1869 réponses à ce sujet

[Big Blue Car]

When did I say kill innocents bro? I'm perfectly able to admit that some Chantry members are taken in by religious dogma and due to a general lack of intellectual curiosity help horrific acts; those people can be forgiven in time.



But the institution as a whole? Every person who knowingly persecuted innocents or lived a good life due to their role in the Chantry? Yeah they need to be up against the wall quick snap.

[moilami]

hhh89 wrote...

Maybe I have problem to explain my opinion. I said that a revolution is NECESSARY. The reference of don't kill innocente people was for Big Blue Car.
And I want a NEW chantry, formed by the mages and their allies, with both mages and non mages.

This is my third post saying that the fight is necessary to gain freedom, and that the Chantry has to completely change WITH a fight, not simply asking for change.

edit: thanks for the suggestion.

Ok tell me how to get that reformed chantry? I am very sure I agree on how to do it based on what you have said so far.

[moilami]

Big Blue Car wrote...

When did I say kill innocents bro? I'm perfectly able to admit that some Chantry members are taken in by religious dogma and due to a general lack of intellectual curiosity help horrific acts; those people can be forgiven in time.

But the institution as a whole? Every person who knowingly persecuted innocents or lived a good life due to their role in the Chantry? Yeah they need to be up against the wall quick snap.

The thing is that chantry started everything by attacking mages as a group. Mages as a group have the rights to fight back, and each mage can chose his way how to fight back that group attacking them. A mage can even chose to join chantry and fight against mages. Or can chose to not fight at all. It is personal choise, and that is why none can say what a mage is allowed to do.


Edit: For example my Mage Warden would not kill Leliana, that's for sure. Why kill Leliana when you can bed her xD

Modifié par moilami, 29 janvier 2011 - 12:44 .

[The Elder King]

Big Blue Car: probably I misread what you said, I apologize.

Moilami: After the war, the Mages factions form a Chantry based on the original ideals of Andraste, based on the equity of all men. They create a new class of priests, maybe taking some of the innocent priests of the previous Chantry. The mages should enter in the Chantry ranks in a special role of supporting their work. The most great problem is to spread a new opinion about mages in common people. This could be done by Chantry scholars who travel in Thedas do enlighten the people about what mages are in reality: no doubt powerful people, but still people, who have to treated like all others men.

Of course this process requires years, if not decades. But even the "first" Chantry did a similar process.

If you meant how to get this Chantry in the sense on how they deal with the previous Chantry, of course they have to fight with it and the templars and their supporters. The previous Chantry istitution has to be destroyed, although I rather prefer to put their leaders in prison rather than kill them.



In the case that this "revolution" is on a regional or national scale, the major concern is to form a powerful army in order to fight the Andrastian nations.

[moilami]

hhh89 wrote...

Big Blue Car: probably I misread what you said, I apologize.
Moilami: After the war, the Mages factions form a Chantry based on the original ideals of Andraste, based on the equity of all men. They create a new class of priests, maybe taking some of the innocent priests of the previous Chantry. The mages should enter in the Chantry ranks in a special role of supporting their work. The most great problem is to spread a new opinion about mages in common people. This could be done by Chantry scholars who travel in Thedas do enlighten the people about what mages are in reality: no doubt powerful people, but still people, who have to treated like all others men.
Of course this process requires years, if not decades. But even the "first" Chantry did a similar process.
If you meant how to get this Chantry in the sense on how they deal with the previous Chantry, of course they have to fight with it and the templars and their supporters. The previous Chantry istitution has to be destroyed, although I rather prefer to put their leaders in prison rather than kill them.

In the case that this "revolution" is on a regional or national scale, the major concern is to form a powerful army in order to fight the Andrastian nations.

Ok sounds very good. I can wait for that very easily even if I would be in the tower.

[Sharn01]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

ITT: Big Blue Car misuses the term "fascism" in various forms.

Does the Chantry exalt itself and race over individual rights?  Yep

Does the chantry have an autocratic gorernment with a dictatorial leader?  Yep

Does the chantry enforce social and economic regimentation?  Yep

Does the chantry forcibly suppress anyone who is apposed to its beliefs?  Yep


I am not sure how often he does misuse the term, but in this particular instance he is correct. 

