543 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

Medhia Nox wrote...

You can follow MalcomX - I'll follow Mahatma Gandhi (who's people suffered FAR more than these fictional mages). 

Considering mages have been enslaved for a thousand years and Hawke sees how some mages are raped, tortured, made tranquil (which Karl said was being a "templar puppet" and this is enforced in a conversation between a man speaking to his newly tranquil beloved who doesn't remember him and says that only Cullen can command her), or outright killed, I think you're blatantly ignoring the ugly side of the Chantry controlled Circles.

Medhia Nox wrote...

"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent." Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

That's a compelling character to me - not another angry at the world terrorist.

You mean Anders isn't a compelling character because he's a man who wanted to end a thousand years of slavery by any means necessary?

Medhia Nox wrote...

Renaissancemom - educate yourself about Gandhi, then refrain from ever making your last sentence ever again. Malcom X did nothing compared to the achievements of the Mahatma. Martin Luther King even based his non-violent views on the Mahatma. Your comment is an insult to those who achieve freedom the right way - not the evil way.

Tell that to the soldiers who ended the reign of terror of World War II by fighting to free people and put an end to the Holocaust. Tell that to the slaves of Saint Dominique who fought to free themselves from France. Tell that to the Cubans who fought against the dictatorship of General Batista as women were getting raped and children were hung on lampposts. I don't see how you can seriously claim that it's evil when people are willing to fight to see the oppressed emancipated from their oppressors.

[Dean_the_Young]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Considering Hawke and others can identify the Chantry controlled Circle as slavery, I don't see the point in contesting the definition when the actual game allows us to identify the situation as one of slavery. Whether you agree with Anders or not is clearly a choice of opinion, and I identified with his desire to dismantle a thousand years of mage slavery that was done by the Chantry specifically, and enforced by the military arm of their religious order.

Hawke can be wrong about a number of things, so what does him calling something, something, make it so? Hawke, and others, can also not call it slavery.

Infact, the one actual slave in the game, Fenris, explicitly rejects it when he goes to the Gallows. So either Fenris is wrong, or Anders is wrong.

Fenris explicitly rejects Anders' assertion on the sole basis of mages being at risk of possession. He says, "Slaves do not attract demons that try to possess them. " That line focuses solely on the argument made for imprisoning mages. Fenris never actually contests that the Chantry controlled Circles are slavery. In fact, he acknowledges that mages aren't free because he says in another conversation with Anders that "the moment they are free, mages will make themselves magisters. "

If you take Fenris to the gallows, he certainly does contrast the Circle to slavery. Try it out next time.

Fenris also sides with the mages when you specifically address the Chantry controlled Circle as slavery if he initially sided with Meredith and the templars. I think the storyline allows us to have the view that the Chantry controlled Circles are slavery given that Hawke can say it.

Anyone (but Anders/Sabastian) will side with Hawk regardless, if their friendship/rivalry is high enough.

The storyline allowing you to hold the narrative view that the Mages are slaves, however, doesn't mean that the mages are slaves. Letting you holding a principled but erronious position doesn't make it any less erronious.

I recall King Alistair telling Hawke about how some Orlesians are trying to reclaim Ferelden, and all I can imagine is how well the plans of some Orlesian nobles to re-take Ferelden are going to go when the Hero of River Dane is at the heart of their city with a number of Grey Wardens.

Much better than if the Hero of the River Dane were in Ferelden with troops loyal to Ferelden, since the Orlesian Wardens aren't at his beck and call.

[LobselVith8]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

If you take Fenris to the gallows, he certainly does contrast the Circle to slavery. Try it out next time.

I did, and the entire premise is that we can either agree with him that the Circle is necessary or debate the issue because we hold a contrary point of view.

That's the beautiful thing about Dragon Age, it's a world where we can form our own opinions and thoughts about the world around us. We can support what the templars are doing to mages in the Circle, or we can condemn it as slavery and challenge it. Considering that the tranquil have no agency of their own and are "ordered" around (based on what Karl says and the female mage who no longer remembers her beloved and says she gets her orders from Knight-Captain Cullen), I don't see why the term slavery should be excluded when discussing the Circle of Magi.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Anyone (but Anders/Sabastian) will side with Hawk regardless, if their friendship/rivalry is high enough.

