1869 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

Big Blue Car wrote...

It means that you were using technical definitions to argue for something

Sure. 

Big Blue Car wrote..

whilst ignoring that your own examples highlighted the links which weakened your argument

Then you both misinterpreted the argument.  Let's see:

Big Blue Car wrote..

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.

Yes, you did.  The argument was that, like rectangles, there are many government types that share the similarities described; oppression, autocratic rule, etc.  These include but are not limited to fascist states.  Stalinism would fit all of the criteria listed in a post above mine and in every other was is fundamentally different than fascism.  Theocracies the world over also match them.  The same way rectangles include but are not limited to squares.  The metaphor was one of relationships, not of different names.

I'll use another metaphor to describe how I'm interpreting your counter argument.

You say "I want a car to haul things."  I say "a truck would be better."
You respond "Ah, but a car has two axles and four wheels and can carry things.  Your argument is flawed."

Big Blue Car wrote..

It basically means that he's right.

I still don't see how your explanation (that I'm responding to in this post) has anything to do with his statement about logic vs. logic and how that doesn't "work" or something. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 29 janvier 2011 - 01:40 .

[moilami]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I still don't see how your explanation (that I'm responding to in this post) has anything to do with his statement about logic vs. logic and how that doesn't "work" or something. 

Then you just don't understand it.

[upsettingshorts]

moilami wrote...

Then you just don't understand it.

That's right.  Because it makes no sense whatsoever.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 29 janvier 2011 - 01:42 .

[moilami]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

moilami wrote...

Then you just don't understand it.

That's right.  Because it makes no sense whatsoever.

That would very much suppose you understand everything - I can say it is not true.

[Big Blue Car]

The Chantry are dicks that use military force to oppress innocent people in pursuit of their own vision of a perfect society, that is fascistic as balls. Now it makes sense.

[upsettingshorts]

moilami wrote...

That would very much suppose you understand everything - I can say it is not true.

If your understanding of the concept is so absolute you should have no problem at all restating the same argument in a different way.  

Big Blue Car wrote...

The Chantry are dicks that use military force to oppress innocent people in pursuit of their own vision of a perfect society, that is fascistic as balls. Now it makes sense.

And the medieval Roman Catholic Church did not?  They persecuted heretical groups within their own borders, launched crusades to conquer infidels outside of them, sent missionaries to convert aboriginal populations, managed and regulated scientific and artistic pursuits... 

You're talking about axles and wheels again.  Ignoring the truck bed.

[moilami]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

moilami wrote...

That would very much suppose you understand everything - I can say it is not true.

If your understanding of the concept is so absolute you should have no problem at all restating the same argument in a different way. 

Now you are supposing that I would also be interested to do so - again I can say it is not true.

[upsettingshorts]

moilami wrote...

Now you are supposing that I would also be interested to do so - again I can say it is not true.

And now I'm totally convinced you were just making up nonsense.  It was just a feeling before.  Keep it up, this act is totally believable.  I'm sold on your competence, truly.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 29 janvier 2011 - 01:59 .

[Big Blue Car]

Absolutely right mate, the roman catholics did horrific things historically. In the last year the current pope released a decree that using condoms is wrong because it encourages a lack of abstinence; south africa is an increasingly christian region, and many charitable groups stopped spreading condoms in areas ravaged by HIV because of what he said. Make no mistake, that bastard in Rome has the blood of thousands on his hands and the roman catholics would not hesitate for a second to enforce their dogma worldwide if they had the strength to do so. I agree with you completely regarding them.

Modifié par Big Blue Car, 29 janvier 2011 - 01:58 .

[moilami]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

moilami wrote...

Now you are supposing that I would also be interested to do so - again I can say it is not true.

And now I'm totally convinced you were just making up nonsense.  It was just a feeling before.  Keep it up, this act is totally believable.  I'm sold on your competence, truly.

Now you are sarcastically supposing that I would had been trying to convince you - and again I can say it is not true for I have next to zero interest to discuss with you much less convince anything to you.

(I have told you before you are in my "blocked" list, and that means I have no interest to discuss with you. Got a clue?)

[upsettingshorts]

moilami wrote...

Now you are sarcastically supposing that I would had been trying to convince you - and again I can say it is not true for I have next to zero interest to discuss with you much less convince anything to you.

(I have told you before you are in my "blocked" list, and that means I have no interest to discuss with you. Got a clue?)

