1869 réponses à ce sujet

[moilami]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

moilami wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Mages, being a small group that is dangerous to both themselves and others can be physicly contained. And thus they are.

Humans, being a small group that is dangerous to both themselves and others can be physicly contained. And thus they are.


Edit: (Thus was decided in the security council constituting of all other races than humans.)

Humans aren't a minority (magers are very rare...somethig like 1 in ever 100 humans, if not even mroe rare), nor do all posses the inherent danger of a mage.

In order for a group to be physicly contained, it has to be small enough for it to be practicly possible in the first place.

Elves, being a small group that is dangerous to both themselves and others can be physicly contained. And thus they are.

Ugly people, being a small group that is dangerous to both themselves and others can be physicly contained. And thus they are.

How long you want to be a hypocrit? Or when you begin to live up to your words?

Mages being a minority does not change the fact that every mage is innocent untill proven otherwise.

[Lotion Soronarr]

moilami wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Humans aren't a minority (magers are very rare...somethig like 1 in ever 100 humans, if not even mroe rare), nor do all posses the inherent danger of a mage.

In order for a group to be physicly contained, it has to be small enough for it to be practicly possible in the first place.

Elves, being a small group that is dangerous to both themselves and others can be physicly contained. And thus they are.

Ugly people, being a small group that is dangerous to both themselves and others can be physicly contained. And thus they are.

How long you want to be a hypocrit? Or when you begin to live up to your words?

Mages being a minority does not change the fact that every mage is innocent untill proven otherwise.

How are small poeple dangerous?

Or elves for that matter?


And how the hell am I being hyprocritical?
I told you before - innocence has nothing to do with it. It doesn' matter if it's mages, elves, templars or cats or whatever.

It's not a matter of morality or some sort of racism, but simple security.

[moilami]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Humans aren't a minority , nor do all posses the inherent danger of a mage.

If both of the above conditions are met..then yes, that would indeed be possible.

Every elf is inherently able to kill other living beings. Elves are also a minority.

Now start shutting elves in prison and killing those who refuse to go.

[moilami]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

moilami wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Humans aren't a minority (magers are very rare...somethig like 1 in ever 100 humans, if not even mroe rare), nor do all posses the inherent danger of a mage.

In order for a group to be physicly contained, it has to be small enough for it to be practicly possible in the first place.

Elves, being a small group that is dangerous to both themselves and others can be physicly contained. And thus they are.

Ugly people, being a small group that is dangerous to both themselves and others can be physicly contained. And thus they are.

How long you want to be a hypocrit? Or when you begin to live up to your words?

Mages being a minority does not change the fact that every mage is innocent untill proven otherwise.

How are small poeple dangerous?

Or elves for that matter?


And how the hell am I being hyprocritical?
I told you before - innocence has nothing to do with it. It doesn' matter if it's mages, elves, templars or cats or whatever.

It's not a matter of morality or some sort of racism, but simple security.

Elves are dangerous exactly in the same way as mages are. Any elf can use a sword or build a bomb.

And you don't begin to cherrypick minorities based on your agenda. It doesn't matter if it is 1/1000 minority or 1/10 minority.

* * *

He watches calmly, showing no emotions on his face, straight to the eyes of the man in front of him other side of the table. He puts his dagger on the table in the front of the man, and Morrigan slowly begins to walk to the doorway.

"You are very dangerous man, my friend", he says and pats Zevran on his thig. "I see you are a minority, and capable to kill hundreds of innocent people. I know you will love to do this." Zevran smiles and moves behind the man to whom the dagger was offered. "Now, my dear friend, you have 10 seconds time to do what you want to do", he says while maintaining eye contact with the man in front of him on the other side of the table.

Modifié par moilami, 26 janvier 2011 - 12:41 .

[AlexXIV]

moilami wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

moilami wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Humans aren't a minority (magers are very rare...somethig like 1 in ever 100 humans, if not even mroe rare), nor do all posses the inherent danger of a mage.

In order for a group to be physicly contained, it has to be small enough for it to be practicly possible in the first place.

Elves, being a small group that is dangerous to both themselves and others can be physicly contained. And thus they are.

