1283 réponses à ce sujet

[falconlord5]

the_one_54321 wrote...

What if the sentient fish also posed significant threat to us? We are in no way beholden to any other thing in so far as there isn't some for of benefit for ourselves.
I would have been more impressed by the argument that misstreating the mages may lead them to declare war in us.

Yes, we are. If someone declares war on us, fine. Defend ourselves. But slavery, kidnapping, and execution without trial are inexecusable, even in a time of war.

However, to your second point: I would've thought that so obvious as to not need to be stated.

[upsettingshorts]

Morroian wrote...

Is that really necessary angrypants?

Is it necessary to occasionally put an opinion or argument in perspective?  Sure is.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 février 2011 - 04:38 .

[IanPolaris]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Is that really necessary angrypants?

Is it necessary to occasionally put an opinion or argument in perspective?  Sure is.

That was an open personal attack, not an attempt to put an opinion or argument in perspsective.  Enough said.

-Polaris

[Dave of Canada]

IanPolaris wrote...

That was an open personal attack, not an attempt to put an opinion or argument in perspsective.  Enough said.

-Polaris

*cough*

[upsettingshorts]

IanPolaris wrote...

That was an open personal attack, not an attempt to put an opinion or argument in perspsective.  Enough said.

-Polaris

Your intrepretations - as your posts on this subject make infinitely clear - are your own.  I'll just go back to supporting Dave and his "bigotry,"  Mister Kettle.  Or are you Pot?  I've forgotten.

Anyway I hope you win your final victory and convince everyone of the righteousness of your - excuse me, the mages of Thedas - cause.  I'm getting on the chopper.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 février 2011 - 04:46 .

[IanPolaris]

Dave of Canada wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

That was an open personal attack, not an attempt to put an opinion or argument in perspsective.  Enough said.

-Polaris

*cough*

Nope.  I never called anyone names nor did I single out specific posters.  The position supporting the chanty can justifiably be called 'bigotry' and several posters were supporting it.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

That was an open personal attack, not an attempt to put an opinion or argument in perspsective.  Enough said.

-Polaris

Your intrepretations - as your posts on this subject make infinitely clear - are your own.  I'll just go back to supporting Dave and his "bigotry,"  Mister Kettle.  Or are you Pot?

Hope you win your final victory and convince everyone of the righteousness of your - excuse me, the mages of Thedas - cause.  I'm getting on the chopper.

You singled me out for a personal attack.  That makes all the difference.  I did not.  I suggest you calm down and consider what you've posted just now.

-Polaris

[Dave of Canada]

IanPolaris wrote...

Nope.  I never called anyone names nor did I single out specific posters.  The position supporting the chanty can justifiably be called 'bigotry' and several posters were supporting it.

-Polaris

I wish this logic applied to everybody, but alas it applies simply to you. I'd have fun with it, the things I'd call people... *daydreams*

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 10 février 2011 - 04:49 .

[IanPolaris]

Dave of Canada wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Nope.  I never called anyone names nor did I single out specific posters.  The position supporting the chanty can justifiably be called 'bigotry' and several posters were supporting it.

-Polaris

I wish this logic applied to everybody, but alas it applies simply to you. I'd have fun with it, the things I'd call people... *daydreams*

It does apply to everyone.  There is a difference between talking in generalities about something that is topical abeit perhaps in a harsh rhetorical tone, and singling out another poster for a personal attack with no topical content.  Regardless, I've wasted enough time on this and it's not topical.  If you disagree with me, you have the same procedures that I do.

-Polaris

[Dave of Canada]

IanPolaris wrote...

It does apply to everyone.  There is a difference between talking in generalities about something that is topical abeit perhaps in a harsh rhetorical tone, and singling out another poster for a personal attack with no topical content.

-Polaris

When you're arguing with people and you tell them their opinion is bigoted, that doesn't leave much room for intepretation. It's like arguing with somebody and saying their opinion is stupid and turning around saying "but I didn't call you stupid!".

Upsetting's comment is just more upfront instead of pretending it wasn't supposed to be insulting.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 10 février 2011 - 04:54 .

[mellifera]

I don't really care a lick about what is going on here, I was called by the siren song of the Chest Hair.

[bsbcaer]

IanPolaris wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

but there is no evidence that mages are a significant threat simply by being in society.  None.

There is none when you refuse to see it and dismiss everything that does oppose your view point as chantry propaganda or exaggerations.

I have done no such thing. My demand today (since we know the Templars predate the Circle Tower system) is the same as it's always been.  SHOW NOT TELL.  If abominations are that big a threat, then surely we can compare the number of abomination incidents and severity before the circle tower system as opposed to afterwards.  How about the abomination rate in non-tower societes?

