1927 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

Melca36 wrote...

If Anders was really an abomination wouldn't have he accepted the actions of blood mages? Mages become abominations because they let demons in.

So in essence Anders was not really an abomination since Justice was not a demon to begin with.

He could be a very confused abomination and Justice, a very confused demon. Both unaware of (or unwilling to admit) what they had become.  

I personally think Anders was on the verge of becoming an abomination and Justice was becoming a demon. Regardless, it's clear neither of them are sane and sober.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 11 avril 2011 - 12:04 .

[LobselVith8]

Melca36 wrote...

If Anders was really an abomination wouldn't have he accepted the actions of blood mages? Mages become abominations because they let demons in.

So in essence Anders was not really an abomination since Justice was not a demon to begin with.

I think Anders symbiotic relationship to Justice has changed them in a fundamental way that neither of them were expecting, but I don't see Justice ever condoning blood magic or demons. I don't think Justice will be the same as the demons who try to conquer Feynriel in the Fade, for instance, even though he's willing to go to extremes in the name of "justice."

[Deztyn]

Rifneno wrote...

Deztyn wrote...

It amazes me that not only do you continue to twist my words, but also claim to know what I meant better than I do. Please stop talking to me now.

Ditto, buddy.

Hi!

Where have you been? Posting on lots of other threads all day I see. Want to respond to what I said to you three pages back? No? Well, goodbye then. This line of conversation has been enriched by your comments! Thanks! [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/heart.png[/smilie]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Didn't you already say you were commenting on many people who support the mages? How am I twisting your words when you've already stated that that's precisely what you were doing? I disagree with what you said, that's all.

Do you understand that when you quote someone you are supposed to respond to what they say in the parts you quote? I'll assume, yes. And that that person is probably directly responding to what they're quoting? Yes? And what that person was quoting? Yes?

So how do you get from here. . .

Deztyn wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Deztyn wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Deztyn wrote...

I said mage supporters are always willing to excuse the bad mages as either exceptions or products of an abusive system.

That isn't accurate.

And this relates to what your quoting how? Are you saying that you don't think Bad mages are an exception? Do you think they're the rule? Do you secretly think that all mages are dangerous and want them let out to cause havoc across the lands?

I'm saying mage supporters aren't always willing to excuse the bad behavior of some mages the reasons you specificy.

LULZ. I was saying that for the most part mage supporters think "Bad" is not the default setting of all mages and Circle supporters tend to agree on that point.

To here. . .

LobselVith8 wrote...

You were saying most mage supporters think templars = evil, and I was addressing that this isn't the case,

. . . with no other quotes in between?

And the other parts of my posts, the parts you didn't directly quote here

I never said it was MOST mage supporters.

Many != Most

Common Mage Supporter Argument != Most Mage Supporter Arguments

Modifié par Deztyn, 11 avril 2011 - 12:16 .

[LobselVith8]

Deztyn wrote...

Do you understand that when you quote someone you are supposed to respond to what they say in the parts you quote? I'll assume, yes. And that that person is probably directly responding to what they're quoting? Yes? And what that person was quoting? Yes?

I do understand, which is why I specifically addressed different points that you made and responded to the different things that you said. For instance, when I quoted your claim that "mage supporters are always willing to excuse the bad mages as either exceptions or products of an abusive system" I responded that I didn't agree with what you said.

LobselVith8 wrote...

Deztyn wrote...

I said mage supporters are always willing to excuse the bad mages as either exceptions or products of an abusive system.

That isn't accurate. People who don't support the Chantry controlled Circles simply don't see them as a viable solution because it involves people who have an inate desire not to be imprisoned for what they might do as opposed to what they have done. That's precisely the reason why the Circles rose up and broke free from the Chantry, as many argued was ineviable when you deny people basic rights and give their lives over to an order that preaches that all mages are cursed.

Deztyn wrote...

Bad mages != All mages This is something I've never seen a Circle supporter deny. We just don't think total freedom for a minority is worth the potential cost for the majority. Especially when the members of that minority have no control over their ability to become a threat to the masses.

Considering the Chantry controlled Circles lead to a mage revolution, I'm not certain how successful one can say the Chantry's method was, especially when we kept encountering abominations resulting because of it.

Deztyn wrote...