If you aren't interested in having a discussion with me then don't use my name as preface to your nonsense.  And it may be stereotyping but it's really hard for me to take a guy who has two naked female toons in his player profile and writes Isabela as a giggling schoolgirl in childish, self-indulgent vignettes as some kind of master of rhetoric. 

But hey, I'll definitely respect your wishes to stay away from you on the forums from now on.  That I've got no problem with.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 29 janvier 2011 - 02:11 .

[drahelvete]

The problem here is that there are too damn many definitions of fascism around.

There's the one that Sharn01 posted, there's the "any ideology that is anti-democratic, anti-capitalist and anti-communist" definition, and a dozen other similar definitions.

I'm guessing that Upsettingshorts would prefer if the word "fascist" was only applied to people who adhere to the ideology of the Fascist Party (not to put words into his mouth - if I'm wrong, I apologize), and I agree. While totalitarianism is one of the cornerstones of fascism, there are in fact many other criteria. State capitalism and nationalism being two.

[upsettingshorts]

drahelvete wrote...

I'm guessing that Upsettingshorts would prefer if the word "fascist" was only applied to people who adhere to the ideology of the Fascist Party (not to put words into his mouth - if I'm wrong, I apologize), and I agree. While totalitarianism is one of the cornerstones of fascism, there are in fact many other criteria. State capitalism and nationalism being two.

More or less.  There are and have been several fascist parties, but there are so many terms to describe government and non-governmental agencies that it doesn't hurt to simply use the most accurate one in any given case.  

[drahelvete]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

drahelvete wrote...

I'm guessing that Upsettingshorts would prefer if the word "fascist" was only applied to people who adhere to the ideology of the Fascist Party (not to put words into his mouth - if I'm wrong, I apologize), and I agree. While totalitarianism is one of the cornerstones of fascism, there are in fact many other criteria. State capitalism and nationalism being two.

More or less.  There are and have been several fascist parties, but there are so many terms to describe government and non-governmental agencies that it doesn't hurt to simply use the most accurate one in any given case.  

Whether the ****s, falangists, Iron Guard, et al. were truly fascists is a matter of debate, but I think we've been off-topic long enough.

Edit: Really? I can't write ****s? Okay.  The National Socialist German Workers' Party.

Modifié par drahelvete, 29 janvier 2011 - 02:29 .

[moilami]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

moilami wrote...

Now you are sarcastically supposing that I would had been trying to convince you - and again I can say it is not true for I have next to zero interest to discuss with you much less convince anything to you.

(I have told you before you are in my "blocked" list, and that means I have no interest to discuss with you. Got a clue?)

If you aren't interested in having a discussion with me then don't use my name as preface to your nonsense.  And it may be stereotyping but it's really hard for me to take a guy who has two naked female toons in his player profile and writes Isabela as a giggling schoolgirl in childish, self-indulgent vignettes as some kind of master of rhetoric. 

But hey, I'll definitely respect your wishes to stay away from you on the forums from now on.  That I've got no problem with.

Hahahaha, now you at least managed to make me laugh! Well done! I am very surprised.

(And that giggling schoolgirl is completely your interpretion, which makes me laugh even more, and I can wonder does it tell more of you or of your intentions regarding me, or both. I hope it doesn't tell more of you - but I can be wrong.)

[Sharn01]

While I like a good debate this has gotten out of hand.

[Big Blue Car]

Edit /\\ /\\ yeah god theres blood everywhere from the fighting

Arguing that the chantry are monsters you really can't be wrong.

Modifié par Big Blue Car, 29 janvier 2011 - 02:32 .

[moilami]

Big Blue Car wrote...

Edit /\\\\ /\\\\ yeah god theres blood everywhere from the fighting

Arguing that the chantry are monsters you really can't be wrong.

Well yeah, and the thing is they don't realize it themselves at all. They give very little respect to mages regarding human rights. Also Dalish Elves has suffered because of them, of that I don't know who started it though. All this while they are very convinced they are doing the right thing. In a way they are worse than those who know they are doing bad things because if you know you are doing it wrong when you do what chantry does, then you at least admit your victims are people equal to you so to say and you have at lest some some, hmm, healthy moral.