Ugly people, being a small group that is dangerous to both themselves and others can be physicly contained. And thus they are.

How long you want to be a hypocrit? Or when you begin to live up to your words?

Mages being a minority does not change the fact that every mage is innocent untill proven otherwise.

How are small poeple dangerous?

Or elves for that matter?


And how the hell am I being hyprocritical?
I told you before - innocence has nothing to do with it. It doesn' matter if it's mages, elves, templars or cats or whatever.

It's not a matter of morality or some sort of racism, but simple security.

Elves are dangerous exactly in the same way as mages are. Any elf can use a sword or build a bomb.

And you don't begin to cherrypick minorities based on your agenda. It doesn't matter if it is 1/1000 minority or 1/10 minority.

'Security' is a pretty good excuse for any sort of bad behaviour.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 26 janvier 2011 - 12:33 .

[moilami]

AlexXIV wrote...

moilami wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

moilami wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Humans aren't a minority (magers are very rare...somethig like 1 in ever 100 humans, if not even mroe rare), nor do all posses the inherent danger of a mage.

In order for a group to be physicly contained, it has to be small enough for it to be practicly possible in the first place.

Elves, being a small group that is dangerous to both themselves and others can be physicly contained. And thus they are.

Ugly people, being a small group that is dangerous to both themselves and others can be physicly contained. And thus they are.

How long you want to be a hypocrit? Or when you begin to live up to your words?

Mages being a minority does not change the fact that every mage is innocent untill proven otherwise.

How are small poeple dangerous?

Or elves for that matter?


And how the hell am I being hyprocritical?
I told you before - innocence has nothing to do with it. It doesn' matter if it's mages, elves, templars or cats or whatever.

It's not a matter of morality or some sort of racism, but simple security.

Elves are dangerous exactly in the same way as mages are. Any elf can use a sword or build a bomb.

And you don't begin to cherrypick minorities based on your agenda. It doesn't matter if it is 1/1000 minority or 1/10 minority.

'Security' is a pretty good excuse for any sort of bad behaviour.

He got surprise street justice.

Edit: Or should I say he got surprise help in his agenda. I would prefer to say it that way.

Modifié par moilami, 26 janvier 2011 - 12:49 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Elves are not any more dangerous than the people they potentially cause a threat to. A mage is. That is the difference. THe playing field between two normal human beings (or elves) is even. Between a normal human being and a mage, it is far from even.

The mistake you do, is considering mages as normal human beings. While they are humans, they are far from normal, and they are not like you and me.

[moilami]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Elves are not any more dangerous than the people they potentially cause a threat to. A mage is. That is the difference. THe playing field between two normal human beings (or elves) is even. Between a normal human being and a mage, it is far from even.
The mistake you do, is considering mages as normal human beings. While they are humans, they are far from normal, and they are not like you and me.

Fail analogy. First, humans and mages are innocent until proven guilty. Mages are not guilty of their inherit abilities.

Second, any elf can be potentially 100 times bigger threat than some human.

The only difference is in your head.

[Lotion Soronarr]

moilami wrote...
Every elf is inherently able to kill other living beings.

Even when not wanting it? No.
And does an elfs abiltiy to kill excel that of an human? No.

[EmperorSahlertz]

And there is the magic word "potentially". Any elf can POTENTIALLY be more dangerous. Any mage IS more dangerous. That is the difference. That is why the Chantry tries to protect the common man. Because the mages are dangerous.

And mages are guilty of being mages. They did not choose to become one, but they are.

[Lotion Soronarr]

moilami wrote...
And you don't begin to cherrypick minorities based on your agenda. It doesn't matter if it is 1/1000 minority or 1/10 minority.

Of course it maters.
It's a matter of logistics and popular support too.

If you want to confine someone, you need guard. The bigger the population you need to confine, the more guards yo uneed.  The bigger the security mesaures. And those guards have to be paid and eat.

All of it costs manpower and resources.
Meaning that a 1/10 minority would be exceptionaly hard and taxing to confine...perhaps even impossible.

[moilami]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

moilami wrote...
And you don't begin to cherrypick minorities based on your agenda. It doesn't matter if it is 1/1000 minority or 1/10 minority.

Of course it maters.
It's a matter of logistics and popular support too.