I said circle supporters want to keep the system and get rid of the bad elements. Bad templars != All templars You respond and essentially say they're all rapists and murders or support rape and murder, get rid of them all. Thus proving me correct, many mage supporters do not distinguish between the crimes committed by some within a group and the group itself unless it's convenient for their argument.

No, people address there are inevitable abuses in a system where mages are denied rights and proper representation when even the First Enchanter is denied say over matters (i.e. the Magi Origin).

Deztyn wrote...

Kirkwall's Circle is not the ideal, it's not even the average, it's the worst case scenario. No one who supports the Chantry and the Circles thinks that Kirkwall is a good example. We know, for a fact, that the abuses that go on within the Circle are illegal. But mage supporters constantly hold Kirkwall up as if it is the only possible example of a Circle.

Because, as Wynne addresses in Awakening, the Chantry would rather kill the mages than see them free, and people have a problem with this kind of institution governing the lives of people they openly condemn as being cursed and responsible for "original sin."

Deztyn wrote...

Edit: Oh yes, and what's the most common alternative to the Circles suggested by mage supporters? The Circle, called something else, minus the templars or with Not!Templars and with a few other modifications that could just easily be made to the existing system.

You mean an alternative and effective system where mages are treated as people, are given basic rights, and are not seen with distain as "cursed"?

Modifié par LobselVith8, 11 avril 2011 - 12:55 .

[Deztyn]

Oh and back to step one where you argue against points I'm not making in the parts that you quote and answer?

[Deztyn]

... I'm starting to think you just really don't understand.

I wasn't talking about excusing individual mages for their actions for any reason. I meant excusing mages as a group for the actions of a few within the group. Pretty sure that applies to all mage supporters. Or else why be mage supporters?

And that post wasn't an argument for or against mages, the templars, or the chantry. It was an explanation. Directed at one person.

[LobselVith8]

Nimrodell wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

That is incorrect. A demon possession does not immediately erase the hosts "self". Just look at Conner. He was possessed by a desire demon, while he had a strong desire to cure his father.
A spirit possession only require the person it possesses to not feel the spirits token emotion, to go awry. Anders had no intention of bringing justice, all he wanted was vengeance against the Circle. Which led to all kinds of crazy. Can you imagine what would happen if a spirit of Faith were to possess an unfaithful? Or a spirit of Valor possess a coward. The only redeeming quality is that spirits have no desire to cross the veil, and thus such possession are often forced (like Justice's first possession of a corpse). And then it is only redeeming because, then it is a rare form of possession.

Not accurate, Anders didn't seek vengeance when he allowed Justice to merge with him - he clearly states that and al he says is confirmed before in Awakening (I heard that banter between those two million times 'cause of glitch). Anders was looking for justice, that's all... one may seek justice and in the same time be very angry. Those that are content usually don't posses fervent need for such strong emotion or better said ideal as justice. People can discuss about such grand ideals and have scholarly attitude that is calm, and full of educated, benevolent thoughts... but tis just not like that with true need, feeling and understand what justice is for one that seeks it. Justice and vengeance are two faces of one for many and it is even seen in DA itself... remember Lady Vasilia in Gauntlet? Remember what she says? I am justice, I am vengeance - and for her that was ultimate truth, 'cause her way of life and the way of life of her people was threatened - Andrastians percieve her act as vengeance, but  she saw it as justice. Tis so easy to judge what's just and what is not from a comfy chair, but majority changes attitude when confronted with something that is effecting them directly, then even understanding of justice changes. And that's the strangest thing when it comes to party banters, only Isabela confronts Anders with true challenge when it comes to understanding what justice is. Even Daelish quest with Danayla's daughter on the Wounded Coast shows that there is a thin line between justice and vengeance. So, no, Anders wasn't seeking for vnegeance, he was actually asking for justice, but unfortunately, his own strong emotions (since he did feel the sting of mage stigma) perverted that. As my people say - road to Hell is paved by good intentions.

I agree, there is a thin line between justice and vengence.

[In Exile]

I've seen people suggest we remove the Chantry, but that could just mean Tevinter. The strength of the Chanry is that it is a counter-point to the power of the mages for regular people; it's essentially the strong majority pushing back on the incredibly powerful minority.

If you replace the Chantry with a mage-run organization, you're essentially asking everyone who is not a mage to trust that the mages play nice. And that, I think, is a major part of the original source of the conflict. Fenris makes this point well.

[TEWR]

Deztyn wrote...

... I'm starting to think you just really don't understand.