If you are going to claim that such a regressive system is needed, you need to prove it, and Bioware (or the Chantry) hasn't come close.

-Polaris

Isn't one enough?

[IanPolaris]

Dave of Canada wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

It does apply to everyone.  There is a difference between talking in generalities about something that is topical abeit perhaps in a harsh rhetorical tone, and singling out another poster for a personal attack with no topical content.

-Polaris

When you're arguing with people and you tell them their opinion is bigoted, that doesn't leave much room for intepretation. It's like arguing with somebody and saying their opinion is stupid and turning around saying "but I didn't call you stupid!".

Upsetting's comment is just more upfront instead of pretending it wasn't supposed to be insulting.

I said that a number of posters were supoprting bigotry and a very strong case can be made for that position vis a vis the Circle Tower since the social impetus does largely seem to be from (Chantry dervived) fear of magic.  I never called a single poster any name nor in that post did I single anyone out, and that post was actually topical.

What someone else did was a direct, content free personal attack.  That's over the line.  Enough said.

-Polaris

[falconlord5]

Dave of Canada wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

It does apply to everyone.  There is a difference between talking in generalities about something that is topical abeit perhaps in a harsh rhetorical tone, and singling out another poster for a personal attack with no topical content.

-Polaris

When you're arguing with people and you tell them their opinion is bigoted, that doesn't leave much room for intepretation. It's like arguing with somebody and saying their opinion is stupid and turning around saying "but I didn't call you stupid!".

Upsetting's comment is just more upfront instead of pretending it wasn't supposed to be insulting.

When you support bigotry and instutionalized slavery (and, in it's current form, that is what the Templar system is), you open yourself up to such.

Or, as university professors tell me whenever they destroy my arguments, don't like the counter argument? Change your position.

[IanPolaris]

bsbcaer wrote...

Isn't one enough?

Actually no.  We know that the circle tower system has caused at least two (arguably three) abominations outside the circle that we know about, and we know that the circle tower system doesn't even work to get all mages in the towers to start with (see Baroness). 

So you need to show that the circle system is a provable improvement over what happened before, and no one has come close to showing that.

-Polaris

[upsettingshorts]

IanPolaris wrote...

What someone else did was a direct, content free personal attack.  That's over the line.  Enough said.

You ignored the content, or you might have responded explaining why you give a damn about this issue so much, why your position matters so much to you, or how my comparison of your position to revolutionaries who will never negotiate, never surrender, and always be around (since I've never once seen you post on a different topic) is an inaccurate one.

Learning these things about you might help me understand your position.  Or it might solidify my theory that I believe you "endorse an idiotic position."  Which by your own standard... isn't a personal attack.

falconlord5 wrote...

When you support bigotry and instutionalized slavery (and, in it's current form, that is what the Templar system is), you open yourself up to such.

No it isn't.  And no he doesn't.  Not when we're talking about fiction and a world with different rules, stakes, and consequences.

But I'm not interested in arguing with IanPolaris.  He isn't interested in negotiaton, only total victory.  The smart play would be to ignore him and let him believe what he wants... kinda like Vietnam.  But I'm a flawed person, the idea of demanding everyone - in every thread about it, and only those threads - endorse black or white as opposed to embracing the conflict generated by their contrast in a fictional world designed for entertainment strikes me as lunacy.

If that's a personal attack, then well - "if you don't like the counter-argument, change your position. "

falconlord5 wrote...

Or, as university professors tell me whenever they destroy my arguments, don't like the counter argument? Change your position.

University professors are wrong all the time. Their position is evidence of education and patience, not necessarily
wisdom or intelligence.  If this wasn't true, they'd all agree on everything because they'd all always be right.  And academia isn't anything like that.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 février 2011 - 05:10 .

[1xs3thx1]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

IanPolaris is a one-issue poster Dave, I'm pretty sure he ain't letting this one go.

It's
kinda like Vietnam in a way in that he lives here and we don't.
Eventually we're going to leave. He'll still be here. And then
there'll be memorable footage of us and others clinging to the last
chopper out of Saig... Chantry/Mage threads.

IanPolaris wrote...

I said that a number of posters were supoprting bigotry and a very strong case can be made for that position vis a vis the Circle Tower since the social impetus does largely seem to be from (Chantry dervived) fear of magic.  I never called a single poster any name nor in that post did I single anyone out, and that post was actually topical.

What someone else did was a direct, content free personal attack.  That's over the line.  Enough said.

-Polaris

Excuse me, but how is what is in bold a personal attack?