The storyline allowing you to hold the narrative view that the Mages are slaves, however, doesn't mean that the mages are slaves. Letting you holding a principled but erronious position doesn't make it any less erroneous.

Just because it's not a view you share doesn't make it factually inaccurate, though.

If I look at the situation with the tranquil mages and examine the definition of slavery:

1: drudgery, toil

2:[/b]  submission to a dominating influence
3 a[/i] :[/b] the state of a person who is a chattel of another
   b[/i] :[/b] the practice of slaveholding

Circle mages are in submission to the dominating force of the Chantry and its Order of Templars, so I don't personally see the term being incorrect. I suppose we'll simply have to agree to disagree on the issue.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

]Much better than if the Hero of the River Dane were in Ferelden with troops loyal to Ferelden, since the Orlesian Wardens aren't at his beck and call.

I think Loghain would be persuasive enough to have some Wardens who would follow him into battle, since even Leliana admitted that some Orlesians saw Prince Maric as heroic for going up against the Orlesian Empire with a minimal force.

[Medhia Nox]

LobselVith8 - I'll ignore all that just like you ignore the evil of blood mages. Honestly - you side with blood mages and terrorists. I don't mind disagreeing with you.

[Star]

Mr.House wrote...

So let's talk about this event in the game. What was your reaction to this? Did this change who you sided with? Where you upset? Did you kill Anders?

Lets discuss one of the games biggest twist.

I figured out the ending before it happened. All the foreshadowing -- Anders ingredients were clearly the components for a fertilizer bomb, the "distract the Grand Cleric" bit, the change to black clothing.  BW's storylines increasingly lack subtlty. We were being manipulated into a decision and I felt more annoyed with BW than anything else.   

No, I did not kill Anders. I do not in anyway condone his actions, but  I believe it is much harder to live with the consequences of horrific actions - to have to repay.  Death is too easy an out. 

I also am very conscious (and I've said this in other places) that world history is full of examples of oppression and violent means to ending suppression.  There is a tendency to demonize those who are violent -- unless they are on "our" side.  The bad guys in movies often expire in explosions or gun fights that take out innocents and we cheer the "good guys" on.  The movie "The Expendables" comes to mind from this past summer -- made millions -- and people stood up and cheered when the bad guy's HQ blew up.  No one worried that there were innocent detainees or workers inside.   So, killing Anders feels more of a knee jerk response to me than a thoughtful one.

So....I understood although I did not condone Anders actions which made him no better than the Templars.  And I wanted him to have to live with it and make up for it for a good long time.

Modifié par Star58, 18 mars 2011 - 07:11 .

[renaissancemom]

I hadn't seen this, but this is interesting. How can you not feel sorry for the guy after this?

Modifié par renaissancemom, 18 mars 2011 - 08:06 .

[Tonishi]

I, too, was very surprised about what he did. I almost said out of loud "oh my god, what the HELL you just did?!"

I let him go, since... Well, his intentions were good but he did it in the wrong way. Though, I decided to help the templars as I knew they would hunt me down. I was a mage there too. So, I did kill him in the end since he came back and hoped I would've changed my mind but nooo I didn't.

I really first thought that the Mother was a mage-hater biaatch when I first talked to her... Later, while distracting her in Ander's quest, I thought differently.

The only thing which pisses me off is that you cannot prevent this from happening.

[Dean_the_Young]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

If you take Fenris to the gallows, he certainly does contrast the Circle to slavery. Try it out next time.

I did, and the entire premise is that we can either agree with him that the Circle is necessary or debate the issue because we hold a contrary point of view.

That's the beautiful thing about Dragon Age, it's a world where we can form our own opinions and thoughts about the world around us. We can support what the templars are doing to mages in the Circle, or we can condemn it as slavery and challenge it.