I wasn't talking about excusing individual mages for their actions for any reason. I meant excusing mages as a group for the actions of a few within the group. Pretty sure that applies to all mage supporters. Or else why be mage supporters?

And that post wasn't an argument for or against mages, the templars, or the chantry. It was an explanation. Directed at one person.

It's true that you can't condemn all for the actions of a few, but also you can't claim that all are innocent when "all" is an ever-changing variable.

[Mnemnosyne]

In Exile wrote...

I've seen people suggest we remove the Chantry, but that could just mean Tevinter. The strength of the Chanry is that it is a counter-point to the power of the mages for regular people; it's essentially the strong majority pushing back on the incredibly powerful minority.

If you replace the Chantry with a mage-run organization, you're essentially asking everyone who is not a mage to trust that the mages play nice. And that, I think, is a major part of the original source of the conflict. Fenris makes this point well.

Personally, I've never agreed that mages should be the ones in charge of keeping mages in check.  Because yes, it seems like that would certainly lead to abuses.  I would put it, like any other law, in the hands of the rightful ruler of the land.  Not in the hands of an extralegal authority that answers to no one at all, claims divine right, and systematically abuses those under its care.

[In Exile]

Koyasha wrote...
Personally, I've never agreed that mages should be the ones in charge of keeping mages in check.  Because yes, it seems like that would certainly lead to abuses.  I would put it, like any other law, in the hands of the rightful ruler of the land.  Not in the hands of an extralegal authority that answers to no one at all, claims divine right, and systematically abuses those under its care.

I think you need an extranational authority.

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Nimrodell wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

That is incorrect. A demon possession does not immediately erase the hosts "self". Just look at Conner. He was possessed by a desire demon, while he had a strong desire to cure his father.
A spirit possession only require the person it possesses to not feel the spirits token emotion, to go awry. Anders had no intention of bringing justice, all he wanted was vengeance against the Circle. Which led to all kinds of crazy. Can you imagine what would happen if a spirit of Faith were to possess an unfaithful? Or a spirit of Valor possess a coward. The only redeeming quality is that spirits have no desire to cross the veil, and thus such possession are often forced (like Justice's first possession of a corpse). And then it is only redeeming because, then it is a rare form of possession.

Not accurate, Anders didn't seek vengeance when he allowed Justice to merge with him - he clearly states that and al he says is confirmed before in Awakening (I heard that banter between those two million times 'cause of glitch). Anders was looking for justice, that's all... one may seek justice and in the same time be very angry. Those that are content usually don't posses fervent need for such strong emotion or better said ideal as justice. People can discuss about such grand ideals and have scholarly attitude that is calm, and full of educated, benevolent thoughts... but tis just not like that with true need, feeling and understand what justice is for one that seeks it. Justice and vengeance are two faces of one for many and it is even seen in DA itself... remember Lady Vasilia in Gauntlet? Remember what she says? I am justice, I am vengeance - and for her that was ultimate truth, 'cause her way of life and the way of life of her people was threatened - Andrastians percieve her act as vengeance, but  she saw it as justice. Tis so easy to judge what's just and what is not from a comfy chair, but majority changes attitude when confronted with something that is effecting them directly, then even understanding of justice changes. And that's the strangest thing when it comes to party banters, only Isabela confronts Anders with true challenge when it comes to understanding what justice is. Even Daelish quest with Danayla's daughter on the Wounded Coast shows that there is a thin line between justice and vengeance. So, no, Anders wasn't seeking for vnegeance, he was actually asking for justice, but unfortunately, his own strong emotions (since he did feel the sting of mage stigma) perverted that. As my people say - road to Hell is paved by good intentions.

I agree, there is a thin line between justice and vengence.

No, there is not. No, there is absolutely not. Vengeance and justice is two completely different things. Where as justice is a restorative action meant to bring balance, vengeance is an entirely selfish act of revenge on the people who have wronged you. Justice is also bound by morals and ethics whereas vengeance would only be tied by the will of the vengeful in question. A vengeful person may think that he is bringing justice, but that is only to justify themselves in their own minds. There is no thin line, they are two entirely different concepts.

