57020 réponses à ce sujet

[Eydris Ivo]

RinjiRenee wrote...

Lucy_Glitter wrote...

And to add:

ter·ror·ism   
[ter-uh-riz-uhm]
–noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

To avoid calling him a terrorist is like avoiding calling two slices of bread with edible content in them a sandwich.

Mmm.  Definition of terrorism make sense with sandwich analogy.

*is going to get too fat for robes here pretty soon with all this talk*

Objectifying Anders with sandwiches is my new favorite pasttime.

Let's open up a Anderswich shop Rinji.
.

[upsettingshorts]

SidheKate wrote...

Terrorist: "a radical who employs terror as a political weapon.

This is precisely what Anders did.

SidheKate wrote...

" Terrorism: "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion."

This is precisely what Meredith did.  State terrorism, basically.

Though I'd dispute either of these definitions as being all that accurate.

SidheKate wrote...

He was one of the people that broke the stalemate and began the inevitable war. 

Break a statemate and start a war ?  That's by definition political action.  War is an extension of politics through other means.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 24 mars 2011 - 08:00 .

[Kawamura]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Kawamura wrote...

Yes, because the word is that simple. 

It is.

It's not.

[Anarya]

I think he certainly qualifies as a terrorist but again, the term is loaded with uncomfortable baggage after a decade of "the War on Terror". You just kind of don't want to go there, mentally.

Incidentally I think the thematic parallels between the story and the events of the past 10+ years are why a lot of people don't like the story.

[Lucy Glitter]

Kawamura wrote...

Yes, because the word is that simple.

He committed an act that is defined. It is simple. Don't bring real life emotional baggage into this, it is simple. It's not about how they felt, it's about what they did. Anders did commit an act of terrorism.

SidheKate wrote...
I'm sorry, I know I should just let this die so we can get back to more [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/love.png[/smilie] conversation, but I've just about had it with people calling the destruction of the Chantry an act of terrorism.  

Terrorist: "a radical who employs terror as a political weapon." Terrorism: "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion."

He was one of the people that broke the stalemate and began the inevitable war.  It. Was. Not. To. Create. Terror.

/rant

An intention does not render an act changed of what it is. Just because he didn't want to create terror doesn't mean he did it anyway. 

Did you miss the part where he committed mass murder?

[Rinji the Bearded]

Rheia1234 wrote...

RinjiRenee wrote...

Lucy_Glitter wrote...

And to add:

ter·ror·ism   
[ter-uh-riz-uhm]
–noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

To avoid calling him a terrorist is like avoiding calling two slices of bread with edible content in them a sandwich.

Mmm.  Definition of terrorism make sense with sandwich analogy.

*is going to get too fat for robes here pretty soon with all this talk*

Objectifying Anders with sandwiches is my new favorite pasttime.

Let's open up a Anderswich shop Rinji.
.

Anderswich not for sale.

[Ryzaki]

Yeah Anders is a terrorist. 

And sometimes terrorists are necessary.

So what?

I'd blew up the Chantry myself if he would've given me the trigger. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 24 mars 2011 - 08:02 .

[Magaloo]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Terrorism can be "a grim necessity."  It can also be totally abhorrent.  Granted in this specific case (the WW2 thing, not Anders) it not only didn't work, it backfired.  

We dont know yet if it will backfire in the case of Anders. It may create even more injustice and pain to the mages.  it could also free them and then bring more injustice and pain to the populace like it did in Tevinter.  History is written by the victors so we will see how Anders is perceived in the next game hopefuly.

[upsettingshorts]

Kawamura wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

Kawamura wrote...

Yes, because the word is that simple. 

It is.

It's not.

It's only a loaded term to people who are too ignorant to grasp broader perspectives and/or centuries of historical context.  Don't feel too bad though, I just described most people.

Objectively, the word and its definition are that simple.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 24 mars 2011 - 08:04 .

[AtreiyaN7]

Sialater wrote...

EnchantedEyes1 wrote...

Miri1984 wrote...

Um... Towim on DevArt has done something... AMAZING... it's not NSFW, but only JUST. Um... I'll link just in case, but DAYUM, it's made my rather hideous morning worth living in:

Bashful

*minimizing screen at work*

Oh WOW!

*fans self*

Why do I torture myself at work?

Makes the workday go by faster?

The great thing about telecommuting: I can hypothetically stare at that picture all day long without getting in trouble for it - muahaha!

[Kawamura]

Lucy_Glitter wrote...

He committed an act that is defined. It is simple. Don't bring real life emotional baggage into this, it is simple. It's not about how they felt, it's about what they did. Anders did commit an act of terrorism.

Words do not exist in vacuums, do they?  You are the final decider on where a definition ends? On what can be included?

Then sure. If you have control of the word, he can be whatever you want him to be. Just do not assume that your word is the same as my word.

[LastFadingSmile]

 Here's a song to break the tension  




We're too old to worry
About who's wrong and who is right
It's all so by and by

People need a villain
Someone to pay the price
It keeps them satisfied

[Kawamura]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Kawamura wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

Kawamura wrote...

Yes, because the word is that simple. 

It is.

It's not.

It's only a loaded term to people who are too ignorant to grasp broader perspectives.  Don't feel too bad though, I just described most people.

Objectively, the word and its definition are that simple.

I ... what? 

When did languge become objective? I must have missed that memo.