This is awesome how the devs has managed to build this scenario to be so very convincing that mages are treated just as they should. People take it as offered and shown never questioning a thing. Of that I don't know what to think. Or maybe I know, it is like no news here. But that just makes it even more "disturbing" or mind challenging or something. Could it be so that chantry's policy is right? Are mages really so dangerous? That has put people to think, me included, but I would anytime take the risk and live in a world where mages are free just because it would feel more right to fight for justice than to fight for injustice. If I would die in a free world because of mages, I would at least know I fought for the right thing.

[LobselVith8]

earl of the north wrote...

They went from confinement in the Chantry (which I know I read somewhere) where they totally controlled to semi-controlled under their own leadership, which is a step up......total freedom? Not even close but they got the freedom to live outside of direct Chantry control and to be more than fire lighters and rafter sweepers.

Mages have no freedom. They aren't semi-free by any measure. They're living in a prison with no rights to contest if they're given the Rite of Tranquility or outright murdered because they're accused of being maleficarum - and even the First Enchanter has no say in the matter or required to oversee the evidence in question (Magi Origin). Even the Magi boon is turned down not by the First Enchanter, but by the Chantry - because they control all the Circles throughout Thedas (except for Tevinter).

earl of the north wrote...

The Chantry in Orlais is the head of the Chantry, so we can assume it spread quickly, in the same way that later the circles started with Orlais.....as for the drivers license , last time I checked templar didn't come round to kill you for driving without a license.

It spread because the first Orlesian Emperor started Exalted Marches and forced a particular Cult of Andraste as "the truth" all over Thedas. That's why mages are now living in prisons with no rights with drug addicts as their watchdogs, and templars can apparently murder on suspicion of being a mage: the templars murdered the Magnificent D'Sims under the (false) assumption that he was a mage who was healing people.

earl of the north wrote...

We know from game lore that most chantry members seem to live in Chantries much like monasteries and cloisters and that both the Chantry,Templars and Mages seem to follow this system.  Its simple logic that when Mages were brought under Chantry control, that they were actually brought into the Chantries, where the power of the Chantry actually is and we KNOW that the were only allowed to practice magic in the Chantries. So this was the beginning of their confinement, which would be cemented when they traded away their personal freedoms for the communal rights they gained as part of the circle of magi.

There's no entry that even implies that mages were forced to live in a cathedral. The codex History of the Circle makes it clear that mages were segregated because they held a nonviolent protest in a cathedral.

[Sir JK]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Mages have no freedom. They aren't semi-free by any measure. They're living in a prison with no rights to contest if they're given the Rite of Tranquility or outright murdered because they're accused of being maleficarum - and even the First Enchanter has no say in the matter or required to oversee the evidence in question (Magi Origin). Even the Magi boon is turned down not by the First Enchanter, but by the Chantry - because they control all the Circles throughout Thedas (except for Tevinter).

They have some rights though. No many, but some. Within the tower, assuming the templars don't find any evidence on them and they follow the rules, they have the right to live, the right to eat, the right of a roof over their head, the right to develop their powers, the right to choose their own field of study, the right to themselves dictate what they will do and the right to express a political opinion, even Libertarian ones.
Granted, if the templars see them as a threat they have nothing protecting them and they have no freedom to leave the tower.
But some rights they do have. Not enough, but definantely more than no rights.

It spread because the first Orlesian Emperor started Exalted Marches and forced a particular Cult of Andraste as "the truth" all over Thedas.

Actually... Drakon just established the Andrastian Chantry as statereligion in Orlais (then including the Anderfels and Nevarra+Kirkwall-area). It was the Grey Wardens that spread the religion outside of Orlais. It took almost a hundred years after that before the first "modern" (as opposed to Andraste's namesake) Exalted March. Drakon was long dead and the Orlesian empire crumbled to little more than it's modern borders (excluding the Dales) by the time the first real Exalted March kicked off.

There's no entry that even implies that mages were forced to live in a cathedral. The codex History of the Circle makes it clear that mages were segregated because they held a nonviolent protest in a cathedral.

It is however clear they were not allowed to do any magic beyond what the Chantry said and that they were not allowed to do anything but be the janitors of the Cathedral prior to the creation of the circles.

Also, I object the use of the word because and suggest using following instead. The entry does not say it was specifically because of their non-violent protest. Just following it.

Also... is it just me that sees the irony in that the circles were created after the mages "locked themselves up".

[earl of the north]

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

[quote]earl of the north wrote...

