57020 réponses à ce sujet

[marquiseondore]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Kawamura wrote...

When did languge become objective?

1806

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

I blame Samuel Johnson

[nyxocity]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

That's all perspective. She gets to view the game however she chooses, just like you do. I don't see that anyone is going to change their mind here.

Modifié par thenyxie, 24 mars 2011 - 08:17 .

[Kawamura]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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 does have some unsavory connoctations, of course it does - then I am powerless to stop you.

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

Hey, you're the one coming at me with very strong statements. For one thing, that language is objective. That one... I am not at all comfortable saying. It also makes me uncomfortable that you can tell me, straight off, that I am completely incorrect and that people who are incapable of seperating a word from it's definition and it's other stuff are lacking experience and knowledge.

Did that not seem rather arrogant to you? Why is your idea correct absolutely and mine not? 

I didn't make up terms, if I remember correctly. But I might have. I have a bad memory.

[upsettingshorts]

SurelyForth wrote...

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 intimidate and coerce people to taking a side through politically motivated violence. 

And again the idea that his cause was potentially just, or the resulting war likely inevitable are part of another debate.  They'd still be issues whether or not what he did was terrorism or wasn't.

[Ryzaki]

Is it wrong that I wasn't moved at all by the exploding Chantry other than "Wow. Big explosion. Sucks to be whoever was inside." ?  

I mean I was all like O_O for three seconds but I didn't feel anything once the cutscene ended. 

I think I might've felt more remorse if the whole rite of annullment thing hadn't come out of nowhere. Siding with the templars, cutting down those circle mages that made me sick to my stomach.

Exploding chantry with nameless NPCs and one NPC I found irritating didn't move me.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 24 mars 2011 - 08:17 .

[Rinji the Bearded]

I thought it was kind of funny how they were like "THE GRAND CLERIC AND THE MAGES" and not "OH GOD ALL THOSE PEOPLE IN THE CHANTRY ARE ALSO DEAD."

Maybe it was just me, idk. *eats sandwich too*

Modifié par RinjiRenee, 24 mars 2011 - 08:16 .

[Sialater]

I've read about enough of both sides of this stupid debate.

He IS a terrorist. He blew up a primarily civilian target in order to shock and awe the populace. So what? He was a good person backed into a corner into an act of desperation due to watching so many of his fellow mages be crushed beneath the boot heal of the Chantry. He was the ONLY person administering to the poor and the forgotten in the bowels of Kirkwall which the Chantry in it's pristine lovely marble palace at the top of Hightown was ignoring. It wasn't ONLY the mages that were suffering in Kirkwall due to Meredith's insanity and Elthina's stupidity. The only reason he wasn't arrested earlier was Hawke.

To quote my own, dear beloved Margaret Hawke, "I'm scared. And when I'm scared I fight better than most people do angry."

Own the word, ladies and gents, or it's going to be a long, LONG, string of trolls into our Anders haven.

[Kawamura]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Kawamura wrote...

When did languge become objective?

1806

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

Do dictionaries make language objective? I cannot say that is true.

I've always been taught that language are living things that really, really depend on the people using them. And they will change, depending on who is talking and who is listening. It is ... uncomfortable to say that the dictionary is the be all end all of a language, as I have often found that is not the case.

[mesmerizedish]

Kawamura wrote...

Hey, you're the one coming at me with very strong statements. For one thing, that language is objective. That one... I am not at all comfortable saying. It also makes me uncomfortable that you can tell me, straight off, that I am completely incorrect and that people who are incapable of seperating a word from it's definition and it's other stuff are lacking experience and knowledge.

Did that not seem rather arrogant to you? Why is your idea correct absolutely and mine not? 

I didn't make up terms, if I remember correctly. But I might have. I have a bad memory.

Language is objective. You can say a sandwich isn't a sandwich, but it's still a sandwich. To look at a sandwich and say, "No, that's not a sandwich" is completely incorrect. To claim that Anders's crime was not terrorism is making up a term, terrorism, that doesn't exist. When it comes to words and their meanings, if the shoe fits...

Does the act meet every definition of "terrorism"? Probably not. But it meets some, which is enough to prove wrong anyone who says otherwise.

[upsettingshorts]

Kawamura wrote...

 It also makes me uncomfortable that you can tell me, straight off, that I am completely incorrect and that people who are incapable of seperating a word from it's definition and it's other stuff are lacking experience and knowledge.

Would you feel uncomfortable if you were in poli sci class and your professor told you your notion of terrorism was incorrect?

Kawamura wrote...

Did that not seem rather arrogant to you?

Most assuredly.  I'm definitely being the arrogant elitist here, but I'm not a hypocrite. 

[AtreiyaN7]

Lady Dino wrote...

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

Hawke 'n Anders

Aww, that is cute. This thread is like a nice vacation from the fighting in the other forums (for the most part).

[Ryzaki]

I could kiss you right now Sialater. Can I hug you at least?

Also...goddamn it Anders! 

And goddamn it Justice for those of us on the rivalry path! 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 24 mars 2011 - 08:21 .

[HolyJellyfish]

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.