If you want to confine someone, you need guard. The bigger the population you need to confine, the more guards yo uneed.  The bigger the security mesaures. And those guards have to be paid and eat.

All of it costs manpower and resources.
Meaning that a 1/10 minority would be exceptionaly hard and taxing to confine...perhaps even impossible.

Lol, I could argue with you but I don't do it. It could be fun though, but I had enough fun already in that non personal RP fiction. Now I can do some boring grinding in some game.

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Except that prevents corpses from being inhabited by demons rather than a cultural imprint brought on by any incidents involving abominations.

Semantics. It is because of the threat of corpse possession, instead of mage possession. It is still a cultural footprint brought on by demons.

In other words, it has nothing to do with being a cultural imprint on society brought on by mages or abominations.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Well, perhaps the Dalish lost the Exalted March because they were weakened by abominations. And weren't the Chant altered concurrent with the Exalted March? THe Exalted March itself was reasonable enough (if war can be reasonable).

If that's the case, why didn't the Chantry mention this? They clearly have no love of the Dales.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Isn't most of the CHasind what is now Ferelden? (or is that the Avvars?). And the very fact that Ostagar is allowed to fall into disrepair and ruin, shows that the CHasind aren't considered a threat anymore.

Because they aren't fighting people and they're disbanded into seperate groups; it's mentioned in the codex that if they united, the Chasind would be a serious threat.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Rivain's problem has everything to do with magic. They got an old tradition of letting their mages become possessed. The CHantry and Qun do not like this. So yes, magic is the cause of Rivains problems. Or rather, the different views on magic.

A tradition that's lasted hundreds of years, and Rivain negotiated the truce between the Andrastian nations and the Qunari.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

All of the problems may not be caused by magic. But it is interesting to note that the societies with free mages, all have a hard time, and do not do "just fine". So a pattern may be there, buried in the data. Hard to tell with the limited data we got so far. Perhaps time will tell.

The fall of the Dales and the situation with the Chasind have nothing to do with mages, and Rivain was the nation that helped bring an end to the New Exalted Marches. I don't see any of those societies having a hard time as a result of mages themselves.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Is there a point arguing with you, Lotion? Because you refuse to listen to anyone when they articulate their position and you clearly value the Chantry position above anything else. Ian's already disproved your points several times over.

I do not listen to lies, if that is what you mean.

Lies? You mean when people have an opposing opinion that turns you irate?

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You and Ian disproved nothing, only avoided the issues or repeated the same old mantra, putting your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalala I cna't hear you".

We brought up codex entries and pointed out how harmful the Chantry has been to mages, and you ignored it in favor of calling me stupid and changing your story every time Ian disproved your "facts."

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Nobody proves htat better than you.

I don't call people stupid as a retort, Lotion.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

How many times have I shot down your arguments with impunity?

Like the time you claimed that abominations were running the Mages Collective? Let's say zero.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
 
(for example, the redicolous  "Haven didn't blow up is proof abominations aren't that dangerous")  And you repat the same argument, again and again.
From now on I'm calling you Noober.

You mean I point out alternatives to the Chantry's treatment of mages as sub-human in their prisons by pointing out how other cultures don't villify mages or automatically imprison them, and all you do is whine about them being factored into the discussion.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
People in the storyline find it reprehensible, that's why they try to overthrow it. They even compare the Chantry system to the slave-masters of the Tevinter Imperium (Broken Circle).[/quote]

SOME poeple in the game find it reprehensible.
And it's clear the system isn't taking the moral high road. It's taking the safe road.
[/quote]

By referring to the people who were trying to overthrow it, Lotion, that was clearly obvious.

Regarding your "argument," we're all still waiting for you to actually prove your point with any storyline mention, codex entry, or anything of the sort. Even the DG quotes you provided didn't say what you claimed they did. You have never proved it's the safest road, Lotion. Look, Lotion, instead of pretending you won the debate because you bored Ian to tears, why not provide an argument of substance that supports your view that the Chantry is the safest route instead of claiming that because you said it, it's true?