And yet now you're undermining your own argument that what a character in-game deems it, must mean that it's what the character in-game deems it. It works both ways, so you really can't continue to insist that just because Anders calls it slavery it must be slavery.

Considering that the tranquil have no agency of their own and are
"ordered" around (based on what Karl says and the female mage who no
longer remembers her beloved and says she gets her orders from
Knight-Captain Cullen), I don't see why the term slavery should be
excluded when discussing the Circle of Magi.

You don't see what?

You don't see how Tranquil are still not considered property by the Circle system?
You don't see the difference in affairs between the nature of the Tranquil and non-Tranquil, and how the treatment and status between them is widely varied?
You don't see that the point of making people Tranquil has never been given, by any group doing so,as being for a source of labor?

Since Tranquil and the Magi are certainly a great deal different, and likewise treated so, if you intend to call the Tranquil slaves (a far more plausible, if still contestable, argument), you should at least have the honesty to be able to distinguish between how Tranquility, and the Tranquility process, is handled and the mages themselves.

Just because it's not a view you share doesn't make it factually inaccurate, though.

Of course not.

Being inaccurate in any meaningful social sense of the world makes it inaccurate.

If I look at the situation with the tranquil mages and examine the definition of slavery:

1: drudgery, toil

2:[/b]  submission to a dominating influence
3 a[/i] :[/b] the state of a person who is a chattel of another
   b[/i] :[/b] the practice of slaveholding

Circle mages are in submission to the dominating force of the Chantry and its Order of Templars, so I don't personally see the term being incorrect. I suppose we'll simply have to agree to disagree on the issue.

If you apply definition two, then the meaning of the word slavery loses all meaning. You are a slave in these forums because you submit to the dominating influence of the administrators of this forum. You submit to the domination of authorities and police in adulthood, and for large parts of your childhood you submit to the domination. When you take a job, you submit to the dominating influence of the regulations, rules, and chain of authority.

By your proposed working definition, you have been a slave all your life, because you have certainly submitted to dominating influences. You will certainly be laughed at if you claim to be a slave and cling to that definition. A definition which, I might add, tries to define a vast historical social context in five words and not even fifteen sylables.

It's a definition so broad, it has no weight or value. The weight of the word 'slavery' in the english language is not as a synonym for 'dominated.' It is 'person who is property of another.' If, perhaps, you were a foreign language speaker the mistake might be forgivable: I doubt you are, however, and you certainly are abusing a word of the english language. To treat 'slavery' and 'dominated' synonymous is as credible as insisting with a straight face that 'gay' is still synonymous with 'happy' and has no other connotations.


We'll kindly ignore that definition 3, which in your usage is dependant on definition 2 as an expansion, explicitly mentions chattel, ie property, slavery and the practice of it, which certainly isn't applicable in the context of the Circle.

I think Loghain would be persuasive enough to have some Wardens who would follow him into battle, since even Leliana admitted that some Orlesians saw Prince Maric as heroic for going up against the Orlesian Empire with a minimal force.

Why would Orlesian Wardens betray their order and their nation of birth for a man who is not their commander and who actively hates them on the basis of a little respect of what some other people had for some other man before they were born?

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 18 mars 2011 - 08:51 .

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Medhia Nox wrote...

LobselVith8 - I'll ignore all that just like you ignore the evil of blood mages. Honestly - you side with blood mages and terrorists. I don't mind disagreeing with you.[/quote]

Maybe you could try formulating an articulate response instead of theatrics? As for the evil of blood mages, are you grouping the Grey Wardens who use blood magic against the darkspawn into that category? The Joining Ritual? Personally, I side with the emancipation of the enslaved.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

That's the beautiful thing about Dragon Age, it's a world where we can form our own opinions and thoughts about the world around us. We can support what the templars are doing to mages in the Circle, or we can condemn it as slavery and challenge it. [/quote]

