the circle, thus STILL making the coutnryside safer.

Ergo, your argument falls flat on it's face.

Define "exceedingly common".  If they aren't common, then there is no justification for th circle system at all.  If they are, then we find that the circle has exacerbated the problem.  Make up your mind.

Neither. I reject your conclusions.
If abomination kill a lot of peopel each year, that's reason enough for the Circles. And guess what - they do.

Both the codex and the game show us how dangerous abominations are - killing 70 villagers is not uncommon for an abomination. And we've seen how many in Ferleden?
3-4.Within a year.
I'd say common enough.

And you didn't adress the bolded part. Even if 99% of mages in the circle turn to abominations, it STILL keeps the countryside safe.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 23 janvier 2011 - 06:51 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Even if the abomination rate has gone up, the "free" abomination rate has gone down, and that is all that matters.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion, instead of making false claims against me, feel free to provide any evidence or link to support your accusations, because the name-calling and the incessant lying is getting very tired.[/quoteg

As I said, your posts are all the proof.



[quote]
Mages are taken from their families, denied basic human rights, outright blamed for the Blights, can be killed with no evidence and mere heresay, and they are forced to live in a prison their entire lives, but you don't think that's dehumanizing?

Imprisoning mages isn't the right way to do things, it's the easy way.[/quote]

Denied SOME rights..you can't prove the blight is not the doing of mages, and nowhere are all amges specificly blamed.
Also, who said they can be killed with no evidence? 2-3 incidents are not proof of regular state of things.
If that were so, Gregoir could have just killed Jowan without any evidence.

[DarthCaine]

Don't you people get tired of writing such long posts?

[Herr Uhl]

DarthCaine wrote...

Don't you people get tired of writing such long posts?

They've been doing this same thing for months. I think they enjoy it.

[LobselVith8]

Huntress wrote...

I suppose this Divine is a Human? Who gave this Human the power to dicide what is right to be magical and what is NOT? their Maker?.. we got to talk to this Maker guy, oh wait he left,

Maybe we should ask nicely to this Divine to get the hell of of thedas? ArG I hate not to be  Dalish-warden next game/series to Back-stab her divine bottoms.

It seems that Hawke comes from a long line of mages - why not RP that your mage Hawke shares elven blood from the Dalish and understands their plight (since elven/human off-spring always look human)? Your Hawke is someone who would bring equality for the elves and mages if the opportunity presents itself.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

But there's another interesting tidbit for you - no one has more experience in dealing with abominations than the templars.

If the elves had to deal with abominations, I think the Dalish might disagree. 

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Least of all, Greogir is convinced the circle system protects the people. He should know best, being a KC.

Greagoir also believes every mage in the Tower is dead. He's wrong. He's human, he can make mistakes.