1869 réponses à ce sujet

[moilami]

Beerfish wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Beerfish,

Evidence would be nice, and don't quote Wynne. Wynne is more often wrong than correct, and she's totally sold on the Chantry PoV of things (perhaps to justify to herself her own mistreatments). There is no evidence that mages "spontaneously" become abominations at anything like the rate that begins to justify the circle system with all it's faults.

-Polaris

Connor became possessed for all the nice benevolent reasons.  He wanted to save his father.  Result?  RedCliffe, tons of innocent people killed.

Ulread became possessed and in turn many mages where turned into abominations, many templars and innocent mages were killed.  Abominations up the ying yang all over the mage tower.

Avernus in the wardens keep, on the behest of the wardens summoned demons, tons of people killed, a tear in the veil demons all over the place.

The wardens group runs into a mage turned abomination just in their normal travels in DA1.

All of these are just in the year or less that the warden is trucking around fereldan. 

Abominations and possessions from all sorts of situations.  Ambition, desperation and a benevolent act of love.

But hey, there is Chantry. Nothing of that never happened because there is Chantry. Chantry is the miracle which saves the world, right? Why all that happened then? Lets see case by case.

Connor incident happened *because* of chantry. His mother did not want to send Connor to the circle because circle fate was so horrible and her mother was very ashamed his son was a mage. The latter reason was because chantry demonised mages.

Mage Tower incident. Even mage tower was not able to not let that kind of thing to happen. Why it happened? Again chantry played a role in it. There were mages who wanted to fight against chantry and gave support to Uldred. Would Uldred got support from all those mages if there was no chantry? For sure he would not had their support. Now only the warden and his team saved the situation in the circle because templars were just waiting for right of annualment, which would had led the doors to open and templars being WTF PWNED by horde of abdominations.

I haven't researched Avernus incident, but Avernus was an extremely powerful mage capable of doing blood things giving extra talents to the drinker. Avernus also never wanted for demons to take over. He summoned the demons after being ordered to do so when the castle was attacked. So again, don't take mages as some kind of mass where any mage can do what one or two most epic mages can do.

You said warden ran into mage who turned into abdomination. Why this happened when there is this your chantry? Most probably because the said mage had to resort on extreme methods and he got somehow fooled to let the demon posses him, which is not trivial thing to happen. All evidence shows that you can't snap fingers and say "posses me lol". Another issue is that Connor incident shows that if you let a demon to posses you it is in practise a suisice. How many want to do suicide? How many can do even if they want?

Now, there is Chantry, and tons of bad things happen which should never happen, and all in the same time the society gets a fraction of benefits the mages could give.


Anyway, I am out. All things I wrote has been written before. Maker knows how many times, I can't say.

[moilami]

Mordechaisiz wrote...

I enjoy playing templar..But im the owner of a group for people who think mages should be free..hrum. im obviously confused.

This is the best part on this chantry vs mage thing. However in order to exploit its full potential an MMORPG would be needed. Or traditional RPG where there would actually be possible to pick sides.

[Sylvius the Mad]

IanPolaris wrote...

I undestand that, but the comparison completely fails and indeed if you do make the comparison, it shows just how rotten the circle system really is.

That was my objective.

There's no credible ethical difference, I think, between locking up the mentally ill and locking up mages.  To accept one, you must accept the other.

[McHoger]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
There's no credible ethical difference, I think, between locking up the mentally ill and locking up mages.  To accept one, you must accept the other.

That's a pretty bold statement. I'd say that solely because there's isn't a 3rd party actively trying to turn the mentally ill into vessels of destruction that there is at least some big differences between the two.

[IanPolaris]

McHoger wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
There's no credible ethical difference, I think, between locking up the mentally ill and locking up mages.  To accept one, you must accept the other.

That's a pretty bold statement. I'd say that solely because there's isn't a 3rd party actively trying to turn the mentally ill into vessels of destruction that there is at least some big differences between the two.