Modifié par Sharn01, 29 janvier 2011 - 12:51 .

[upsettingshorts]

Does it have four sides?
Do they meet at right angles?

A square may be a rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares.  This is a similar situation.  Fascism is a relatively specific model.  As a term it shouldn't be liberally applied to any oppressive organization or its value as a descriptive term is diluted.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 29 janvier 2011 - 12:55 .

[The Elder King]

moilami wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

Big Blue Car: probably I misread what you said, I apologize.
Moilami: After the war, the Mages factions form a Chantry based on the original ideals of Andraste, based on the equity of all men. They create a new class of priests, maybe taking some of the innocent priests of the previous Chantry. The mages should enter in the Chantry ranks in a special role of supporting their work. The most great problem is to spread a new opinion about mages in common people. This could be done by Chantry scholars who travel in Thedas do enlighten the people about what mages are in reality: no doubt powerful people, but still people, who have to treated like all others men.
Of course this process requires years, if not decades. But even the "first" Chantry did a similar process.
If you meant how to get this Chantry in the sense on how they deal with the previous Chantry, of course they have to fight with it and the templars and their supporters. The previous Chantry istitution has to be destroyed, although I rather prefer to put their leaders in prison rather than kill them.

In the case that this "revolution" is on a regional or national scale, the major concern is to form a powerful army in order to fight the Andrastian nations.

Ok sounds very good. I can wait for that very easily even if I would be in the tower.

Glad you like it. I have to go now, it was interesting to talk with you.

[moilami]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Does it have four sides?
Do they meet at right angles?

A square may be a rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares.  This is a similar situation.  Fascism is a relatively specific model.  As a term it shouldn't be liberally applied to any oppressive organization or its value as a descriptive term is diluted.

According to you, what would have to change for chantry to be fascist organisation?

[drahelvete]

moilami wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Does it have four sides?
Do they meet at right angles?

A square may be a rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares.  This is a similar situation.  Fascism is a relatively specific model.  As a term it shouldn't be liberally applied to any oppressive organization or its value as a descriptive term is diluted.

According to you, what would have to change for chantry to be fascist organisation?

Top-down corporatism. State capitalism.

[Big Blue Car]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Does it have four sides?
Do they meet at right angles?

A square may be a rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares.  This is a similar situation.  Fascism is a relatively specific model.  As a term it shouldn't be liberally applied to any oppressive organization or its value as a descriptive term is diluted.

This post is far more interesting than you're 'He's wrong lol' one earlier, but I still disagree with it. Diluting the term would be using it when it doesn't fit for logical reasons; you are saying it doesn't fit for strict technical reasons while ignoring the context of the issue.

And for the record, a square is frequently referred to as an equilateral rectangle; that is, something distinct but still recognisably of the same type as a wider comparative group. You may have accidently made my point better than I could.

[Big Blue Car]

drahelvete wrote...

moilami wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Does it have four sides?
Do they meet at right angles?

A square may be a rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares.  This is a similar situation.  Fascism is a relatively specific model.  As a term it shouldn't be liberally applied to any oppressive organization or its value as a descriptive term is diluted.

According to you, what would have to change for chantry to be fascist organisation?

Top-down corporatism. State capitalism.

Best modern definition of IRL fascism available right here.

[Sharn01]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Does it have four sides?
Do they meet at right angles?

A square may be a rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares.  This is a similar situation.  Fascism is a relatively specific model.  As a term it shouldn't be liberally applied to any oppressive organization or its value as a descriptive term is diluted.

Well, considering historians and scholars cant even agree on an exact definition of what fascism is its hard to define it exactly, but the chantry does come pretty close.  I think this is mostly due to the stigma caused by **** germany, similer to how the swastika is now taboo in the western world.

Wow, even that is filtered out, just shows how much stigma actually is applied to the name.

Modifié par Sharn01, 29 janvier 2011 - 01:06 .

[JamesX]

Chantry is Theocracy, it is hardly Facist. By the definition you guys used Even Monarchy are fascist. Such an overly and incorrectly used word these days.

[upsettingshorts]

Nationalism is a key prerequisite as well. I would go with theocratic autocracy, or just simply theocracy myself if the former seems too redundant - to describe the Chantry.

