1072 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Um, locking away people is considered punishment where I am from. It's also a crime for the same reason except under specific circumtances. Indeed the US constitution (as an example) specifically lists false imprisonment (the imprisonment for something you did not DO) as a violation of a person's natural rights....and that doesn't change just because you're a mage.

So where you are from doesn't have asylums? Or mental institutes? People can be locked away against their will because they are dangerous, to themselves and others.

People have also been falsely imprisoned because of who they are, and the argument made then was over what they could be capable of doing, like the Japanese Americans who are imprisoned during WWII. The Magi Origin specifically uses the term "prison" to identify the Circle Tower, and mages are denied basic rights and agency over their lives.

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

It might not be their fault they can go mad at times and hurt people unintentionally, but by and large putting them in a secure and safe location is better than letting them run around free and maiming/killing the occasional innocent bystander. You can be sympathetic of their plight, but would you be scared to live under the same roof as them?

How is it safe and secure when mages are at the mercy of the templars? Look at the rape, torture, illegal tranquility, and murder that transpired in Kirkwall under the Chantry controlled Circle system.

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Not all mages are 'mad' or lacking in self-control, and I'm not advocating that they should all be locked up, but from a certain perspective they have an incredible capacity for death and destruction if they 'lose it', even at a young age (both Anders and Wynne set things/people on fire before going to the Circle), and at a scale far beyond a regular person. Containment is not meant to be the same as punishment, although it's easy to SEE it that way and of course conditions can vary from site to site.

It's not merely containment when mages have been denied basic rights and freedoms for nearly a thousand years, especially under a religious order that preaches how mages are "cursed."

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Containment without cause and without redress IS imprisonment. It's why in the US constitution (again as an example) there is a strict limit to how long you can be held without charges being filed.

-Polaris

Thedas isn't the US, Polaris. And it definitely IS in the Dark Ages.

Deal with it.

I don't see why people shouldn't address the problem with a system that treats mages as though they're sub-human.

[sphinxess]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

RosaAquafire wrote...

Dear IanPolaris,

I find it a little worrisome just how much energy you have dedicated to this. It was just amusing a month ago, but damn, boy, I'm becoming concerned. Why don't you expend all this energy fighting for the human rights of an actual oppressed minority in the actual world?

Why are you condescending to people who take a different viewpoint than you do? You seem to be taking the pro-mage argument very personally considering it's concerns a fictional universe.

Rose isn't condescending to people who take a different opinion than Rose. Rose can't even be called to being condescending to 'people': one person in particular, who is not you.

And your own quote rather illustrates that it isn't the difference of position, but the extent to which IanPolaris is clinging to it, that is the cause. Rosa isn't condescending because Polaris disagrees, Rosa is remarking about about Polaris for carrying on as Polaris does.

Thats not anyones place on these forums though - its the same as a personal attack.

[Dean_the_Young]

sphinxess wrote...

Thats not anyones place on these forums though - its the same as a personal attack.

Claiming someone is taking something unreasonably far is not a personal attack towards anything but ego.

If she were calling Polaris an idiot, crazy, or insane over a single argument, that would be a personal attack. Cautioning him over behavior demonstrated over an extended period of time is not.

Calling someone out for being unreasonable is not the same as personally attacking them.

[LobselVith8]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

The problem is at least one Dev (DG) want US (not sixth century Europeans but 21st century modern Westerners for the most part) to belileve that it's a reasonable thing to lock away people for what they are.

I'm not sure your assumption is correct considering the (to all appearances) horrible attempts you've made at understanding Gaider's position, but suffice to say we 21st century Earth People have no mage equivalent in our society.

If we did, if we had mages, DA-esque demons and abominations, perhaps you would think some sort of segregation would be wise. You would definitely need educational programs so they don't hurt people unintentionally--and considering how successful our world is in getting *regular* kids to go to school, you think we'd have any more luck with mage children?

Would we need a law enforcement unit to deal with abominations, or would the very existence of such a thing be considered a prejudiced oppression?

David Gaider responded to a post on page 11 about how mages from the Kirkwall Circle were innocent of the crime that Anders committed with his own comments about mages being dangerous, so I don't see how Ian was off the mark in addressing what he specifically said.

Nevertheless, the issue is we're looking at the codex entries, the storyline, the novels, and we're assessing how the Chantry controlled Circles are. If a victim of rape like Fiona (from The Calling) sees the Circle as no better than her life as the rape victim of an Orlesian noble, it tells me that there's a fundamental problem that should be addressed. In addition to the other forms of abuse that have been allowed to flourish because mages are denied basic rights, people took a stand against the Chantry controlled Circles as a solution because they are part of the problem.