A difference that makes no difference is no difference.  The supposed justification for the circle is that some mages will "go bad" without warning and cause too much destruction for this to be worth the risk.  The same argument can (and has been in history!) used against the mentally ill.  The agent may be different but the justification and response to it is not.  Thus I'd say the original statement about locking up the mentally ill and locking away mages is basically valid.

-Polaris

[Akizora]

IanPolaris wrote...

McHoger wrote...

That's a pretty bold statement. I'd say that solely because there's isn't a 3rd party actively trying to turn the mentally ill into vessels of destruction that there is at least some big differences between the two.

A difference that makes no difference is no difference.  The supposed justification for the circle is that some mages will "go bad" without warning and cause too much destruction for this to be worth the risk.  The same argument can (and has been in history!) used against the mentally ill.  The agent may be different but the justification and response to it is not.  Thus I'd say the original statement about locking up the mentally ill and locking away mages is basically valid.

-Polaris

Well a mage is a potential vessel to an abomination and posession can lead them to become a very dangerous creature that could potentially destroy villages or towers ^^. What's interesting here though is that there is no right or wrong, no matter what is done there will be bad consequences. The only way is to eliminate magic altogether, or perhaps make sure that every mage is joined with a spirit that might ward off an abomination.

[IanPolaris]

Akizora wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

McHoger wrote...

That's a pretty bold statement. I'd say that solely because there's isn't a 3rd party actively trying to turn the mentally ill into vessels of destruction that there is at least some big differences between the two.

A difference that makes no difference is no difference.  The supposed justification for the circle is that some mages will "go bad" without warning and cause too much destruction for this to be worth the risk.  The same argument can (and has been in history!) used against the mentally ill.  The agent may be different but the justification and response to it is not.  Thus I'd say the original statement about locking up the mentally ill and locking away mages is basically valid.

-Polaris

Well a mage is a potential vessel to an abomination and posession can lead them to become a very dangerous creature that could potentially destroy villages or towers ^^. What's interesting here though is that there is no right or wrong, no matter what is done there will be bad consequences. The only way is to eliminate magic altogether, or perhaps make sure that every mage is joined with a spirit that might ward off an abomination.

And a mentally ill person with a gun or even a can full of gasoline in our real world is also a very dangerous creature that can potentially destroy just as much.  In fact we don't have to imagine it, we've seen it many times on the evening news!  See the point?

The actual risk that a mage will go bad if treated decently as a respected member of society with a stake in it, seems to be vanishly low (as evidenced by the lack of abomination footprints in societies that treat their mages decently).  What we see in the game is what is called "viewing with alarm" and that's done usually to justify a powergrab that normally wouldn't be tolerated....and that is precisely what the Chantry seems to have done here.

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
I do not listen to lies, if that is what you mean. [/quote]

Lies? You mean when people have an opposing opinion that turns you irate?[/quote]

No, I mean obvious lies. Like claiming I said something I didn't. Or things that aren't proven.

Oppinion, as long as it's presented as opinion, is fine.



[quote]
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."[/quote]

You brought out extrapolations derived from minimal and subjectively written codex entres as objective facts...and then you wonder why I ogre them? Because they're not objective facts. They aren't hard evidence.



[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
How many times have I shot down your arguments with impunity? [/quote]

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

I never claimed that. Hence, why I said lies. Because you do lie...shameleslyy I might add.



[quote]
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.[/quote]

No Noober.
I mean you point out X as evidence of Y when there is no direct connection. That's not real evidence.


[quote]
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?[/qutoe]

All arguments I provided are AT LEAST as strong as anything you've been thrpwing around (if not stronger). So, no Noober.
It's clear you won't accept any evidence contrary to your view...so why don't you provide evidence that the Circle system isn't the safest route? Oh, that's right..you tried and failed....



[quote]
[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]

While I would like to debate this with you (not really), it requires comprehension of what  grey means..something you lack. Because apaprently anyone who doesn't support mages unconditionalyl is not grey.

Take a dictionary. Learn to read. My previous posts prove that my stance on the Circle from the very begining was that is was a grey issue. My stance never changed.