And yet now you're undermining your own argument that what a character in-game deems it, must mean that it's what the character in-game deems it. It works both ways, so you really can't continue to insist that just because Anders calls it slavery it must be slavery. [/quote]

No, I address that when multiple characters call it slavery, it shouldn't be summarily dismissed just because people don't like the term being used. When it's the basis of the statement Hawke uses to get Fenris to side with the mages and against the templars at the end of DA2 when he initially sides with Knight-Commander Meredith, I don't see any reason to dismiss it.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Considering that the tranquil have no agency of their own and are
"ordered" around (based on what Karl says and the female mage who no
longer remembers her beloved and says she gets her orders from
Knight-Captain Cullen), I don't see why the term slavery should be
excluded when discussing the Circle of Magi.[/quote]

You don't see what?

You don't see how Tranquil are still not considered property by the Circle system?
You don't see the difference in affairs between the nature of the Tranquil and non-Tranquil, and how the treatment and status between them is widely varied?
You don't see that the point of making people Tranquil has never been given, by any group doing so,as being for a source of labor? [/quote]

The definition of slavery extends beyond what you're insinuating, and the tranquil specifically craft magical items and handle menial labor. The tranquil have their humanity stolen from them and they specifically do what they're told as though they were robots.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

Since Tranquil and the Magi are certainly a great deal different, and likewise treated so, if you intend to call the Tranquil slaves (a far more plausible, if still contestable, argument), you should at least have the honesty to be able to distinguish between how Tranquility, and the Tranquility process, is handled and the mages themselves.[/quote]

They're certainly different, but both are under the control of the Chantry of Andraste and it's military, the Order of Templars. You seem intent on disputing the fact that characters outright call the Chantry controlled Circle slavery, and it's not really my job to defend the writers' choice in having characters see it as slavery. Mages aren't free, they're imprisoned with no basic rights and subjected to a form of torture, and even Fenris acknowledges that mages aren't free when he's speaking to Anders.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Just because it's not a view you share doesn't make it factually inaccurate, though.[/quote]

Of course not.

Being inaccurate in any meaningful social sense of the world makes it inaccurate. [/quote]

Besides fitting the actual definition of slavery that allows for the argument to be made that it is indeed slavery, you mean? That must explain why multiple characters see the Chantry controlled Circles as slavery, including the apostate who actually lived in one for most of his life.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

If I look at the situation with the tranquil mages and examine the definition of slavery:

1: drudgery, toil

2:[/b]  submission to a dominating influence
3 a[/i] :[/b] the state of a person who is a chattel of another
   b[/i] :[/b] the practice of slaveholding

Circle mages are in submission to the dominating force of the Chantry and its Order of Templars, so I don't personally see the term being incorrect. I suppose we'll simply have to agree to disagree on the issue.[/quote]

If you apply definition two, then the meaning of the word slavery loses all meaning. You are a slave in these forums because you submit to the dominating influence of the administrators of this forum. You submit to the domination of authorities and police in adulthood, and for large parts of your childhood you submit to the domination. When you take a job, you submit to the dominating influence of the regulations, rules, and chain of authority. [/quote]

I don't find the analogy to be proper. Would I get killed if I don't post at this forum? Am I under the threat of being tortured or raped because I have no basic rights? Do I run the risk of losing my humanity and becoming an emotionless husk who obeys orders and has no real life? Might I get killed along with everyone like me because the Knight-Commander makes an arbitary decision to murder every man, woman, and child? Let's not conflate the issues that mages have to deal with living in the Circle with an analogy of posting messages on a forum. Mages run greater risks of punishment than people have ever faced in the real world when they can lose their very humanity and become an unwilling thrall. By the actual definition, mages can indeed be considered slaves of the Chantry, and since characters - including a pro-Kirkwall Circle Hawke - can see it that way, I don't see why we need to continue disputing this.