He is using an analogy to depict what he believes your stature in this argument is. He is not directly calling you anything, apart from an one issue poster. That is hardly a personal attack, that is merely describing you to Dave of Canada. He wasn't even talking to you.

To use another analogy, could I attack you by telling someone I think you're overweight? No, that's called voicing my opinion of you to another person, regardless of whether or not you are in my presence.

[LobselVith8]

Dave of Canada wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

but there is no evidence that mages are a significant threat simply by being in society.  None.

There is none when you refuse to see it and dismiss everything that does oppose your view point as chantry propaganda or exaggerations.

I think the position is more about why the Chantry is doing it, rather than whether there's any danger to magic. Nobody here is arguing against mages being properly trained to use their abilities, but we have a system in place where mages have no rights and are under supervision from armored soldiers who are addicted to a drug. Caroll ("the Queen of Antiva") is an example of a lyrium addict still working as an active templar, after all.

As the Warden (and I'd assume as Hawke) we have the right to interpret the world as we see fit. The Warden from the Circle of Magi can refer to it as an "oppressive place" after her conversation with Aneirin, state that he figured all templars enjoyed killing mages, call out against Jowan being given the Rite of Tranquility when Irving hasn't even seen the evidence against him, call the Circle a prison in convo with Wynne (as the VO for the Magi Origin also does), and we can basically illustrate what we think of the Chantry controlled Circles by asking the ruier of Ferelden to give the mages of the nation their independence:

Anora: "Is there any boon you might request of Ferelden's queen?"

Warden: "I ask that the Circle of Magi be given its independence."

Anora: "I doubt the Chantry will agree, but you have an excellent point. Let it be known that Ferelden's mages have earned the right to watch over themselves. The tower shall be restored and returned to the Circle."

It's something that clearly carries weight with Irving when the Warden converses with him, as he admits: "I must thank you, however, for freeing the Circle from our shackles. That was most unexpected, indeed! You could have asked for anything." I answered, "I did what I thought was right," and he further commented: "Most would have asked for wealth, or power. Thank you. This is a gift we will not abuse."

Clearly, we're allowed to demonstrate that we don't find the Chantry controlled Circles suitable by asking for the mages to be emancipated from them. We can continue to support this when we speak with Wynne in Awakening, where she admits her concern that the Chantry would rather kill the mages than see them free. That's not the kind of system that mages should be controlled by.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 10 février 2011 - 05:07 .

[falconlord5]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

falconlord5 wrote...

When you support bigotry and
instutionalized slavery (and, in it's current form, that is what the
Templar system is), you open yourself up to such.

No it
isn't.  And no he doesn't.  Not when we're talking about fiction and a
world with different rules, stakes, and consequences.

But I'm not interested in arguing with IanPolaris.  He isn't interested in negotiaton, only total victory.  The smart play would be to ignore him.  But I'm a flawed person.

When you provoke a troll, and the troll hits you, don't blame the troll.

falconlord5 wrote...

Or,
as university professors tell me whenever they destroy my arguments,
don't like the counter argument? Change your position.

University professors are wrong all the time. 
Their position is evidence of education and patience, not necessarily
wisdom or intelligence.  If this wasn't true, they'd all agree on
everything because they'd all always be right.  And academia isn't anything like that.

Beautiful logic. Except it ignores point of view, new evidence, interpretation, quality of argument, and so and so forth.

Or, as another professor put it, there is no right or wrong answer in academia. There is only the better answer. And anything that leaves you open to accusations of bigotry and supporting slavery, is clearly the weaker answer.

The strongest answer here would be to continue to educate the mages, but without threatening to kill them at the end. Keep the Templars though, just in case something goes wrong. Or need canon fodder against the Darkspawn.

Modifié par falconlord5, 10 février 2011 - 05:12 .

[Dave of Canada]

falconlord5 wrote...

Or, as university professors tell me whenever they destroy my arguments, don't like the counter argument? Change your position.

When somebody is called on supporting slavery and bigotry over a game, he's taking it a little bit more than serious there, bucko. It isn't a counter argument because I don't support slavery and bigotry, I support the institutionalization of mages for their own good and the good of the people of Thedas.

Though instead of actually, you know, using real arguments he had to drag in real life terms into the discussion where current morals and human rights aren't present as if they are supposed to shut down my arguments. We're not dealing with a real setting here, we're dealing with fantasy and if somebody is called a bigot for their position then the discussion is worse than Godwin'd.

Answer me this, friend. How am I supposed to take the guy seriously half the time?

And I don't really care at all what your university professors think, bring your own thoughts into it.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 10 février 2011 - 05:14 .