[quote]

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.[/qutoe]

Ians hypothesis is a bucketload of c*** and everyone knows it.
Usin Ians logic I can hypotheticly prove ANYTHING. And I mean ANYTHING.
One can't just pull a number out of ones a** and claim it's perfectly rational. He claimed a 10,000% increase in abomination rate was perfecty rational. Even someone with 2 brain cells would see that number is redicolous. The more rediclous the claim, the greater backing and justification is needed.


[quote]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]

I'm not the one who lied..But you are right. It is getting ugly....for you that is.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...
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.

You didn't.
You yourself claim that there is enough data to come to a objective, rational conclusion.

You aslo didn't shot down the "lying" argument about me changing my tune. Something easily proven by my previous posts. I always claimed the Circel system was a grey issue. Always.

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'm not out of ammunition..not by a log shot.

Actually, your ignoring of other arguments (which would be the regular ammo) is your problem.

And no, claiming that I'm "admiting defeat" is not an argument for you. Would you even resort to that if YOU had any more ammo?
Go ahead and try to convince people that you're "winner by default". Appeal to Audience won't work. People around here are a bit smarter than you think.

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?

Not even remotely in the same league and you know it.

You yourself claming that he net evil and death of the chantry system by far outstrips any upheavel and problems a system change would cause.

According to you, the circle system is morraly corrupt, causes deaths and suffering of mages  and non-mages daily, makes the coutnryside more dangerous and will ultimteively end in the war that will split the earth asunder.

How can supporting the system change be WORSE? How is 100 years of oprression and death + a terrible war worse than a possible war?

In order for it to be a trully difficult, grey choice, both pros and cons have to be roughly balanced. They aren't there. Do you need me to draw you a map?

According to you:

CHANTRY CIRCLE SYSTEM
cons:
- is utterly immoral
- casues deaths of mages and suffering
- increases abomination rates by 10000%
- cases death of non-mages (by spreading hatered, commin folk sometimes try to take on a mage)
- is self-destroying and regressive
- will end up in a massive, devastating war
pros:
- none


NON- CIRCLE SYTEM
cons:
- short-term instabiltiy and conflict
pros:
- stable system
- moral
- decreases abomination rates
- progressive


So you honestly call that even remotely balanced????

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

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

Then why do you keep doing it? I though it was your favorite strategy?

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.

You haven't provided anything to show it's not.

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?

Your obsession is evident.
That is all that is to you. Chatnry....Chantry..Chantry. You categorize everying as pro-Chantry and anti-Chantry, wihout regard to other categories or motivations.

You're worse than Loghain.
Your obsessive hate for all things Chantry is creepy and boring at the same time. I've seen Yehovas Witnesses and Priests that preach less than you do.

All you ever do is harp against the Chantry, latch onto anyone who agrees with you like they are the messiah, and accuse anyone not agreeing with you of being a Chantry-lover.
You see obsession everywhere, except in you.

I've got news for you N00ber.
You're wrong about me....and you're pretty much wrong in general.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

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.

Keyword Lob...keyword.

You just admitt you're merely asusming.
Meaning you got no real evidence to support your claim. So assume all you want - just don't claim it is the one and only truth.

[McHoger]

IanPolaris wrote...

A difference that makes no difference is no difference.  The supposed justification for the circle is that some mages will "go bad" without warning and cause too much destruction for this to be worth the risk.  The same argument can (and has been in history!) used against the mentally ill.  The agent may be different but the justification and response to it is not.  Thus I'd say the original statement about locking up the mentally ill and locking away mages is basically valid.

-Polaris

It makes plenty of difference. A mentally ill person is the same person before and after the act. The reason we see it wrong to hold them accountable is because they lack the capabilites to comprehned what they had done. A mage essentially stops existing as they were when they become an abomintation and the new being moves with malicious intent. Whether or not the mage is aware of what is going on doesn't matter because the being performing the act is no longer the mage.