[TEWR]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Nimrodell wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

That is incorrect. A demon possession does not immediately erase the hosts "self". Just look at Conner. He was possessed by a desire demon, while he had a strong desire to cure his father.
A spirit possession only require the person it possesses to not feel the spirits token emotion, to go awry. Anders had no intention of bringing justice, all he wanted was vengeance against the Circle. Which led to all kinds of crazy. Can you imagine what would happen if a spirit of Faith were to possess an unfaithful? Or a spirit of Valor possess a coward. The only redeeming quality is that spirits have no desire to cross the veil, and thus such possession are often forced (like Justice's first possession of a corpse). And then it is only redeeming because, then it is a rare form of possession.

Not accurate, Anders didn't seek vengeance when he allowed Justice to merge with him - he clearly states that and al he says is confirmed before in Awakening (I heard that banter between those two million times 'cause of glitch). Anders was looking for justice, that's all... one may seek justice and in the same time be very angry. Those that are content usually don't posses fervent need for such strong emotion or better said ideal as justice. People can discuss about such grand ideals and have scholarly attitude that is calm, and full of educated, benevolent thoughts... but tis just not like that with true need, feeling and understand what justice is for one that seeks it. Justice and vengeance are two faces of one for many and it is even seen in DA itself... remember Lady Vasilia in Gauntlet? Remember what she says? I am justice, I am vengeance - and for her that was ultimate truth, 'cause her way of life and the way of life of her people was threatened - Andrastians percieve her act as vengeance, but  she saw it as justice. Tis so easy to judge what's just and what is not from a comfy chair, but majority changes attitude when confronted with something that is effecting them directly, then even understanding of justice changes. And that's the strangest thing when it comes to party banters, only Isabela confronts Anders with true challenge when it comes to understanding what justice is. Even Daelish quest with Danayla's daughter on the Wounded Coast shows that there is a thin line between justice and vengeance. So, no, Anders wasn't seeking for vnegeance, he was actually asking for justice, but unfortunately, his own strong emotions (since he did feel the sting of mage stigma) perverted that. As my people say - road to Hell is paved by good intentions.

I agree, there is a thin line between justice and vengence.

No, there is not. No, there is absolutely not. Vengeance and justice is two completely different things. Where as justice is a restorative action meant to bring balance, vengeance is an entirely selfish act of revenge on the people who have wronged you. Justice is also bound by morals and ethics whereas vengeance would only be tied by the will of the vengeful in question. A vengeful person may think that he is bringing justice, but that is only to justify themselves in their own minds. There is no thin line, they are two entirely different concepts.

you do realize that there are varying types of justice? What you mentioned in the first bolded is what's called restorative justice. But there is also retributive justice, which is essentially vengeance, albeit the lawful sort.

Vengeance is defined as Punishment inflicted or retribution exacted for an injury or wrong. There is nothing to indicate it is a selfish act. It is, from its very core, a form of justice. A vengeful person can be selfish, but vengeance is not selfish, as the second bolded sentence of yours indicates.

A vengeful person can bring justice. For a movie example, I give you V for Vendetta (haven't read the graphic novels sadly, and my history is rusty so I can't give any real world examples). V knows what he is doing is vengeance. He even admits it! But he also says that violence can be used for good, which eventually Evey Hammond, as well as everyone standing outside of Parliament agree with. And by everyone, it was everyone save for the military. And he's doing this in a society dictatorship that performed monstrous experiments on him. V did what he did for everyone, because if he hadn't they would've sat still with their fear crippling them into submission for the rest of their lives. V was everyone. Call it what you will, but vengeance is justice in an extreme sense, because usually vengeance involves extreme actions. However, this does not mean it isn't justice. There is a thin line separating them.

Anders is also living in a different world from our own, which has different laws from our own. And sadly, a different law enforcement system where corruption runs deep. In the Templars, in the City Guard, in the nobility whose job it is to enforce the law, not protect their jobs (Magistrate Vanard)

[EmperorSahlertz]

There are different version of justice, because pure justice cannot exist. We as humans try to emulate the idea of justice with our laws, but that is just that, an emulation of justice. V for Vendetta is not the best example of "bringing justice" as yourself admits he is doing it purely for vengeance. You may argue that in his acts he also brings justice, but I beg to differ. For real justice to exist no one can argue against it. If an action is truely just, it is incontrovertible.
Vengeance is bringing justice in your own mind, it is NOT true justice.