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

Again I find it rather Ironic that Lotion is now hanging his hat on "circle is best because it is grey" argument when he's been anything but grey himself.[/quote]

Didn't we cover this allready? Oh yes, we did...3 tiems actually. Adn 3 times you have been proven utterly wrong. [/quote]

In a parallel universe where you actually made a substantial counter-point, I take it?

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

So how about you stop with the obvious lies about me and acept the fact that you put the foot in your mouth. You dug your own grave....now lie down please... [/quote]

Feel free to provide any storyline examples or codex entries to prove your point, Lotion, rather than continually claiming that you're right because you say so.


The problem here, Lotion, is that you continue to say that people are wrong because they have a different viewpoint than you do. Ian provided a hypothetical numerical example of how abominations are likely increasing because of the practices of the Circle while all you did was ridicule Ian and outright lie about the fact that the hypothetical example was anything but hypothetical. You basically called me names and outright lied (and never even bothered to prove your lies despite your incessant claims that they were the truth) and haven't provided any argument showing why the Chantry system of imprisoning mages is necessary. It's getting utterly ridiculous and pointless, Lotion.
[QUOTE]EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Elves are not any more dangerous than the people they potentially cause a threat to. A mage is. That is the difference. THe playing field between two normal human beings (or elves) is even. Between a normal human being and a mage, it is far from even.

The mistake you do, is considering mages as normal human beings. While they are humans, they are far from normal, and they are not like you and me. [/QUOTE]
All moilami is doing is pointing out that you can justify any sort of demeaning behavior by claiming that a particular group is dangerous, and therefore incapable of being integrated with the rest of society. Given the alternative societies who have mages and non-mages together, and even the Chantry's own history had mages mingling with non-mages before a non-violent protest changed all that, there's absolutely no evidence that segregating and dehumanizing mages is warranted or necessary.
[QUOTE] Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Noting is more telling of your failure than the fact that you're not actually debating with me anymore OR defending your own argument - no, you are basicly reduced to making a plea to those who read the forums, in a last ditch attempt to convice them that you're right, hoping they would vindicate you. [/QUOTE]

Boring the opponent to death with your antics and providing absolutely no kind of evidence in your favor is not willing, Lotion.

[QUOTE] Lotion Soronnar wrote...

"Oh, I know this lookes bad, but see, he's only beating me because he lost. He is totally defeated, really...Otherwise he wouldn't have resorted to the hammer. Trust me on that. Please!" [/QUOTE]
It seemed more like Ian kept disproving your claims, your misinterpretation of DG's quotes, your lack of codex entries supporting your view, and you changing your stance from the Chantry system being the best to everything being morally grey and indisputable.
[QUOTE] Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You realised how horrible the foundations of your whole line of reasoning were and are now grasping for straws. Pathetic. [/QUOTE]
You mean Ian used logic and sound reasoning, codex entries, and quotes from David Gaider to show that nobody has proof that the Chantry is effective or even the best of limited options, while you used the tactic of "You're wrong because I'm right." I don't honestly see how you won any sort of substantial argument here, Lotion. You still haven't provided anything to show that the Chantry is necessary.
[QUOTE] Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Note, my funny friend, that you haven't actually won any of the previous arguments...there was no realy need for me to "resort" to this line of reasoning, but given that you pretty much ignored regular counter-arguments like they don't exist, it was fitting to bring out the big guns. [/QUOTE]
I agree, anybody who has to actually discuss anything with you has never won anything but a headache.
[QUOTE] Lotion Soronnar wrote...

But the be fair, the "big guns" came to me a fewdays ago, just as I was going to sleep. I could have used them earlier, but the more you denied anything good about the circle, the deeper you sank.
Maybe I should have waited a bit more. [/QUOTE]
There's nothing funnier than how you're trying to pretend that you actually said anything of substance here, Lotion. You've been on this messageboard for over a year professing your love for the Chantry, pro-Chantry characters, and when the opportunity came for you to articulate why the Chantry system is the best, you completely failed. In fact, it's ridiculous how many times I see pro-Chantry supporters claiming that the treatment of mages is necessary, but continue to fail to provide any sort of evidence that works in their favor. Even the DG quote about the Chantry merely said that it was full of well-meaning people who think they're doing what is right - which doesn't change the fact that mages are being enslaved to a system that not only demonizes them throughout the continent and imprisons them in a tower under the watch of armed and armored drug addicts, but says "obey or die."
Rather than dealing with an overblown post from you claiming that boring someone to the point of leaving the thread is some sort of intellectual victory for you, why don't you actually provide an argument of substance, with quotes, codex entries, or any story point to support your pro-Chantry argument?