The demon is not some instrument that the mage is unwittingly using to perform evil acts. It's quite the opposite in fact.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

Security vs. freedom? I value both. Up to a point.
Normally, I prefer freedom over security...but sometimes one has to make hard choices (like let's say a hijacked plane taken by going for a populated city. Shoot it down or not? You're gambling with lives either way, so you might as well gamble with less lives)

That's the whole rationale behind the circle in the nutshell.
Let the mages go free, and you're gambling with the lives of both mages and non-mages.
Lock em up, and you're gambling with the lives of only mages (and some templars)

If there is a *better system that works, I'm all for it.

*depends on what you think is "better"


Equality? Yes..within reason of course. It's a beautifull concept, but the reality is that sometimes things are NOT equal.

[Akizora]

IanPolaris wrote...

Akizora wrote...

Well a mage is a potential vessel to an abomination and posession can lead them to become a very dangerous creature that could potentially destroy villages or towers ^^. What's interesting here though is that there is no right or wrong, no matter what is done there will be bad consequences. The only way is to eliminate magic altogether, or perhaps make sure that every mage is joined with a spirit that might ward off an abomination.

And a mentally ill person with a gun or even a can full of gasoline in our real world is also a very dangerous creature that can potentially destroy just as much.  In fact we don't have to imagine it, we've seen it many times on the evening news!  See the point?

The actual risk that a mage will go bad if treated decently as a respected member of society with a stake in it, seems to be vanishly low (as evidenced by the lack of abomination footprints in societies that treat their mages decently).  What we see in the game is what is called "viewing with alarm" and that's done usually to justify a powergrab that normally wouldn't be tolerated....and that is precisely what the Chantry seems to have done here.

-Polaris

It's not about how a mage is treated, it's more about the willpower, the mental strength and ability to resist the influence of a demon. There are so many kinds of demons and they all play on the weakness of a person to take over their body and become an abomination.

It's hard to make the comparison with a mentally ill person because there are similarities on the surface but when examined deeply the similarities soon disappear. A mage doesn't need to be unstable to become possessed, just being born a mage is enough. That's the problem and where morality comes in, how exactly do you protect the world from a ticking bomb that could go off or might never go off? What is worse, risking an invasion of abominations or opressing someone for something that is not their fault.

But then again, all we know is what the Chantry CLAIMS, they claim that the only way to prevent it is to make a mage tranquil or put them in a tower under full control. Is that true though? Or is that a way for the templars, the circle and the Chantry to keep a itght leash on a very powerful force that could be used by them to wage war and destruction, enforce laws, rules and beliefs? Are mages tools of war for the Chantry?

Assuming the Chantry are right, there isn't really a right or wrong here, it's a moral dilemma cause no matter what you choose there will be bad consequences. Either you opress mages or endanger innocent people, I do however think as I previously stated that the Chantry should have no influence over mages and that church and state, religion and law should be seperate.

It's not really a lie that a mage can become an abomination, but how to prevent it may be a lie.

[Lotion Soronarr]

moilami wrote...
Connor incident happened *because* of chantry. His mother did not want to send Connor to the circle because circle fate was so horrible and her mother was very ashamed his son was a mage. The latter reason was because chantry demonised mages.

Circle fate horrible? Depends on whom you ask. Plenty of mages are content there.
Of course, given that people have their oppinions, things willdiffer.
To Isolde, letting go of her son was horrible.
But to think similar things would not happen is folly. No matter what system you think off, there will be plenty of people who will not like it, for one reason or another.
Not to say that the Chantry system doesn't have flaws and that sometimes it backifres.. But every system does.

The issue is far more complex that a simple "it would never happen if it wasn't for the Chatnry".
Would it? Are you sure?
Assume life in the Cirlce is great. Would it matter ot Isolde? If she doesn't want to let her son out of the house, it would still happen.

Not to forget that Connor didn't become possesed because of the Chantry. He became possesed because his dad got sick. And having no chantry would have changed nothing about that.
There are a billion reasons why someone would become possesed.

Mage Tower incident. Even mage tower was not able to not let that kind of thing to happen. Why it happened? Again chantry played a role in it. There were mages who wanted to fight against chantry and gave support to Uldred. Would Uldred got support from all those mages if there was no chantry? For sure he would not had their support. Now only the warden and his team saved the situation in the circle because templars were just waiting for right of annualment, which would had led the doors to open and templars being WTF PWNED by horde of abdominations.