[TEWR]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

There are different version of justice, because pure justice cannot exist. We as humans try to emulate the idea of justice with our laws, but that is just that, an emulation of justice. V for Vendetta is not the best example of "bringing justice" as yourself admits he is doing it purely for vengeance. You may argue that in his acts he also brings justice, but I beg to differ. For real justice to exist no one can argue against it. If an action is truely just, it is incontrovertible.
Vengeance is bringing justice in your own mind, it is NOT true justice.

If vengeance ends up creating justice, it was justice all along. Especially in a world where justice fails to exist anymore because of the people in power controlling everything.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 11 avril 2011 - 07:37 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

There are different version of justice, because pure justice cannot exist. We as humans try to emulate the idea of justice with our laws, but that is just that, an emulation of justice. V for Vendetta is not the best example of "bringing justice" as yourself admits he is doing it purely for vengeance. You may argue that in his acts he also brings justice, but I beg to differ. For real justice to exist no one can argue against it. If an action is truely just, it is incontrovertible.
Vengeance is bringing justice in your own mind, it is NOT true justice.

If vengeance ends up creating justice, it was justice all along. Especially in a world where justice fails to exist anymore because of the people in power controlling everything.

But it doesn't bring justice. Justice is right, for everyone ivolved, if anyone, just a single being, feels unjustly treated, it is not justice, but an emulation of justice. Justice cannot exist in the real world, it is an idea, a beatiful idea, but it cannot make the transistion from idea to reallity.
The only thing vengeance brings is peace of mind for the avenger. Who will later find himself as the victim of the avengers from his target's family and friends. It may have some ripple effects for sure, like V killing off the entire government of a country in his quest for vengeance, and some may consider that justice.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 11 avril 2011 - 07:48 .

[TEWR]

[quote]EmperorSahlertz wrote...

But it doesn't bring justice. Justice is right, for everyone ivolved, if anyone, just a single being, feels unjustly treated, it is not justice, but an emulation of justice.

[/quote]

But in a world where nothing is right for anyone anymore, if vengeance brings justice back into the fray and creates something that is right for everyone, then it was justice newly born again.  

[quote]
Justice cannot exist in the real world, it is an idea, a beatiful idea, but it cannot make the transistion from idea to reality.
[/quote]

sadly true. It's as Isabella said. "Justice is great in a world of ideas, but not in our world."

[quote]
The only thing vengeance brings is peace of mind for the avenger. Who will later find himself as the victim of the avengers from his target's family and friends. It may have some ripple effects for sure, like V killing off the entire government of a country in his quest for vengeance, and some may consider that justice.[/quote]
[/quote]

What vengeance brings is ultimately determined by the hands of fate. In a world where justice was no longer even an idea of how to bring balance, vengeance was the only type of justice left.

"People shouldn't be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."

Governments are given power by the people, and it is the people who can take that away.

You can't just sit there and say that vengeance brought against a dictatorship, be it by a man who was experimented on or a nation that is oppressed, isn't justice when even the idea of justice is nonexistent. Especially if the nation changes for the better.

[Rifneno]

Deztyn wrote...

Hi!

Where have you been? Posting on lots of other threads all day I see. Want to respond to what I said to you three pages back? No? Well, goodbye then. This line of conversation has been enriched by your comments! Thanks! [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/heart.png[/smilie]

I'm happy to engage in a civil debate.  That is not what you're looking for.  You got personally offended by some off-handed, likely misinterpretted remark and tried to make it personal.  I'm not going to bite.  I know when it's better to walk away from a conversation.  Which is exactly the response in question was simply a ditto to you telling someone else to leave you alone.

In Exile wrote...

I've seen people suggest we remove the Chantry, but that could just mean Tevinter. The strength of the Chanry is that it is a counter-point to the power of the mages for regular people; it's essentially the strong majority pushing back on the incredibly powerful minority.

If you replace the Chantry with a mage-run organization, you're essentially asking everyone who is not a mage to trust that the mages play nice. And that, I think, is a major part of the original source of the conflict. Fenris makes this point well.

The Chantry is a religious organization that wields tremendous military might.  That never, NEVER works out well.  The entire reason that the "dark ages" are called the "dark ages" is because this scenario played out across Europe.  Speaking of called, "templar" is a real word for a real group of religious warriors that led real exalted marches called the crusades.  History does not remember this time fondly and for damn good reason.  And it's not just that religion, history shows that pretty much anytime a religious group gets military power over a country it ends very poorly.  Remember the Taliban?  Religious nuts who ruled with an iron-fist and thought God would deflect the missiles fired at them?  Hrm, thinking God will solve all your problems and you shouldn't worry... what grand cleric does that remind me of...