Again, since this discussion is not even remotely close to reaching a consensus, perhaps we should simply agree to disagree.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

I think Loghain would be persuasive enough to have some Wardens who would follow him into battle, since even Leliana admitted that some Orlesians saw Prince Maric as heroic for going up against the Orlesian Empire with a minimal force.[/quote]

Why would Orlesian Wardens betray their order and their nation of birth for a man who is not their commander and who actively hates them on the basis of a little respect of what some other people had for some other man before they were born? [/quote]

The same reason Cubans followed Argentine Marxist Che Guevera against their countrymen, because they share his ideals. If some Orlesian Wardens who were being trained by Loghain shared his views on what had happened during the Orlesian occupation and looked up to him, why wouldn't they follow him in battle if they thought that his cause was just?

Modifié par LobselVith8, 18 mars 2011 - 09:07 .

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

No, I address that when multiple characters call it slavery,
[/quote]
And now multiple characters can't be wrong?

Because, again, multiple characters will reject that the Circle is slavery if you choose to elict those responses.



[quote]
The definition of slavery extends beyond what you're insinuating,[/quote]The definition of slavery you site, besides not given any actual description of an actual slavery system, extends from here to the moon.

[quote]
and the tranquil specifically craft magical items and handle menial labor. The tranquil have their humanity stolen from them and they specifically do what they're told as though they were robots.[/quote]They are robots.

No, really. That's pretty much what they are equivalent to.

[quote]

They're certainly different, but both are under the control of the Chantry of Andraste and it's military, the Order of Templars. You seem intent on disputing the fact that characters outright call the Chantry controlled Circle slavery, and it's not really my job to defend the writers' choice in having characters see it as slavery. Mages aren't free, they're imprisoned with no basic rights and subjected to a form of torture, and even Fenris acknowledges that mages aren't free when he's speaking to Anders.[/quote]
And the Chantry is part of the population of Thedas. That doesn't mean you can selectively go up a group and equate everything under that category. Tis the logical fallacy of composition, arguing that a part is equivalent to the whole: we could argue up and down the entire scale of categorization and draw false equivalencies, and it would still be intellectually dishonest to do so.

I do not dispute that some characters call the Circle slavery. I dispute that they are correct in calling it so. Which would not be the first time in the Dragon Age universe that a party-member character was an idealogue. Since you are citing their depiction as proof as to the nature of the Chantry, that does put you in the place of defending the accuracy of the character's accusations.

Which means, to avoid circular logic fallacies, you can't simply claim the characters calling it slavery is proof that it slavery. The charge is in question, and citing it is not proof.


And, in case you've been away from the world for awhile, there are large gaps between 'free with rights' and 'slavery.' Contrary to popular belief, they are not binary.

[quote]
Besides fitting the actual definition of slavery that allows for the argument to be made that it is indeed slavery, you mean?[/quote]Anything and everything can be made to fit that definition you cited. Even you in this forum, where you submit to the forum rules and regulations.

[quote]That must explain why multiple characters see the Chantry controlled Circles as slavery, including the apostate who actually lived in one for most of his life.[/quote]Multiple characters who are opposed (or convinced to be opposed by emotional appeal) to the Chantry is proof only that multiple characters will believe a charge. Not that the charge is accurate.
[quote]
I don't find the analogy to be proper. Would I get killed if I don't post at this forum?[/quote]That would not be a requirement to fit the definition you stand by.
[quote]
Am I under the threat of being tortured or raped because I have no basic rights?[/quote]That would not be a requirement to fit the definition you stand by.

[quote]
Do I run the risk of losing my humanity and becoming an emotionless husk who obeys orders and has no real life?[/quote]That would not be a requirement to fit the definition you stand by.

[quote]
Might I get killed along with everyone like me because the Knight-Commander makes an arbitary decision to murder every man, woman, and child?[/quote]That would not be a requirement to fit the definition you stand by.

[quote]
Let's not conflate the issues that mages have to deal with living in the Circle with an analogy of posting messages on a forum.[/quote]That would not be a requirement to fit the definition you stand by.

[quote]
Mages run greater risks of punishment than people have ever faced in the real world when they can lose their very humanity and become an unwilling thrall. [/quote]That would not be a requirement to fit the definition you stand by.