Modifié par LobselVith8, 26 janvier 2011 - 03:29 .

[moilami]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And there is the magic word "potentially". Any elf can POTENTIALLY be more dangerous. Any mage IS more dangerous. That is the difference. That is why the Chantry tries to protect the common man. Because the mages are dangerous.
And mages are guilty of being mages. They did not choose to become one, but they are.

Lol now I have plotted an RP to you too. Was a little bit more difficult since I had to think how I can get an abdomination as per original decision. But managed to figure it out.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Again, it is not our job to prove that the Chantry is protecting people. It is your job to show that they aren't needed. Right now, they are the system in charge, and they say mages are dangerous. You say mages aren't, or at least not to the extend of what the Chantry claims. All we got is a few codex entries (which, by the way, all agree mages are dangerous), and now you want us to prove that the Circles work, without ever having observed another system in enough detail to actually make an informed judgement? No. It is your job to prove that the Circles aren't needed. And you can't prove that, because you havn't either made enough observations of another system to make an informed judgement. You are all quick to jump on the "by they treat their mages all right!" wagon though.......

In case you are wondering: No. The way they treat their mages is NOT enough data, to make a decision which could affect thousands of lives.

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Again, it is not our job to prove that the Chantry is protecting people. It is your job to show that they aren't needed.

In other words, you have no proof the Chantry is needed, and we can already see there are societies that embrace tolerant views of mages and magic. If the Circles weren't created to protect people (see: History of the Circle codex) then we're left with no evidence that the Circles are doing anything but consolidating their power over mages.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Right now, they are the system in charge, and they say mages are dangerous. You say mages aren't, or at least not to the extend of what the Chantry claims. All we got is a few codex entries (which, by the way, all agree mages are dangerous), and now you want us to prove that the Circles work, without ever having observed another system in enough detail to actually make an informed judgement? No. It is your job to prove that the Circles aren't needed.

Considering that the Circles were never created to protect people, but to segregate mages because of a nonviolent protest, I see no reason why you assume they're needed at all.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And you can't prove that, because you havn't either made enough observations of another system to make an informed judgement. You are all quick to jump on the "by they treat their mages all right!" wagon though.......
In case you are wondering: No. The way they treat their mages is NOT enough data, to make a decision which could affect thousands of lives.

In other words, let's ignore the mage tolerant societies because their very existance proves that mages can live alongside non-mages? So far, there's absolutely no evidence that the Circles are necessary to protect people, and the codex even proves that the Circles weren't created to protect people - so I see no reason to assume otherwise.

[moilami]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Again, it is not our job to prove that the Chantry is protecting people. It is your job to show that they aren't needed. Right now, they are the system in charge, and they say mages are dangerous. You say mages aren't, or at least not to the extend of what the Chantry claims. All we got is a few codex entries (which, by the way, all agree mages are dangerous), and now you want us to prove that the Circles work, without ever having observed another system in enough detail to actually make an informed judgement? No. It is your job to prove that the Circles aren't needed. And you can't prove that, because you havn't either made enough observations of another system to make an informed judgement. You are all quick to jump on the "by they treat their mages all right!" wagon though.......
In case you are wondering: No. The way they treat their mages is NOT enough data, to make a decision which could affect thousands of lives.

It was just one ordinary quiet night in The Pearl. The head mistress bowed submissively to the emperor walking to the hall.

Mistress: Sir...you came.
Emperor: Certainly. Where is the new girl? Show her now please.
Mistress: As your majesty wishes. This way.

They walk down a corridor to the favorit room of the emperor. In there stands a very beautiful hooded woman in revealing oriental clothing.

Mistress: Sir, here she is....and you would be the first customer.
Emperor: Excellent...

The head mistress leaves and shuts down the door. The hooded woman rises from the bed and comes to touch the face of the emperor, sliding her hand on his cheek, before moving the tip of her fingers on his lips.