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Now, if we were supposed to understad it's the evil choice but widely supported by the NPC population, that would be one thing.  Many games do that....but no,we are supposed to agree with this frm our modern viewpoint and the Devs (seemed anyway) to get upset when most of us didn't (at least per the DAO play data).

One of the main problems with DA2 is that the endgame has very polarised choices. Siding with the Templars doesn't necessarily mean you agree with imprisoning or killing them. Siding with the Mages doesn't necessarily mean you think they should all be free.

For example, my warrior Hawke had Bethany in the Circle and sympathised with mages. She did not believe they should *all* be free to roam the world, but she also knew that the majority of people fear mages, are prone to attack them, and when mages are threatened bad things can happen. That said, she sided with the mages, both to protect Bethany and because she didn't agree with Meredith calling the Right of Annulment. That does not in any way mean she supported Anders or the mage revolution, she simply didn't support the Templars slaughtering all the mages, and that was it! She would have cheerfully turned control of the situation over to Cullen after that.

If Bioware is basing our 'modern viewpoints' purely on play data are you seem to be suggesting, then I wouldn't be surprised they might raise their brows. Some decisions are more complex than "I will side with the Templars because mages should be imprisoned!" and "I will side with the mages because I think they should be free!"

Except the end of DA2 forces Hawke to either help exterminate the Kirkwall Circle or protect the mages, so there's no complexity to the issue. They could have made the storyline complex, but they didn't.

[RosaAquafire]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

RosaAquafire wrote...

Dear IanPolaris,

I find it a little worrisome just how much energy you have dedicated to this. It was just amusing a month ago, but damn, boy, I'm becoming concerned. Why don't you expend all this energy fighting for the human rights of an actual oppressed minority in the actual world?

Why are you condescending to people who take a different viewpoint than you do? You seem to be taking the pro-mage argument very personally considering it's concerns a fictional universe.

Rose isn't condescending to people who take a different opinion than Rose. Rose can't even be called to being condescending to 'people': one person in particular, who is not you.

And your own quote rather illustrates that it isn't the difference of position, but the extent to which IanPolaris is clinging to it, that is the cause. Rosa isn't condescending because Polaris disagrees, Rosa is remarking about about Polaris for carrying on as Polaris does.

Exactly.

I personally take a neutrel stance in-world, and a pro-templar stance on the forums because mage defenders annoy me with how they tend to reduce the argument to real world politics and black and white extremes. Pro-templar people bother me less because I find they understand the murkiness of the debate -- a murkiness that was written INTO the debate, on purpose, by the writing team, who want us to see that it's a tricky situation. I feel it's my duty to vocally roll my eyes at how seriously mage supporters take the whole thing every so often.

I don't literally don't care what someone supports. It's a murky debate. Either side has merit. I've seen great arguments both ways. Also, it's quite honestly not important enough for me to care what you support.

I do care, with a sense of genuine bemusement, how a total of like, 500 man hours have been put into arguing about the relative level of oppression undergone by a fictional minority in a fictional world by people who take it so personally it's like THEY are mages being locked away for life. I think IanPolaris could have raised hundreds of dollars for an actual cause concerning actual human rights for actual people with the time he's spent arguing about how oppressed mages are in Thedas on the internet.

I feel someone has to stage a minor intervention on his behalf.

[LobselVith8]

RosaAquafire wrote...

I personally take a neutrel stance in-world, and a pro-templar stance on the forums because mage defenders annoy me with how they tend to reduce the argument to real world politics and black and white extremes. Pro-templar people bother me less because I find they understand the murkiness of the debate -- a murkiness that was written INTO the debate, on purpose, by the writing team, who want us to see that it's a tricky situation. I feel it's my duty to vocally roll my eyes at how seriously mage supporters take the whole thing every so often.

Some of them must have missed the "murkiness" when I read people arguing that mages are property of the Chantry or that mages aren't people.

RosaAquafire wrote...

I do care, with a sense of genuine bemusement, how a total of like, 500 man hours have been put into arguing about the relative level of oppression undergone by a fictional minority in a fictional world by people who take it so personally it's like THEY are mages being locked away for life. I think IanPolaris could have raised hundreds of dollars for an actual cause concerning actual human rights for actual people with the time he's spent arguing about how oppressed mages are in Thedas on the internet.

I feel someone has to stage a minor intervention on his behalf.

Unless you have some insight into what Ian actually does for a living or whether he even contributes to charities and the like, why are you making rather crude assumptions about what he should be doing with his personal life?