[1xs3thx1]

falconlord5 wrote...

Or, as another professor put it, there is no right or wrong answer in academia. There is only the better answer. And anything that leaves you open to accusations of bigotry and supporting slavery, is clearly the weaker answer.

Anything can leave one open for accusations of any kind. If I said anything at all, someone could accuse me of wanting a slave. It may or may not be relevant, and they may or may not have an argument to back it up that is relevant, but the accusation is still a possiblity.

To be more supportive of your argument though, if we were having an argument over slavery, one could accuse anything I said, if I was the one going against your views, to be in support of slavery. As I said before, it may or may not hold up in the debate for more than ten seconds, it may or may not be relevant, but the possiblity will always be there. That leads me to believe you think the stronger argument is the one where the opposing person doesn't think of accusing one of slavery, which means that a stronger argument could consist entirely of evasive manuevers that lead away from the general topic of slavery into something similar, and eventually into something else entirely.

[LobselVith8]

Morroian wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

What if the sentient fish also posed significant threat to us? We are in no way beholden to any other thing in so far as there isn't some for of benefit for ourselves.
I would have been more impressed by the argument that misstreating the mages may lead them to declare war in us.

I think there's a threat beyond just the abomination issue but there are alternatives to policing that threat that aren't so oppressive. Most of the pro-mage people don't want absolute de-regulation just a different form of regulation.

The problem seems to be that the Chantry isn't going to relent on their conrol of the mages, and mages don't want to be oppressed under their system. It's an inevitable war waiting to happen (which seems to be supported by the trailer). It seems like Hawke would be given the choice between siding with the templars or siding with the mages.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Is that really necessary angrypants?

Is it necessary to occasionally put an opinion or argument in perspective?  Sure is.

I think it's valid to question how necessary imprisoning mages is when we see from the history of the Chantry's own scholars that their segregation and imprisonment didn't happen because of their magical abilities or blood magic, or even abominations, but a protest they held over their lack of rights under the Chantry. Even the inception of the Circle under Emperor Drakon was due to his religious beliefs in a Cult of Andraste that he made the formal religion of his Empire.

[IanPolaris]

1xs3thx1 wrote...

Excuse me, but how is what is in bold a personal attack?

Simple.  He is directly attacking me and my character and doing so in a way that doesn't contain any topical material.  Seems like a personal attack to me.  By contrast I was noting that a group of posers (who I did NOT distinquish individually) were supporting bigotry, and that is a jusifiable and defensible characterization of the Circle Tower System.  See the difference?

-Polaris

[upsettingshorts]

falconlord5 wrote...

Beautiful logic. Except it ignores point of view, new evidence, interpretation, quality of argument, and so and so forth.

My actual position on the issue of the Chantry/Mages attempts to account for these things within the limits of my exposure to the lore.  

falconlord5 wrote...

Or, as another professor put it, there is no right or wrong answer in academia.

There is no right answer - only a series of positive ones, sure - I'll buy that.  But there are a hell of a lot of wrong answers.

falconlord5 wrote...

The strongest answer here would be to continue to educate the mages, but without threatening to kill them at the end. Keep the Templars though, just in case something goes wrong. Or need canon fodder against the Darkspawn.

That might be the strongest answer from a certain point of view, given certain evidence, your interpretation, and the quality of the arguments presented to you through the game.  I may or may not disagree.

[falconlord5]

Dave of Canada wrote...

falconlord5 wrote...

Or, as university professors tell me whenever they destroy my arguments, don't like the counter argument? Change your position.

When somebody is called on supporting slavery and bigotry over a game, he's taking it a little bit more than serious there, bucko. It isn't a counter argument because I don't support slavery and bigotry, I support the institutionalization of mages for their own good and the good of the people of Thedas.

Though instead of actually, you know, using real arguments he had to drag in real life terms into the discussion where current morals and human rights aren't present as if they are supposed to shut down my arguments. We're not dealing with a real setting here, we're dealing with fantasy and if somebody is called a bigot for their position then the discussion is worse than Godwin'd.

Answer me this, friend. How am I supposed to take the guy seriously half the time?

You aren't. We're all trolls here, by simple fact that we are posting on the internet. Recognize the pointlessness of your arguments, and you'll do just fine.

Further, human rights do exist in Thedas. Slavery was outlawed, remember? The whole big meeting that Wynne was going to, to discuss the future of the relationship between the Mages and the Templars, with many arguing for their freedom? Loghain's whole bent against the Orlesians who 'enslaved us for a century"?

It's in its infancy, to be sure. But it's there.