[quote]
By the actual definition, mages can indeed be considered slaves of the Chantry, and since characters - including a pro-Kirkwall Circle Hawke - can see it that way, I don't see why we need to continue disputing this.[/quote]Because 'the actual definition' you cite, besides not really being 'the actual definition' but rather a five word summation of an incredibly complex social-political-economic context, is so incredibly vague and open-ended that it defines you as a slave to a great number of forces and groups right now.

Which, of course, is absurd.

It's a bad definition upon any context of trying to examine it, but it's what you cling to regardless. (It's also, by the by, a poor fallacy of an appeal to authority, even though the dictionary publisher actually isn't even an authority on the subject. Just to let you know.)
[quote]
Again, since this discussion is not even remotely close to reaching a consensus, perhaps we should simply agree to disagree.[/quote]Sure. You cling to an incredibly poor yet ethically loaded definition  which make your repeated logical fallacy even weaker .

I'm fine with that. Just expect to be called out on it every time you try and use it.

[quote]
The same reason Cubans followed Argentine Marxist Che Guevera against their countrymen, because they share his ideals. If some Orlesian Wardens who were being trained by Loghain shared his views on what had happened during the Orlesian occupation and looked up to him, why wouldn't they follow him in battle if they thought that his cause was just?[/quote]...Cubans who followed Che followed because of ideological solidarity that promised to better the Cubans.

Orlesian Wardens really don't have any such shared ideology with Loghain, who's a Ferelden nationalist-expansionist with strong paranoia and dislike of all things Orlesian who was only stationed there as a joke at his own expense.

Not much buddy-buddy ideology there, unless you think most Orlesian wardens are at heart Ferelden-expansionist-victimist nationalists fixated on an occupation even most Fereldens have forgotten or never even known.

[Medhia Nox]

Interesting how the non-psychotic non-blood mage/abominations known as - Wynne, Irving, and my Warden never seem to complain about being enslaved. Heck - I even played in a Circle tower in the first game - didn't feel enslaved at all.

Hell - Wynne was technically an abomination and she worried endlessly about the evil 'thing' she might become.

Oh, yeah - and my Warden can show you how to actually free the mages. Because he did free the Ferelden Circle and he didn't have to be a terrorist to do it.

Let's ignore all of this thought - it doesn't fit into an ultra-violent evil scenario or death and terror.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 18 mars 2011 - 09:49 .

[Kasces]

Medhia Nox wrote...

Interesting how the non-psychotic non-blood mage/abominations known as - Wynne, Irving, and my Warden never seem to complain about being enslaved. Heck - I even played in a Circle tower in the first game - didn't feel enslaved at all.

Hell - Wynne was technically an abomination and she worried endlessly about the evil 'thing' she might become.

Oh, yeah - and my Warden can show you how to actually free the mages. Because he did free the Ferelden Circle and he didn't have to be a terrorist to do it.

Let's ignore all of this thought - it doesn't fit into an ultra-violent evil scenario or death and terror.

I'm sorry but lol, what?

Irving is the First Enchanter, top dog, and is of similar mindset to Gregoir. Why would he complain when there is NO conflict in idealogy, least of all tension that builds after YEARS with tons of outside factors, magical (Meredith's sword) and otherwise.

The Warden can be or believe whatever anyone wants him or her to be or believe, such a flexible character that depends on the person is a moot point.
-Yeah, your Warden freed the Ferelden Circle, your Warden just had to save a country to dare ask for it. No biggie as anyone can do that, right....?

Wynne I have no comment on because her character was built to be Maker fearing, mother like woman with a life of experience. You took a character who exemplifies indoctrination or proper living of a Circle mage (take your pick) and...stated the character she simply is.

You're right. None of that fits, because cirumstances and personalities are significantly different.

[BlackwindTheCommander]

I was surprised to say the least, and a little crushed. I had actually hoped to find a peaceful solution. But I knew I couldn't give up on all Mages for the mistake of one. (course they later started to change my veiw, but thats a different story.) I did decide I had to end him. It seemed merciful then to let him be taken by the Templars and it also saved Kirkwall from a later assault by Starkhaven.