Mistress: Shhh....go to the bed to and wait me for a moment. I want to dance for you first.
Emperor: Alright. But it better be worth the wait.
Mistress: I promise...it will be.

She kisses him softly and pushes him on the bed. The mistress waves her hips and drags the panties slightly lower while taking a few steps backward.

Emperor: When I can see your face?
Mistress: Soon. All good things are worth the wait. Just wait.
Emperor: It better happen soon.
Mistress: It will *giggles*
Emperor: Good, else you would be a very naughty girl.
Mistress: Naughty? *giggles* I am worse. Now I am a mage.
Emperor: WTF?! You better be kidding.
Mistress: No kidding.

The mistress removes her mask and happens to be Morrigan.

Morrigan: Now I am an abdomination.
Emperor: Nooo!
Morrigan: Yes! A mage can turn anytime into abdomination!
Emperor: Nooo!
Emperor: Yes! You have said so many times.

The emperor tries to rush from the bed but gets frozen by Cone of Cold cast by Morrigan.

Morrigan: Goodbye *blows a kiss to the wind*

Morrigan casts stonefist on Emperor, shattering him. A curtain slides away and shows there was a man hiding.

Me: Good show.
Morrigan: I knew you would like it.
Me: Heh, you know me too well. Come now and kiss me. We have all night long time to stay in this room.

Morrigan smiles.


* * *

HAHAHAHAHA, there, an abdomination. Could not summon an abdomination or make abdomination of the emperor no matter what, so had to use Morrigan to be what you say mages are or into what mages can turn anytime. Sometimes has to be creative.


Long live Nanomage Liberation Front!

Edit: (And, uh, Society of Drow for Life! xD

Modifié par moilami, 26 janvier 2011 - 06:55 .

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Well, perhaps the Dalish lost the Exalted March because they were weakened by abominations. And weren't the Chant altered concurrent with the Exalted March? THe Exalted March itself was reasonable enough (if war can be reasonable).

You need to review your game-lore.  The "reason" the Dales were a victim of an exalted march was because the "heathen" Elves were kicking OIais' tail between it's legs from a war started because Orlais simply would not stop sending in unwanted aggresive missionaries.  When it looked like Orlais was going to lose and lose badly, then and only then did the Divine call for an exalted march.  The fact is the Dales were probably at the time the strongest nation in Thedas.  Hardly a nation "weakened by abominations" and as others have said, the Chantry certainly would have added this to the list of Dalish "sins" if they could have.

After all, the Chantry out and out lied (and changed) the Chant of Light including removing a whole verse to justify this exalted march.  Surely they would have added some bits about evil abominations if it were that important.

Isn't most of the CHasind what is now Ferelden? (or is that the Avvars?). And the very fact that Ostagar is allowed to fall into disrepair and ruin, shows that the CHasind aren't considered a threat anymore.

The Avvars used to live in what now is Fereldan, and the Chasind haven't unified in time out of mind, but the History and Codex entries are quite clear that they were a fearsome force when they did.

Rivain's problem has everything to do with magic. They got an old tradition of letting their mages become possessed. The CHantry and Qun do not like this. So yes, magic is the cause of Rivains problems. Or rather, the different views on magic.

Oh how precious.  You blame the victim!  The Chantry and Qun hate magic and see a society between them that respects magic and apparently does just fine with it....and so tries to wipe them out....and then you blame Rivain (the victim).  Again, as was pointed out Rivain in spite of attacks from both the Chantry and Qun has survived and recovered indicating it's a very robust society rather than the reverse.

All of the problems may not be caused by magic. But it is interesting to note that the societies with free mages, all have a hard time, and do not do "just fine". So a pattern may be there, buried in the data. Hard to tell with the limited data we got so far. Perhaps time will tell.

This isn't the same thing at all.  You are talking just about the magic-friendly society and looking at their problems and saying without linkage, "there may be a pattern there".  Bolluxs.  What I have been saying is if you look at all the societies across Thedas (even the Qun), the only ones that show the sort of attitudes and practices you'd expect from a relatively high danger of abominations are only the ones that distrust or hate Magic (chantry and qun) and that is a valid pattern since we are comparing like to like over one simple question.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Again I find it rather Ironic that Lotion is now hanging his hat on "circle is best because it is grey" argument when he's been anything but grey himself.