Tevinter is one example of free mages ending poorly.  History is peppered with countless examples of religious orders with great military power (even if the basic religious ideas themselves are good ones) leading to war at best.  Anyone who says mages shouldn't be free while at the same time thinking the Chantry should stay in power is either a hypocrite or slept through history class.

[EmperorSahlertz]

[quote]The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

[quote]EmperorSahlertz wrote...

But it doesn't bring justice. Justice is right, for everyone ivolved, if anyone, just a single being, feels unjustly treated, it is not justice, but an emulation of justice.

[/quote]

But in a world where nothing is right for anyone anymore, if vengeance brings justice back into the fray and creates something that is right for everyone, then it was justice newly born again.  

[quote]
Justice cannot exist in the real world, it is an idea, a beatiful idea, but it cannot make the transistion from idea to reality.
[/quote]

sadly true. It's as Isabella said. "Justice is great in a world of ideas, but not in our world."

[quote]
The only thing vengeance brings is peace of mind for the avenger. Who will later find himself as the victim of the avengers from his target's family and friends. It may have some ripple effects for sure, like V killing off the entire government of a country in his quest for vengeance, and some may consider that justice.[/quote]
[/quote]

What vengeance brings is ultimately determined by the hands of fate. In a world where justice was no longer even an idea of how to bring balance, vengeance was the only type of justice left.

"People shouldn't be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."

Governments are given power by the people, and it is the people who can take that away.

You can't just sit there and say that vengeance brought against a dictatorship, be it by a man who was experimented on or a nation that is oppressed, isn't justice when even the idea of justice is nonexistent. Especially if the nation changes for the better.[/quote]

I can say that it was the right thing, and that it fits my own personal interpretation of justice. To say that it IS justice, wouldn't be correct. There is no doubt that the government in V for Vendetta changed for the better, and that we are supposed to see it as just. But we only see it as just becasue we have been born and bred into a certain idea of what justice is.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 11 avril 2011 - 01:00 .

[TEWR]

I can say that it was the right thing, and that it fits my own personal interpretation of justice. To say that it IS justice, wouldn't be correct. There is no doubt that the government in V for Vendetta changed for the better, and that we are supposed to see it as just. But we only see it as just becasue we have been born and bred into a certain idea of what justice is.

I believe this is where we shall agree to disagree. But I enjoyed this conversation greatly.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I can say that it was the right thing, and that it fits my own personal interpretation of justice. To say that it IS justice, wouldn't be correct. There is no doubt that the government in V for Vendetta changed for the better, and that we are supposed to see it as just. But we only see it as just becasue we have been born and bred into a certain idea of what justice is.

I believe this is where we shall agree to disagree. But I enjoyed this conversation greatly.

Likewise.

[Foryou]

People you are treading a thin line right now please keep it on topic. It's not you i like it but i just don't want this to be locked LOVE YOU

[TEWR]

Foryou wrote...

People you are treading a thin line right now please keep it on topic. It's not you i like it but i just don't want this to be locked LOVE YOU

I thought we were on topic? We've been talking about if mages are seen as humans in Thedas, which goes to why Anders blew up the Chantry. We've been talking about whether vengeance is a form of justice, which goes to.... well... Vengeance/Justice.

[Deztyn]

Rifneno wrote...

I'm happy to engage in a civil debate.  That is not what you're looking for.  You got personally offended by some off-handed, likely misinterpretted remark and tried to make it personal.  I'm not going to bite.  I know when it's better to walk away from a conversation.  Which is exactly the response in question was simply a ditto to you telling someone else to leave you alone.

Another internet psychic?

Please stop telling me what I think and what I want.

First you overestimate how upset I was, amused and confused are much better terms. Followed by annoyance. The other poster took what I said out of context. I pointed that out repeatedly and he still took my words out of context. He also misquoted me to make his argument. I have no desire to have a discussion with someone who doesn't even pay attention to what I'm saying and would rather put his own spin on my words. If telling someone who does that repeatedly (and not just in this thread) that you don't want to continue the discussion is making things personal, so be it.

You on the otherhand, had already walked away from the conversation. If you wanted to pick up where we'd left off that would be fine. You jumped in to make a rude comment.

[Foryou]

Gotta crack a few eggs to make an omellette