[Cutlasskiwi]

Lucy_Glitter wrote...

Just came in to add my 2 pence.

Props to the writers for making conjuring such emotions in me when Anders did what he did. I officially hate him, and I think I will be executing him every playthrough. Shame, for I was planning to romance him next playthrough, but now that won't be happening. Or it might, but I will have to kill him and that would be difficult. Who knew Anders to be a terrorist? It's so sad... if only we could have saved him from Justice.

Anyway, that's all, really. A true shame Anders had come to that.

I agree with this. I figured that after Isabela and the relic nothing a companion did could surprise me as much at that. I did not see it coming and it really took me by surprise. I knew that he would be different from Anders in Awakenings and I should avoid comparing the two but I can't help it. And in the end I walked away disappointed in the character.

But I can't deny that BioWare did a great job drawing emotions from that quest even though it made me dislike the character. 

[Lady Dino]

I just found this and wanted to share. It's so cute!

Hawke 'n Anders

Modifié par Lady Dino, 24 mars 2011 - 08:06 .

[marquiseondore]

I view Anders's act as an assassination since it was the Grand Cleric that was his target.

[upsettingshorts]

Kawamura wrote...

I I must have missed that memo.

Apparently so.  Terrorism has existed for centuries, been used by "heroes" and "villains" alike.  Mature people with broad perspectives can use it objectively.  Those who cannot disassociate it from their own negative personal experience and utilize it strictly as a pejorative lack the knowledge or experience of the topic to do so.  

Hell I feel the same way about lots of stuff.  Especially things I don't research or take an active interest in.  We can't all know everything.

However personally this is not one of those subjects for me.

marquiseondore wrote...

I view Anders's act as an assassination since it was the Grand Cleric that was his target.

Eh, yes and no.  Yes that if he only meant to kill her and only killed her that would be assassination. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 24 mars 2011 - 08:09 .

[Rinji the Bearded]

Add this to the playlist, too.

Okay I'm stopping, LOL.

[nyxocity]

....

Was someone talking...?

Modifié par thenyxie, 24 mars 2011 - 08:12 .

[Kawamura]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Kawamura wrote...

I I must have missed that memo.

Apparently so.  Terrorism has existed for centuries, been used by "heroes" and "villains" alike.  Mature people with broad perspectives can use it objectively.  Those who cannot disassociate it from their own negative personal experience and utilize it strictly as a pejorative lack the knowledge or experience of the topic to do so.  

Hell I feel the same way about lots of stuff.  Especially things I don't research or take an active interest in.  We can't all know everything.

However personally this is not one of those subjects for me.

Huh.

No language I've ever spoken has been objective. I ... would not think English to be the one.

Would not ignoring the flavours of a word and the cultural impact it has be its own form of ignrance? I would consider it to be a lack of knowledge and experience.

Modifié par Kawamura, 24 mars 2011 - 08:09 .

[LastFadingSmile]

RinjiRenee wrote...

Add this to the playlist, too.

Okay I'm stopping, LOL.

Oh god. Please, don't ever! HAHAHA

[SurelyForth]

Lucy_Glitter wrote...

And to add:

ter·ror·ism   
[ter-uh-riz-uhm]
–noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

To avoid calling him a terrorist is like avoiding calling two slices of bread with edible content in them a sandwich.

I'd argue that he really doesn't explode the Chantry for any of those reasons. He doesn't want to intimidate or coerce people to his side, nor does he want to spread fear or seek power. He wanted to break a stalemate that was already reaching a point where people on both sides were dying and for stupid, stupid reasons (Best Served Cold quest, for example).

I can concede that he is resisting a government.

However, does anyone actually think that the situation in Kirkwall was ever going to be resolved without anything short of an Exalted March? Granted, it was Meredith's sword that was driving her mad, but the fact remains that she was definitely exacerbating a terrible situation and not even small measures were being made to get things under control. From what I understand, the Divine was completely willing to raze the entire city because of the mages rebellion and the general unrest. Kirkwall was always damned, but I can see a future for it worst than the one Anders created.

Modifié par SurelyForth, 24 mars 2011 - 08:14 .

[mesmerizedish]

Kawamura wrote...

When did languge become objective?

1806

Actually, though, dictionaries have existed for millenia. So, language was probably always objective.

[upsettingshorts]

Kawamura wrote...

No language I've ever spoken has been objective.

Would not ignoring the flavours of a word and the cultural impact it has be its own form of ignrance? I would consider it to be a lack of knowledge and experience.

Whatever makes you feel better.  Though if you're going to make up terms to describe what Anders did for the sole reason that it makes you feel better - that word terrorism sure is used as an unsavory perjorative - then I am powerless to stop you.  If your standard of what terms mean includes subjective and temporary connoctations then I'm not going to change your mind by pointing out that this is absurd.

You're doing a disservice to the tragedy and implications of the narrative by doing so, however. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 24 mars 2011 - 08:13 .

[marquiseondore]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

marquiseondore wrote...

I view Anders's act as an assassination since it was the Grand Cleric that was his target.

Eh, yes and no.  Yes that if he only meant to kill her and only killed her that would be assassination. 

I can't speak for the writers or why the act had to include the entire Chantry.  There could be many reasons, all of which point that the "Chantry" could not be used as means to further ignore the issue.

Modifié par marquiseondore, 24 mars 2011 - 08:15 .