[RosaAquafire]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Some of them must have missed the "murkiness" when I read people arguing that mages are property of the Chantry or that mages aren't people.

mea culpa, I forgot to specify "most," pro-templar people, for this is the internet, where hyperbole is always assumed as truth.

I've seen amazingly little of that, though. You could probably fill thimbles to oceans in comparison between people who take the templar-side extreme vs. the mage-side extreme. Thus my tendancy to brofist the templar peeps and eyebrow the mage peeps. I don't like extremists. Or people who take fictional debates so impossibly seriously you can feel the waves of srsface radiating off your monitor.

LobselVith8 wrote...
Unless you have some insight into what Ian actually does for a living or whether he even contributes to charities and the like, why are you making rather crude assumptions about what he should be doing with his personal life?

There's no way I can respond to this without being a massive jerk so I plead the fifth.

Modifié par RosaAquafire, 09 avril 2011 - 03:03 .

[Dean_the_Young]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Unless you have some insight into what Ian actually does for a living or whether he even contributes to charities and the like, why are you making rather crude assumptions about what he should be doing with his personal life?

Where does she make any assumptions about what he sould do?


She points out what he could be doing with his personal life instead of posting here. Which, given the number of man hours involved here, is not much of an assumption, and rather irrelevant to how much Polaris does (or does not) already contribute to whatever charities.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 09 avril 2011 - 03:33 .

[LobselVith8]

RosaAquafire wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Some of them must have missed the "murkiness" when I read people arguing that mages are property of the Chantry or that mages aren't people.

mea culpa, I forgot to specify "most," pro-templar people, for this is the internet, where hyperbole is always assumed as truth.

Which is why my response indicated "some."

RosaAquafire wrote...

I've seen amazingly little of that, though. You could probably fill thimbles to oceans in comparison between people who take the templar-side extreme vs. the mage-side extreme. Thus my tendancy to brofist the templar peeps and eyebrow the mage peeps. I don't like extremists. Or people who take fictional debates so impossibly seriously you can feel the waves of srsface radiating off your monitor.

People discuss things passionately. I don't see anything wrong with that as long as people realize that it's simply a discussion over a fictional fantasy realm. I have debates with people over the templar and mage issues with my friends. Both sides involve people who have an opinion, and claiming one side has some greater hold on the understanding of the "murkiness" behind the debate is inaccurate.

People have an opinion, and they express it, because the story we immerse ourselves in permits me to have an opinion on the issue.

[IanPolaris]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Considering Wynne also goes on to say the Litany is a spell and can only be used by a mage, it's even stanger Adralla would be a bard...but go figure, no one ever said Adralla created the Litany for her own use.

This was back when they could cross-class.

Wynne in DAO is more wrong than right.  Wynne claims a lot of lore (very authoritatively too such as only one Grey Warden mage) that are laughably wrong.  In a conflict between the codex and Wynne, we should take the Codex entry (and it's written by the Chantry fwiw) every time.  Also Wynne does tell you that the Litany is a spell and Dragon Age Bards are rogues and thus can't do spells.

Wynne is (as usual) wrong.  Adralla was a renegade bloodmage.  The Chantry just tries to duck that issue as much as they can.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Unless you have some insight into what Ian actually does for a living or whether he even contributes to charities and the like, why are you making rather crude assumptions about what he should be doing with his personal life?

Where does she make any assumptions about what he sould do?

She points out what he could be doing with his personal life instead of posting here. Which, given the number of man hours involved here, is not much of an assumption, and rather irrelevant to how much Polaris does (or does not) already contribute to whatever charities.

She knows nothing about his personal life or what he does, so maybe she could refrain from the disparaging remarks.

[IanPolaris]

My life is my own and any commentary on it is something I do regard as a personal attack and frankly none of your damn business. If I wanted a Mother Teresa on the boards, I'd have asked for one, so to whom it may concern:

Butt Out. Last (relatively nice) warning before I call in the moderators.

-Polaris

[Dean_the_Young]

LobselVith8 wrote...


She knows nothing about his personal life or what he does, so maybe she could refrain from the disparaging remarks.

It's not a disparaging remark. It's a fact: IanPolaris has spent hundreds of mutually exclusive man hours arguing this topic, and those hours well could have been spent towards actual people. This is only insulting in so much as one is insulted by having their life choices pointed out at them: if you applied the same wording to me (I spend lots of time on the internet as opposed to at charities), I would not be insulted because (a) it is true and ( I have never marked myself as a moral crusader whose moral integrity has been compromised.

What he does with the rest of his time is actually irrelevant to what he does with the time in question.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 09 avril 2011 - 03:52 .

[IanPolaris]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...


She knows nothing about his personal life or what he does, so maybe she could refrain from the disparaging remarks.