Simple decision.

[Bmeszaros]

I like Anders in Awakening and absolutely hated him in DA2. I killed him without hesitating during my first playthough. The only thing is that I thought it was a cheap, easy death to grant him, Especially since I had a rivarly path with him before I kicked him out of the party for his actions during the "Tranquil Solution" Companion Quest. I feel like the option should have been given to make him turn and face you before you administer the coup de grace... Knifing him while his back is turned by the so-called "Champion" of the City was a cheap, infuriating ending to Anders, basically validating his his "No Compromise" additude, and that paints him as this "Tragic, brooding Hero" when in truth he is nothing but a terrorist.

Modifié par Bmeszaros, 19 mars 2011 - 01:43 .

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

And now multiple characters can't be wrong?

Because, again, multiple characters will reject that the Circle is slavery if you choose to elict those responses. [/quote]

You were already wrong about Fenris saying it wasn't slavery when that wasn't what he was saying. When Anders suggests turning slaves tranquil as a retort for Fenris' pro-Chantry Circle views, Fenris responded that slaves don't get possessed. He was supporting the Chantry controlled Circles because he sees mages as dangerous, he wasn't saying the Chantry controlled Circles weren't slavery.

True, people can be wrong, but the writers specifically chose to use slavery when defining how characters see the treatment of mages. Again, the discussion between Fenris and Anders had nothing to do with the Chantry controlled Circle not being slavery, it had to do with making slaves tranquil. If Hawke doesn't support the Circles, he can say that the rise of another Tevinter won't be accomplished by forcing mages "into servitude." The discussion with Fenris at the Gallows is about supporting the Circle as necessary or thinking it's wrong.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

They are robots.

No, really. That's pretty much what they are equivalent to. [/quote]

And you think that doesn't make them slaves when the tranquil aren't machines and were forced to endure a process where they now have no agency of their own?

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

And the Chantry is part of the population of Thedas. That doesn't mean you can selectively go up a group and equate everything under that category. Tis the logical fallacy of composition, arguing that a part is equivalent to the whole: we could argue up and down the entire scale of categorization and draw false equivalencies, and it would still be intellectually dishonest to do so. [/quote]

I don't see the point in disputing that it's slavery when it's addressed as such by characters, and so far all you've provided to counter it is characters supporting the Circle because (in the case of Fenris, for instance) they see mages as too dangerous to be free.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

I do not dispute that some characters call the Circle slavery. I dispute that they are correct in calling it so. Which would not be the first time in the Dragon Age universe that a party-member character was an idealogue. Since you are citing their depiction as proof as to the nature of the Chantry, that does put you in the place of defending the accuracy of the character's accusations. [/quote]

You're fighting the term specifically used by the writers for multiple characters, though. This isn't Sten thinking women have no place as warriors, this is a myraid of characters who see the Gallows as oppressive (Varric), think the Chantry controlled Circles are necessary (Fenris), or think that mages shouldn't be imprisoned for being mages (Anders). So far your inaccuracy about Fenris' line of dialogue isn't helping your case, especially when Hawke's argument about the Circle being slavery is specifically used to get his support against the templars.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

Which means, to avoid circular logic fallacies, you can't simply claim the characters calling it slavery is proof that it slavery. The charge is in question, and citing it is not proof. [/quote]

I already addressed it falls into the actual definition of slavery, and you disputed the definition as "too broad." I didn't write the dictionary. This discussion isn't going anywhere but in circles. 