But I've derailed the thread long enough over semantics.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 29 janvier 2011 - 01:08 .

[drahelvete]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Nationalism is a key prerequisite as well.

Yes, but it doesn't have to be ethnic nationalism.

Modifié par drahelvete, 29 janvier 2011 - 01:18 .

[Big Blue Car]

Theocracies and monarchies are certainly awful systems for a huge variety of reasons, but it's the actions a group takes that makes the fascistic or not and the Chantry certainly are.

[drahelvete]

Edit: Nvm. Misread.

Modifié par drahelvete, 29 janvier 2011 - 01:16 .

[moilami]

drahelvete wrote...

moilami wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Does it have four sides?
Do they meet at right angles?

A square may be a rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares.  This is a similar situation.  Fascism is a relatively specific model.  As a term it shouldn't be liberally applied to any oppressive organization or its value as a descriptive term is diluted.

According to you, what would have to change for chantry to be fascist organisation?

Top-down corporatism. State capitalism.

Interesting.

Lets take that square example then. Lets make it a little bit different while maintaining perfectly the analogy. Lets take a cube, like standard d6 dice and square. Now we can see a square is not a cube. Lets move the cube positioned in a way that it shows exactly one side of it close to the eye and what we see? We see a square. WTF! Now we can conclude square can look very much like a cube even though it would not have all the same dimensions. Thus, chantry can appear to be like fascism even if it would not be exactly fascism as defined.

Upsettingshorts example was using logic against logic, and that can be countered by logic, which makes it usually just stupid to use logic against logic to evade original argument. I however understand his motivation behind it, and respect it in certain way, if he just was honest with it - that I can't know.

[IanPolaris]

earl of the north wrote...

I will nip back once more to point out.......

If mages are confined to an area and mundanes are not then in fact mages are NOT permitted to live alongside mundanes are are being segregated and that is in direct contradition with game lore (see ghettos).  Furthermore you haven't proven that mages WERE confined to the chantry at all.  I am still waiting for that citation.

Still utter nonsense, and still not what I wrote.

It really is but if you want to retract it then feel free....

False.  Game lore says no such thing.  We only know that prior to Ambrosia II that mages WORKED in the Chantries which is a far cry from saying they had to live there.  Again I am waiting for a citation from you that says otherwise.

-Polaris

We know from Leliana (lay sister of the chantry) that she lived at the Chantry cloister within the Lothering Chantry, we know from Alstair (Templar in training)  that he lived in a monastery, so its not a huge leap that mages pre-circle either ended up in the Chantry cloister or monasteries when they were brought under Chantry control......its more of a leap that they were instead allowed total freedom as long as they worked in the Chantries after getting "Chantry Mage Magic Licenses".

Again the non-sequitor.  Just because some orders and lay orders live in the Chantry (now we don't know how long historically), doesn't mean that mages did.  Please show me where mages HAD to live in the chantry?  Cite or retract please.  [Yes mages at one time had to WORK in the Chantry, but that's not the same thing.]

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 29 janvier 2011 - 01:17 .

[upsettingshorts]

moilami wrote...

Upsettingshorts example was using logic against logic, and that can be countered by logic, which makes it usually just stupid to use logic against logic to evade original argument.

What does this even mean?

[moilami]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

moilami wrote...

Upsettingshorts example was using logic against logic, and that can be countered by logic, which makes it usually just stupid to use logic against logic to evade original argument.

What does this even mean?

I am not talking to you.

[upsettingshorts]

moilami wrote...

I am not talking to you.

Hm.  Don't let me stop you from mentioning me in a discussion I'm apparently not involved in.

What a strange person....

[moilami]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

moilami wrote...

I am not talking to you.

Hm.  Don't let me stop you from mentioning me in a discussion I'm apparently not involved in.

What a strange person....

I answered to your question.

[Big Blue Car]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

moilami wrote...

Upsettingshorts example was using logic against logic, and that can be countered by logic, which makes it usually just stupid to use logic against logic to evade original argument.

What does this even mean?

It means that you were using technical definitions to argue for something whilst ignoring that your own examples highlighted the links which weakened your argument. Namely, you said these things have different names so they aren't the same, whilst raising the idea that a shape is the same even if it appears differently from different angles.

It basically means that he's right.