Untrue. Uldered didn't have a large support even so. The fighting broke out between mages. Uldred side was loosing, so he panciked and summoned a demon.
People will do stupid things and fight and argue for various reasons..as long as they think their goal is important enough, they will take risks. Suppose the goal of Uldred was not to fight the Cahtnry , but to fight the Orlesians (let's say he's a big patriot) and the other mages disagreed... Would the situation end up differently?

Also, what would happen without the Warden is unknown. If you side with Cullen the reinforcments do arrive and clear the tower, so outright claiming it would fall is premature.


Then we have the Baroness. A prime example of what horros a mage can unleash. There's no wonder people fear mages. No ordinary man can trap the entire vilalge in the fade and torture your for an eternity.

[Lotion Soronarr]

moilami wrote...

Mordechaisiz wrote...

I enjoy playing templar..But im the owner of a group for people who think mages should be free..hrum. im obviously confused.

This is the best part on this chantry vs mage thing. However in order to exploit its full potential an MMORPG would be needed. Or traditional RPG where there would actually be possible to pick sides.

Defiantely agreed.

My first playtrough was a human noble (templar)
My second an elven mage (arcane)

Loved em both.
Too bad we didn't have a templar origin....would have been interesting to see things from another angle.

[LobselVith8]

Beerfish wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Beerfish,

Evidence would be nice, and don't quote Wynne. Wynne is more often wrong than correct, and she's totally sold on the Chantry PoV of things (perhaps to justify to herself her own mistreatments). There is no evidence that mages "spontaneously" become abominations at anything like the rate that begins to justify the circle system with all it's faults.

-Polaris

Connor became possessed for all the nice benevolent reasons.  He wanted to save his father.  Result?  RedCliffe, tons of innocent people killed.

Because his pious mother was embarrased that her son was a mage, because the Andrastian Chantry villifies mages as evil. Had an effective system been in place that didn't demonize mages or imprison them under the guard of the military arm of an anti-mage religious order that one could argue torments and abuses mages, the situation at Redcliffe never would have happened.

Beerfish wrote...

Ulread became possessed and in turn many mages where turned into abominations, many templars and innocent mages were killed.  Abominations up the ying yang all over the mage tower.

Which never would have happened if mages weren't fighting to emancipate themselves from subjugation.

Beerfish wrote...

Avernus in the wardens keep, on the behest of the wardens summoned demons, tons of people killed, a tear in the veil demons all over the place.

Another case of someone foolishly summoning too many demons. No one is arguing that magic can't be mishandled, but people are arguing against an injust system that mistreats and demonizes mages simply because they're mages. One could argue that the Chantry has abused its authority in their treatment of mages, and even in their dealings with other nations. Less people died at Warden's Keep than died in the Exalted March against the Dales, which the Dalish elves would argue happened because when they kicked out the missionaries, the Chantry sent in templars.

Beerfish wrote...

The wardens group runs into a mage turned abomination just in their normal travels in DA1.

One mage versus the many abominations in the Circle Tower that never would have happened if the Chantry didn't enslave mages to its inhumane system.

Beerfish wrote...

All of these are just in the year or less that the warden is trucking around fereldan. 

Abominations and possessions from all sorts of situations.  Ambition, desperation and a benevolent act of love.

Anyone and almost anything can be possessed, not only a mage, and a possessed cat was able to murder three trained templars, so it's not as if they aren't dangerous.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Beerfish wrote...
Connor became possessed for all the nice benevolent reasons.  He wanted to save his father.  Result?  RedCliffe, tons of innocent people killed.

Because his pious mother was embarrased that her son was a mage, because the Andrastian Chantry villifies mages as evil. Had an effective system been in place that didn't demonize mages or imprison them under the guard of the military arm of an anti-mage religious order that one could argue torments and abuses mages, the situation at Redcliffe never would have happened.