Didn't we cover this allready? Oh yes, we did...3 tiems actually. Adn 3 times you have been proven utterly wrong.

So how about you stop with the obvious lies about me and acept the fact that you put the foot in your mouth. You dug your own grave....now lie down please...

Again, I've shot down this argument.  Basically what makes this issue as "grey" as it was is the lack of data.  In addition, your entire argument presumes a perfection on the part of the game developers that not even the game developers themelves would agree it merited I think.  The Devs have (and freely admit to have) made errors.  It's just as plausible to assume that the Devs left perhaps a few more clues that the circle system was unmerited than perhaps they intended.

As for the arguement, the very fact that Lotion is trying to make the argument means he's lost the debate!  A fairly strong claim but consider.  If he could honestly and forthrightly point out all the benefits of the "security" of the circle system, and show with little doubt with hard evidence that indeed overall it does indeed save lives, then he would be emphasizing those point.  Indeed when he (thought) he had the rhetorical upper hand on these points earlier in the thread, he did just that.

Now suddenly in the last five pages, he's making the 'grey' issue his central one.  Why?  Because he's lost the other points and now is trying an openly meta-gaming argument that goes something like this, "So OK, if the circle is all bad and all, then the Devs must of made a mistake since it was supposed to be a hard moral choice.  We know the Devs never make a mistake.  Therefore the circle system isn't as bad as your evidence suggests."

BWHAHAHAHAA...oh man.

So after you utterly failed to defend you arguments, you now want to resort to this?

Claiming that you're the winner by default, because I DARED to actually point out how your broken arguments break the whole point and atmosphere of the mage-templar dillema?

Noting is more telling of your failure than the fact that you're not actually debating with me anymore OR defending your own argument - no, you are basicly reduced to making a plea to those who read the forums, in a last ditch attempt to convice them that you're right, hoping they would vindicate you.
"Oh, I know this lookes bad, but see, he's only beating me because he lost. He is totally defeated, really...Otherwise he wouldn't have resorted to the hammer. Trust me on that. Please!"

You realised how horrible the foundations of your whole line of reasoning were and are now grasping for straws. Pathetic.

Note, my funny friend, that you haven't actually won any of the previous arguments...there was no realy need for me to "resort" to this line of reasoning, but given that you pretty much ignored regular counter-arguments like they don't exist, it was fitting to bring out the big guns.

But the be fair, the "big guns" came to me a fewdays ago, just as I was going to sleep. I could have used them earlier, but the more you denied anything good about the circle, the deeper you sank.
Maybe I should have waited a bit more.

This ridiculous "grey" argument is your "big gun"?  Really?  It's an admission of defeat.  Seriously man, if you are now resorting to, "But the game designers wanted this to be a morally grey choice" then you are admitting that you are out of ammunition to show your side of it, and appealing to authorial fiat.  It's the last refuge of the rascal.

I am simplifying it, but that's the nutshell of Lotion's argument.

Yes, you're very good at simplyfiyng and letting out all the important details...especially when it suits you.

I believe it was a fair restatement of your basic argument such as it was.

1.  Just because the circle is bad and alternatives are better, does NOT mean it's going to be easy or better to get to those alternate systems.  Transition periods are inherently dangerous and often problematic and involve their own moral choices.

And as you already claimed yourself, the negatives of the "transition period" pale in comparison to the negatives of the "eeeeevil circle system". A horrible-earth shattering war, continuation of opression and injustice etc, etc...

Tough choices mean that the pros and cons most be roughly balanced on both sides.
You have provided no such  balance. At all.

Sure I have.  I will give a real life example.  Everybody that can do even basic math knows that the entitlement states in the western world (including medicaid in the US) are doomed to failure.  The demographics won't let them continue.  However, to change them would require a massive increase in revenue (read taxes) and reduction in spending (read benefits), which would almost certainly spell defeat for any politician(s) doing so perhaps for years.