Don't condemn him yet. Rival!Mance him. Hepler wrote in saying that if you Rival!Mance him, Anders has been trying insufferably to disconnect Justice from his head, and that in the end what happens to the Chantry was not really Anders at work - it was Justice. (Anders tries to undo it over and over again, but Justice keeps foiling him).

Its a really good romance too. But I'm all for Rival!Mance.

[Kawamura]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Kawamura wrote...

 It also makes me uncomfortable that you can tell me, straight off, that I am completely incorrect and that people who are incapable of seperating a word from it's definition and it's other stuff are lacking experience and knowledge.

Would you feel uncomfortable if you were in poli sci class and your professor told you your notion of terrorism was incorrect?

Kawamura wrote...

Did that not seem rather arrogant to you?

Most assuredly.  I'm definitely being the arrogant elitist here, but I'm not a hypocrite. 

What is my notion of terrorism?

And is someone being hypocritical?

[mesmerizedish]

Kawamura wrote...

I've always been taught that language are living things that really, really depend on the people using them. And they will change, depending on who is talking and who is listening. It is ... uncomfortable to say that the dictionary is the be all end all of a language, as I have often found that is not the case.

Then you've been taught wrong. English isn't the best example of an objective language, because it is much more fluid than others. Words aren't stripped of their meanings just because you say they are, however. There's always an accepted standard. Sometimes it's Webster. I happen to place highest esteem in the OED.

French is a much better example, because its use is actually governed by a group of people who are trusted with the language's development. When it comes to speaking French, there is always right and wrong. Guess which side the Québécois are on?

Modifié par ishmaeltheforsaken, 24 mars 2011 - 08:21 .

[upsettingshorts]

Sialater wrote...

Own the word, ladies and gents, or it's going to be a long, LONG, string of trolls into our Anders haven.

Does the fact that I'll stop making a big deal of it the second the thread does honestly own the word make me a troll?  Because that's always been the plan.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 24 mars 2011 - 08:21 .

[Rinji the Bearded]

I'm owning the word.

Also this sandwich.

[Sialater]

Ryzaki wrote...

I could kiss you right now Sialater. Can I hug you at least?

Heh, thanks, Ryz.  As a Kaidan fangirl, I've seen too many trolls to count.

[Khali Khan]

thenyxie wrote...



....

Was someone talking...?

Wanted to say something about terrorists, but I guess I'm going to drool for a while  I know what Anders thinks about locking him up, but tying him up is whole 'nother thing, right? Right? 

[Kawamura]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Kawamura wrote...

Hey, you're the one coming at me with very strong statements. For one thing, that language is objective. That one... I am not at all comfortable saying. It also makes me uncomfortable that you can tell me, straight off, that I am completely incorrect and that people who are incapable of seperating a word from it's definition and it's other stuff are lacking experience and knowledge.

Did that not seem rather arrogant to you? Why is your idea correct absolutely and mine not? 

I didn't make up terms, if I remember correctly. But I might have. I have a bad memory.

Language is objective. You can say a sandwich isn't a sandwich, but it's still a sandwich. To look at a sandwich and say, "No, that's not a sandwich" is completely incorrect. To claim that Anders's crime was not terrorism is making up a term, terrorism, that doesn't exist. When it comes to words and their meanings, if the shoe fits...

Does the act meet every definition of "terrorism"? Probably not. But it meets some, which is enough to prove wrong anyone who says otherwise.

Easy labels are easy for a reason. Once you start getting into more complex ideas it becomes... difficult?

That's what I've always found.

[upsettingshorts]

Kawamura wrote...

What is my notion of terrorism?

The one you've been using.

Kawamura wrote...

And is someone being hypocritical?

I would be, if I was presuming to lecture others and then denied that I was being arrogant.

Kawamura wrote...

Easy labels are easy for a reason. Once you start getting into more complex ideas it becomes... difficult?
 

I agree.  But then, accepting that terrorism/terrorist isn't a pejorative reserved for the bad guys is a difficult concept in this day and age. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 24 mars 2011 - 08:25 .

[Sialater]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sialater wrote...

Own the word, ladies and gents, or it's going to be a long, LONG, string of trolls into our Anders haven.

Does the fact that I'll stop making a big deal of it the second the thread does honestly own the word make me a troll?  Because that's always been the plan.

Since I already acknowledge that's what he is?  I hope not.

[mesmerizedish]

Kawamura wrote...

Easy labels are easy for a reason. Once you start getting into more complex ideas it becomes... difficult?

That's what I've always found.

Every label is easy, because every label has a set of criteria for its correct application.

[Kawamura]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Kawamura wrote...

What is my notion of terrorism?

The one you've been using.

Kawamura wrote...

And is someone being hypocritical?

I would be, if I was presuming to lecture others and then denied that I was being arrogant.

What notion have I been using? 

[Herr Uhl]

Sialater wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

I could kiss you right now Sialater. Can I hug you at least?

Heh, thanks, Ryz.  As a Kaidan fangirl, I've seen too many trolls to count.

Why would he get many trolls? Isn't he like the least hated romanceable character in the history of Bioware?