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

[quote]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.
[/quote]

Still utter nonsense, and still not what I wrote.
[/quote]

It really is but if you want to retract it then feel free....[/quote]


Feel free to be produce any dictionary that agrees with you that the word confinement means "not permitted to live with mundanes"......you took my words and span an totally different meaning that was actually the opposite of what was written. I said that "it was the beginning of their confinement" (by the Chantry).



[quote]

[quote]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[/quote]

[quote]
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".
[/quote]
[quote]
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[/quote]

[/quote]
[/quote]


The majority of Chantry members appear to live in Chantry or government buildings do they not?

But mages apparently, (despite being later confined to the tower.....where they actually live with mudanes, Templars and Clerics) when they were being put under control of the Chantry were allowed to live free, running and skipping through the trees after getting one of your "Chantry Mage Magic Licenses", after promising not to use magic.

Please Cite anything that says that mages were free pre-circle......they could only work MAGIC within the Chantry, nowhere else within Orlais legally and the Chantry had that force of newly minted Templars (ex-Inquisitors) to enforce the new rule. Does it say anywhere in lore that the Chantry had to pay them for this work, if so please cite that as well.

Weirdly I find myself fighting the pro-mage side to prove the mages were oppressed by the Chantry even before the existence of the circles.

Modifié par earl of the north, 29 janvier 2011 - 09:36 .

[earl of the north]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Mages have no freedom. They aren't semi-free by any measure. They're living in a prison with no rights to contest if they're given the Rite of Tranquility

Doesn't the circle choose who gets tranquiled, is there any mention of the Templars or the Chantry tranquiling anybody?

If the Circle of Magi finds a mage too weak of will to survive the threat of demonic possession, making them Tranquil is considered an act of kindness.

From the wiki, the circle of magi entry.

Modifié par earl of the north, 29 janvier 2011 - 09:52 .

[earl of the north]

LobselVith8 wrote...

It spread because the first Orlesian Emperor started Exalted Marches and forced a particular Cult of Andraste as "the truth" all over Thedas.

According to the legend dealing with the creation of Fereldan, the Fereldan circle of magi predates the formal establishment of the Chantry within Fereldan.

In a time when the Chantry was still new to the lands and courts following Andraste held the majority of the power in Ferelden, Calenhad began to solidify the nation as one in line with the other nations around it. This piety eventually won over to Calenhad those faithful in Ferelden who had been waiting for such a leader.

With Lady Shayna at his side, Calenhad was unstoppable, and by 5:42 Exalted, the war for Ferelden had come down to one final battle against the collected forces of Simeon, Teyrn of Denerim and the most potent nobleman in the land. Calenhad persuaded the Circle of Magi to come to his aid, as well as the Ash Warriors, and in the Battle of White Valley, he famously defeated Teyrn Simeon and united the nation.

The Legend of Calenhad, Chapter 2

So in Fereldan at least, the Circle of Magi pre-existed the formation of the country......apparently the circle existed in the tower from 3.87 Towers.

Modifié par earl of the north, 29 janvier 2011 - 09:35 .

[earl of the north]

Sir JK wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Mages have no freedom. They aren't semi-free by any measure. They're living in a prison with no rights to contest if they're given the Rite of Tranquility or outright murdered because they're accused of being maleficarum - and even the First Enchanter has no say in the matter or required to oversee the evidence in question (Magi Origin). Even the Magi boon is turned down not by the First Enchanter, but by the Chantry - because they control all the Circles throughout Thedas (except for Tevinter).

They have some rights though. No many, but some. Within the tower, assuming the templars don't find any evidence on them and they follow the rules, they have the right to live, the right to eat, the right of a roof over their head, the right to develop their powers, the right to choose their own field of study, the right to themselves dictate what they will do and the right to express a political opinion, even Libertarian ones.
Granted, if the templars see them as a threat they have nothing protecting them and they have no freedom to leave the tower.
But some rights they do have. Not enough, but definantely more than no rights.

Exactly.

[Sir JK]

earl of the north wrote...
Doesn't the circle choose who gets tranquiled, is there any mention of the Templars or the Chantry tranquiling anybody?

This is the tricky part... the Hierarchy of the circle codex entry says it is the First Enchanter who decides which apprentices that are raised to mages (through the Harrowing)... but Jowan's tranquilisation order was signed by Gregoir. But that could have been due to suspected Blood Magic...

Perhaps both First Enchanter and Knight-Commander both can choose that? The Knight-Commander have the right if "circle security is threatened" but if a mage is deemed unworthy it is the First Enchanter that chooses?