Nope. That was the reason Connor was not sent to the Circle, not the reason he was possesed.
Can you really claim he woudln't have been possesed either way? Or for a different reason?

Would anything have changed if ther was no Chantry circle system? Connor would still be with his mom, Eamon would stil lget sick and hte demon would still go after Connor.

Beerfish wrote...
Ulread became possessed and in turn many mages where turned into abominations, many templars and innocent mages were killed.  Abominations up the ying yang all over the mage tower.

Which never would have happened if mages weren't fighting to emancipate themselves from subjugation.

Yes. Even without the Cirlcle, Uldred might still beomce possesed. For another reason.

Changing a system may change reasons...but it does not eliminate them. It might remove some, but it might add others.

Beerfish wrote...
All of these are just in the year or less that the warden is trucking around fereldan. 

Abominations and possessions from all sorts of situations.  Ambition, desperation and a benevolent act of love.

Anyone and almost anything can be possessed, not only a mage, and a possessed cat was able to murder three trained templars, so it's not as if they aren't dangerous.

Non-mages can be possesed ONLY on places where the veil is torn. Non-mages becoming possesed is extreemly rare. (canon fact)

And non-mages are not attractive targets for demons, while mages are like beacons. (canon fact)

AND non-mage possesed are nowhere near as powerfull as a real abominations. (canon fact)

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
No, I mean obvious lies. Like claiming I said something I didn't. Or things that aren't proven.

Oppinion, as long as it's presented as opinion, is fine.

You mean like when you claimed I called you a Chantry fanboy, but never bothered to provide a link to this accusation when I called you on your b.s.? Or when you called me names because I disagree with your views on the Chantry in this very thread? Or your inability to prove that the Chantry controlled Circles are the best route to take with mages?

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
You brought out extrapolations derived from minimal and subjectively written codex entres as objective facts...and then you wonder why I ogre them? Because they're not objective facts. They aren't hard evidence.

The History of the Circle codex explains why the Circle was formed; it was written by a Chantry scholar, so it's not biased in the favor of the mages (as clearly evident by the way it's written at the end) and yet it makes it clear that the Circles were never formed as a means of protection against blood mages or abominations. You have yet to prove that the Chantry controlled Circles are warranted, and the alternative societies of Rivain, the Dalish clans, and Haven prove that mages can co-exist alongside non-mages, as they did in Orlais and other Andrastian societies before the non-violent protest in Orlais that lead to their segregation from society.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
I never claimed that. Hence, why I said lies. Because you do lie...shameleslyy I might add.

You did claim that there were abominations in the Mages Collective in another thread, your buddy Emperor tried to clean it up by mentioning the apprentice we encounter in the Mages Collective quest, where I pointed out that we had no proof that we was even tied to the Collective any more than the other three apprentices from a seperate quest. You lied. And you failed to provide any substantial argument for the Chantry dehumanizing and demonizing mages.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
No Noober.
I mean you point out X as evidence of Y when there is no direct connection. That's not real evidence.

Try to act like an adult, Lotion. That might help your case a little if you at least pretended to behave like a human being.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
All arguments I provided are AT LEAST as strong as anything you've been thrpwing around (if not stronger). So, no Noober.
It's clear you won't accept any evidence contrary to your view...so why don't you provide evidence that the Circle system isn't the safest route? Oh, that's right..you tried and failed....

In a parallel universe, perhaps. Some of us don't need to call people names in lieu of an actual argument, Lotion.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
While I would like to debate this with you (not really), it requires comprehension of what grey means..something you lack. Because apaprently anyone who doesn't support mages unconditionalyl is not grey.

Take a dictionary. Learn to read. My previous posts prove that my stance on the Circle from the very begining was that is was a grey issue. My stance never changed.

Your lack of a substantial argument is the issue here, Lotion. You failed to prove that the Chantry system is necessary.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Ians hypothesis is a bucketload of c*** and everyone knows it.
Usin Ians logic I can hypotheticly prove ANYTHING. And I mean ANYTHING.
One can't just pull a number out of ones a** and claim it's perfectly rational. He claimed a 10,000% increase in abomination rate was perfecty rational. Even someone with 2 brain cells would see that number is redicolous. The more rediclous the claim, the greater backing and justification is needed.