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

And, in case you've been away from the world for awhile, there are large gaps between 'free with rights' and 'slavery.' Contrary to popular belief, they are not binary. [/quote]

That must explain why the writers specifically chose to use the term slavery in having characters address the Chantry controlled Circles.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

Anything and everything can be made to fit that definition you cited. Even you in this forum, where you submit to the forum rules and regulations. [/quote]

Yet Hawke directly addresses that mages shouldn't be forced into servitude if he thinks the Chantry controlled Circles aren't helping matters when we first meet Anders.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

That would not be a requirement to fit the definition you stand by. [/quote]

Should I expect the repeated use of this line that this discussion is going anywhere? I get the feeling you'll be willing to contest the color of the sky if I said it was blue. You know, if you have such a problem with characters calling it slavery, take it up with the writers.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

Because 'the actual definition' you cite, besides not really being 'the actual definition' but rather a five word summation of an incredibly complex social-political-economic context, is so incredibly vague and open-ended that it defines you as a slave to a great number of forces and groups right now.

Which, of course, is absurd.

It's a bad definition upon any context of trying to examine it, but it's what you cling to regardless. (It's also, by the by, a poor fallacy of an appeal to authority, even though the dictionary publisher actually isn't even an authority on the subject. Just to let you know.) [/quote]

Are you claiming now that you're the ultimate arbitrator on the definition of words and not the publishers of the dictionary? Or are you still contesting the fact that the writers used the word slavery? Frankly, I think it's absurd that you're clinging to this argument when the writers already chose to have characters define the relationship between the Chantry controlled Circles and the mages as slavery, and even Hawke can say that it's servitude when addressing why the Circle is wrong.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

Sure. You cling to an incredibly poor yet ethically loaded definition  which make your repeated logical fallacy even weaker .

I'm fine with that. Just expect to be called out on it every time you try and use it. [/quote]

Coming from someone who cited a line of dialogue from Fenris that had nothing to do with your argument when he was actually arguing against slaves being made tranquil, I don't think you should be calling out anyone. Just my personal opinion.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

...Cubans who followed Che followed because of ideological solidarity that promised to better the Cubans.
[/quote]

And if some of the Wardens had the same experience as the young woman who fled Ferelden because a chevalier took an "interest" in her, I can see that as enough reason why some would follow Loghain. But you seem more interested in taking an opposing view with me than anything else.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 19 mars 2011 - 01:58 .

[Vilegrim]

Medhia Nox wrote...

Interesting how the non-psychotic non-blood mage/abominations known as - Wynne, Irving, and my Warden never seem to complain about being enslaved. Heck - I even played in a Circle tower in the first game - didn't feel enslaved at all.

Hell - Wynne was technically an abomination and she worried endlessly about the evil 'thing' she might become.

Oh, yeah - and my Warden can show you how to actually free the mages. Because he did free the Ferelden Circle and he didn't have to be a terrorist to do it.

Let's ignore all of this thought - it doesn't fit into an ultra-violent evil scenario or death and terror.

Except they wheren't freed, Alistair makes this plain, he can only help mages outside the circle.

Greek scholars used to sell them selves as household slaves to patrician families, does it make it any less slavery?  Becuase some get treated better than the majority?

[Hrodric]

DieHigh2012 wrote...

My jaw dropped, and I think I said "you idiot" out loud. At that point I disliked both groups, both where behaving like children in my book. I was going to side with the mages simply for my sisters sake, but that almost changed my mind.

If a "good" mage can justify that, I'd hate to see what one of those (to use the words of Anders) evil demon summoning blood mages are capable of.

I killed that terrorist, but I was a friend with him so it did kind of suck. What a d*ck that guy turned out to be.

I was filled with apathy and disgust for the whole lot of them. At that point, I wanted to kill them--ALL of them--and be rid of their idiocy once and for all.

How it should have gone down: Anders attempts to kill Meredith by setting up the bomb. Instead, the majority of the templars are just coming back from some expedition. The great divine, however, had gone into Meredith's office to try to reach some peaceful resolution when... *boom*... the peace negotiator dies instead of the original target.

One of the dialogue options with Meredith: "He didn't mean to kill her... he meant to kill YOU!"

THEN the war starts....

Anders going after the very likable great divine and the chantry brings nothing but apathy towards his already-grating character and the cause for mages.

Modifié par Hrodric, 19 mars 2011 - 04:40 .