So here is the choice:  Do I prop up a system now I know is doomed, but keeps people happy and thus has no pain in the short term, OR do I solve the problems now and kick sick people out of hospitals, and ruin my political chances and those of my party for a generation but ACTUALLY make a real dent in the problem?

It's the same thing here.  Do you keep a system that 'works' (no matter how badly) and that most Andrastian commoners are happy with and the Chantry supports even knowing that it's ulimately immoral, unnecessary, and ultimately doomed......or do you subject mages to short term mobs and mob killings, an enraged chantry possibly declaring exalted marches, and perhaps even a SHORT TERM abomination problem as a result in order to ultimately attain a system that is vastly better?

That is a real difficult and grey choice and it's why I pointed to the RL example as to why it's not "obvious" at all.

2.  Lotion is assuming the Devs are infallible when all of us know perfectly well that they are not.  Heck, I don't even think the Devs themselves regard themselves as infallible.  It makes just as much sense to assume that the Devs left more clues (for those of us that really, really dig) that the circle system is really unnecessary than they perhaps intended.
s

Of course they aren't infallible.
But given how central the mage-templar dynamic is to the whole DA setting, This wouldn't be a minor mistake. This would be a major f***-up.
And I don't think something like that wouldn't get past them easily.

You don't think the Devs might have left more clues than they intended?  You have more faith (dare I call it religious faith?) in the Devs than the Devs themselves seem to have.


-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 26 janvier 2011 - 06:26 .

[moilami]

IanPolaris wrote...

Of course they aren't infallible.
But given how central the mage-templar dynamic is to the whole DA setting, This wouldn't be a minor mistake. This would be a major f***-up.
And I don't think something like that wouldn't get past them easily.

You don't think the Devs might have left more clues than they intended?  You have more faith (dare I call it religious faith?) in the Devs than the Devs themselves seem to have.

It is horribly "broken". I wrote that in quotation marks because actually this DA setting is most fascinating I have ever seen in computer games. It is so brilliantly built, and arrogantly, that there is nothing to compare it. Take for example DLC Witch Hunt. Huh? There were witch hunts in real. Those "witches" just were women, and they did not have any magical abilities (except "charm spell").

It is intended to be grey area if they say so, and which is very interesting information I would be much happy if it would not exist because *I* could only wonder was it "oooops" or was it super genius building a world.

I am interested to see how the situation develops in DA2. Devs probs try to "fix" a few things, which can lead into interesting new issues to observe.

[moilami]

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Again, it is not our job to prove that the Chantry is protecting people. It is your job to show that they aren't needed.

In other words, you have no proof the Chantry is needed, and we can already see there are societies that embrace tolerant views of mages and magic. If the Circles weren't created to protect people (see: History of the Circle codex) then we're left with no evidence that the Circles are doing anything but consolidating their power over mages.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Right now, they are the system in charge, and they say mages are dangerous. You say mages aren't, or at least not to the extend of what the Chantry claims. All we got is a few codex entries (which, by the way, all agree mages are dangerous), and now you want us to prove that the Circles work, without ever having observed another system in enough detail to actually make an informed judgement? No. It is your job to prove that the Circles aren't needed.

Considering that the Circles were never created to protect people, but to segregate mages because of a nonviolent protest, I see no reason why you assume they're needed at all.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And you can't prove that, because you havn't either made enough observations of another system to make an informed judgement. You are all quick to jump on the "by they treat their mages all right!" wagon though.......
In case you are wondering: No. The way they treat their mages is NOT enough data, to make a decision which could affect thousands of lives.

In other words, let's ignore the mage tolerant societies because their very existance proves that mages can live alongside non-mages? So far, there's absolutely no evidence that the Circles are necessary to protect people, and the codex even proves that the Circles weren't created to protect people - so I see no reason to assume otherwise.

Thanks young mage, world needs people like you. The same goes to the older mage.

Thanks to both templars too. The world needs people who fight for what they believe is right.

Ignorance is just too common.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

It's not a matter of morality or some sort of racism, but simple security.

And that security treats a segment of the population unfairly.

Do you value security more than equality and freedom?  If so, then your position is obvious.

But others can reasonably disagree.  And there's no middle ground.

[The Elder King]

@Ian-Polaris: where in the codex is stated that Orlais was going to lose against the Dales?