You mean Ian made an argument with storyline examples and codex entries while you call people names and pretend you're right because you can't properly read the quotes made by the developers? And "rediclous," Lotion? Maybe you should stop attacking people's ability to read when you can't even spell.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
No, I mean obvious lies. Like claiming I said something I didn't. Or things that aren't proven.

Oppinion, as long as it's presented as opinion, is fine.

You mean like when you claimed I called you a Chantry fanboy, but never bothered to provide a link to this accusation when I called you on your b.s.?

Dude, you were calling me pro-chantry and talkign about how I adore chantry and Wynne in your previous posts. You should remeber what you posted an hour ago!

The History of the Circle codex explains why the Circle was formed; it was written by a Chantry scholar, so it's not biased in the favor of the mages (as clearly evident by the way it's written at the end) and yet it makes it clear that the Circles were never formed as a means of protection against blood mages or abominations. You have yet to prove that the Chantry controlled Circles are warranted, and the alternative societies of Rivain, the Dalish clans, and Haven prove that mages can co-exist alongside non-mages, as they did in Orlais and other Andrastian societies before the non-violent protest in Orlais that lead to their segregation from society.

As said before, the History os hte Circle is a very short entry, so it jsut skims the issue. It doesn't say there weren't other reasons...nor does it specificly say the reason. You INFER the reason.

Also, no-one said that mages and non-mages cannot co-exist. The issue is if that's a good idea, and what price one must pay for that. If in order for that to happen, you have to accept occaisnally loosing a few villages to abomination, then yes...it is a issue.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
I never claimed that. Hence, why I said lies. Because you do lie...shameleslyy I might add.

You did claim that there were abominations in the Mages Collective in another thread, your buddy Emperor tried to clean it up by mentioning the apprentice we encounter in the Mages Collective quest, where I pointed out that we had no proof that we was even tied to the Collective any more than the other three apprentices from a seperate quest. You lied. And you failed to provide any substantial argument for the Chantry dehumanizing and demonizing mages.

Nope. Never said that. Again, something you infered.
Provide a quote if you can. I dare you.

Take a dictionary. Learn to read. My previous posts prove that my stance on the Circle from the very begining was that is was a grey issue. My stance never changed.

Your lack of a substantial argument is the issue here, Lotion. You failed to prove that the Chantry system is necessary.

Nope. But even if that was true, what does that have to do with  you claiming I changed my argument?
My stance never changed.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Ians hypothesis is a bucketload of c*** and everyone knows it.
Usin Ians logic I can hypotheticly prove ANYTHING. And I mean ANYTHING.
One can't just pull a number out of ones a** and claim it's perfectly rational. He claimed a 10,000% increase in abomination rate was perfecty rational. Even someone with 2 brain cells would see that number is redicolous. The more rediclous the claim, the greater backing and justification is needed.

You mean Ian made an argument with storyline examples and codex entries while you call people names and pretend you're right because you can't properly read the quotes made by the developers? And "rediclous," Lotion? Maybe you should stop attacking people's ability to read when you can't even spell.

Focusing on my typo? Dont' you have anything better to do?

Let's stop pretending. Prove his hypothetical numbers make sense.
They make as muhc sense as me saying that Dalish experienced a 10000% increase in reproduction rate after the DA:O boon of a land of their own.

[moilami]

McHoger wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
There's no credible ethical difference, I think, between locking up the mentally ill and locking up mages.  To accept one, you must accept the other.

That's a pretty bold statement. I'd say that solely because there's isn't a 3rd party actively trying to turn the mentally ill into vessels of destruction that there is at least some big differences between the two.

How do you know that mentally ill are not suspectible to hear "voices" calling them to do this and that?

[EmperorSahlertz]

I would like to point out that the Collective does not really police themselves. At least none of the quests we get are meant as policing.