It's not a disparaging remark. It's a fact: IanPolaris has spent hundreds of mutually exclusive man hours arguing this topic, and those hours well could have been spent towards actual people. This is only insulting in so much as one is insulted by having their life choices pointed out at them: if you applied the same wording to me (I spend lots of time on the internet as opposed to at charities), I would not be insulted because (a) it is true and ( I have never marked myself as a moral crusader.

What he does with the rest of his time is actually irrelevant to what he does with the time in question.

What I do with my time is none of your business and making disparaging comments about any posters about how they spend their time IS in fact a personal attack because it makes the person and not the game the subject of discussion.

So again, please butt out before I ask a moderator to step in.  I am asking (once) nicely.

-Polaris

[Eternal Phoenix]

Heh. Call DA2 bad if you want but it brings out good arguments. Some people take the mage vs templar thing seriously.

[Merci357]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

It's a fact: IanPolaris has spent hundreds of mutually exclusive man hours arguing this topic,

Only this topic. And that's the reason I don't engage in any kind of discussion here, while I do regard it as one of the most interesting aspects of the Dragon Age setting. How to speak on eye level with someone who is out for his own crusade? You just don't, any reminder to relax just a little might be a sympathetic advice - but will lead just to the exact opposite.

[PantheraOnca]

i hear dean and rosa like to spend their time not on the forums shoving fecal matter in their mouths.


i'm not judging, i'm just saying. this is what it appears they do based on the number and types of posts they have made on the forums. so i've heard.

(derp de derp)

[KnightofPhoenix]

Was any of that really necessary?

[AngryFrozenWater]

RosaAquafire wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Some of them must have missed the "murkiness" when I read people arguing that mages are property of the Chantry or that mages aren't people.

mea culpa, I forgot to specify "most," pro-templar people, for this is the internet, where hyperbole is always assumed as truth.

I've seen amazingly little of that, though. You could probably fill thimbles to oceans in comparison between people who take the templar-side extreme vs. the mage-side extreme. Thus my tendancy to brofist the templar peeps and eyebrow the mage peeps. I don't like extremists. Or people who take fictional debates so impossibly seriously you can feel the waves of srsface radiating off your monitor.

LobselVith8 wrote...
Unless you have some insight into what Ian actually does for a living or whether he even contributes to charities and the like, why are you making rather crude assumptions about what he should be doing with his personal life?

There's no way I can respond to this without being a massive jerk so I plead the fifth.

Must be terrible to be forced to read this thread. Maybe we should ask a moderator to close this thread so that your nightmare can end?

[stobie]

Well, *this* is getting awkward!

[The Baconer]

Has the subject of this discussion changed in the last 20 or so pages or can I assume people still insist on debating an already resolved non-issue?

[LobselVith8]

The Baconer wrote...

Has the subject of this discussion changed in the last 20 or so pages or can I assume people still insist on debating an already resolved non-issue?

It's changed since page 11 when I mentioned that the Right of Annulment was genocide against innocent people who weren't responsible for what Anders did, and David Gaider responded that mages have magical ability and are dangerous.

[The Baconer]

LobselVith8 wrote...
It's changed since page 11 when I mentioned that the Right of Annulment was genocide against innocent people who weren't responsible for what Anders did, and David Gaider responded that mages have magical ability and are dangerous.

Hmm, well I would certainly like to remark how whether or not they're dangerous has nothing to do with the fact that Anders alone blew up the Chantry, but I can only assume that's already been touched upon, among other things.

I'll just sit this one out then.

Modifié par The Baconer, 09 avril 2011 - 05:04 .

[Dean_the_Young]

PantheraOnca wrote...

i hear dean and rosa like to spend their time not on the forums shoving fecal matter in their mouths.


i'm not judging, i'm just saying. this is what it appears they do based on the number and types of posts they have made on the forums. so i've heard.

(derp de derp)

The difference, in case you honestly couldn't tell, is that while one is libel (a false accusation, implied to be true, forwarded to discredit a person), the other is true.

Now, if you could actualy point to cases in which I put **** in my mouth, it would be true and not a disparaging remark. As you can't, not least because I've never posted any image of myself online for you to cite, it is.

[Dean_the_Young]

IanPolaris wrote...

What I do with my time is none of your business and making disparaging comments about any posters about how they spend their time IS in fact a personal attack because it makes the person and not the game the subject of discussion.

So again, please butt out before I ask a moderator to step in.  I am asking (once) nicely.

-Polaris

I assure you, you're lack of respect for me breaks my heart. And I will wipe tears from my eyes if your non-issue topic is closed.