The one with the Abomination: It is not because they know about an Abomination they send you out. It is becase one of their amges has gone missing, and they would like you to make sure he is okay. That his apprentice had turned into an Abomination was totally incidental, and probably didn't even matter to them. So no policing act here. At least not intentional anyway.

The Maleficar Covenant (Brecillian Forest): They send you out to kill a covenant of Maleficars, but not because they are Maleficars. But because they are practicing their magic too close to one of the collective's own's hideout. So out of fear of his own detection, he wants them eliminated. Again, no intentional policing here.

Instead they actually send you out to warn several Maleficars of an impending Templar raid on their homes, so they actually do not police themselves. At least not against Blood Magic.

[moilami]

Akizora wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

McHoger wrote...

That's a pretty bold statement. I'd say that solely because there's isn't a 3rd party actively trying to turn the mentally ill into vessels of destruction that there is at least some big differences between the two.

A difference that makes no difference is no difference.  The supposed justification for the circle is that some mages will "go bad" without warning and cause too much destruction for this to be worth the risk.  The same argument can (and has been in history!) used against the mentally ill.  The agent may be different but the justification and response to it is not.  Thus I'd say the original statement about locking up the mentally ill and locking away mages is basically valid.

-Polaris

Well a mage is a potential vessel to an abomination and posession can lead them to become a very dangerous creature that could potentially destroy villages or towers ^^. What's interesting here though is that there is no right or wrong, no matter what is done there will be bad consequences. The only way is to eliminate magic altogether, or perhaps make sure that every mage is joined with a spirit that might ward off an abomination.

So you say there is no right or wrong in putting mentally ill to the hospital or killing them before they have done anything? Or like in case of mages, slaying mages or imprisoning them before they have done anything? There is no right or wrong? I don't even get how you can say so xD Like it would be irrelevant what is done to them. That is pretty perfect ignorance I think.


Edit: I did read your posting again and had to use my poker-face abilities or else I would had just lolled.

Modifié par moilami, 27 janvier 2011 - 02:23 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

moilami wrote...

McHoger wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
There's no credible ethical difference, I think, between locking up the mentally ill and locking up mages.  To accept one, you must accept the other.

That's a pretty bold statement. I'd say that solely because there's isn't a 3rd party actively trying to turn the mentally ill into vessels of destruction that there is at least some big differences between the two.

How do you know that mentally ill are not suspectible to hear "voices" calling them to do this and that?

Even if a mentally ill hears voices, he isn't about to go throw fireballs around.

And I know which tangent you are gonna run out on now.... "Oh but he could go get a weapon, or make a bomb, or, or, or..."
And yes. He most certainly could. But a man with agun is an obvious threat, and he can be disarmed. His bomb can be discovered and defused. Hell... He could be denyed in the counter of the Gas Station. For any non-mage to cause destruction you have to count in several factors.
For a mage, you don't need any more factors, than that he is a mage. A Mage can cause destruction, whenever, whereever he feels like it.

[moilami]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

moilami wrote...

McHoger wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
There's no credible ethical difference, I think, between locking up the mentally ill and locking up mages.  To accept one, you must accept the other.

That's a pretty bold statement. I'd say that solely because there's isn't a 3rd party actively trying to turn the mentally ill into vessels of destruction that there is at least some big differences between the two.

How do you know that mentally ill are not suspectible to hear "voices" calling them to do this and that?

Even if a mentally ill hears voices, he isn't about to go throw fireballs around.

And I know which tangent you are gonna run out on now.... "Oh but he could go get a weapon, or make a bomb, or, or, or..."
And yes. He most certainly could. But a man with agun is an obvious threat, and he can be disarmed. His bomb can be discovered and defused. Hell... He could be denyed in the counter of the Gas Station. For any non-mage to cause destruction you have to count in several factors.
For a mage, you don't need any more factors, than that he is a mage. A Mage can cause destruction, whenever, whereever he feels like it.

Anyone can cause destruction anywhere except in some very high secure areas. You are again thinking mages are lunatics who are very suspectible to cause destruction anywhere anytime. You should seriously get some real arguments. Your current ones just suck. Unless you get some real arguments consider yourself being failed in defending chantry.