945 réponses à ce sujet

[mesmerizedish]

AlexXIV wrote...

If you had some backbone you'd least admit it, you'd say 'Yes, it is genocide, but we believe it was the right call in this situation.' But you rather sneak around it like a politician. Which is the whole point this genocide discussion remains so long in this forum. People will say it was the right thing to do but not even give their victims the respect to reflect on it and feel bad about it.

Kind of like the people who refuse to label Anders a terrorist?

[EmperorSahlertz]

AlexXIV wrote...

Genocide is, simply put, killing people for what they are. It can't get easier. The mages are not killed for doing something wrong or evil. They are killed for being born so. I don't know why people are so upset about the word genocide. It is merely a desciption for killing people for a very special reason. Reason being that they are different. A danger to 'normal' people, a danger to life style, culture, etc, etc. Does it really feel better to say 'we killed innocents' than 'we comitted genocide'? Well then call it as you wish, it makes no difference to the dead. Call it cleansing, call it restoring order, whatever makes you feel good. But if you have to hide your actions behind pretty words I'll just assume you know already that and why you have a reason to hide.

If you had some backbone you'd least admit it, you'd say 'Yes, it is genocide, but we believe it was the right call in this situation.' But you rather sneak around it like a politician. Which is the whole point this genocide discussion remains so long in this forum. People will say it was the right thing to do but not even give their victims the respect to reflect on it and feel bad about it.

Except they ARE killed for having done something wrong. It is not Genocide, it is a purge. The reason all mages die, is not because they are mages, it is because there is no way to discern the good apples from the bad.

If you pro-mages actually had any backbone, you would admit to have been wrong about calling it genocide, and start use the correct term. However, "purge" doesn't ring the same I am offended bell like "genocide" so you persist in its use. Even if it is wrong.

[moilami]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

If you had some backbone you'd least admit it, you'd say 'Yes, it is genocide, but we believe it was the right call in this situation.' But you rather sneak around it like a politician. Which is the whole point this genocide discussion remains so long in this forum. People will say it was the right thing to do but not even give their victims the respect to reflect on it and feel bad about it.

Kind of like the people who refuse to label Anders a terrorist?

HAHAHAHAHAHA, little one tries to be again high school intellectual. How cute 

In a society which is ruled by religious lunatics the word "terrorism" is best used as it was originally.



terrorism 1795, in specific sense of "government intimidation during the Reign of Terror in France" (1793-July 1794), from Fr. terrorisme (1798), from L. terror (see terror).

If the basis of a popular government in peacetime is virtue, its basis
in a time of revolution is virtue and terror -- virtue, without which
terror would be barbaric; and terror, without which virtue would be
impotent. [Robespierre, speech in French National Convention, 1794]

General sense of "systematic use of terror as a policy" is first
recorded in English 1798. At one time, a word for a certain kind of
mass-destruction terrorism was dynamitism (1883); and during World War I frightfulness (translating Ger. Schrecklichkeit) was used in Britain for "deliberate policy of terrorizing enemy non-combatants."


Chantry is the terrorist organisation.

[mesmerizedish]

Ummm... okay?

[Wulfram]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...


Except they ARE killed for having done something wrong.

What has Bethany done wrong?

[mesmerizedish]

Wulfram wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...


Except they ARE killed for having done something wrong.

What has Bethany done wrong?

Nothing, but his point is that the Templars can't be sure. At that point, every mage is ostensibly ripe for possession, and there's no way to tell whether a mage is a demon or a human.

It's still indefensible, but I do think the term "genocide" doesn't really apply.

[moilami]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...


Except they ARE killed for having done something wrong.

What has Bethany done wrong?

Nothing, but his point is that the Templars can't be sure. At that point, every mage is ostensibly ripe for possession, and there's no way to tell whether a mage is a demon or a human.

It's still indefensible, but I do think the term "genocide" doesn't really apply.

It applies as long as there is chantry treating mages like cattle.

[mesmerizedish]

moilami wrote...

It applies as long as there is chantry treating mages like cattle.

I don't think the definition of genocide really has anything to do with cattle, figurative or no

[moilami]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

moilami wrote...

It applies as long as there is chantry treating mages like cattle.

I don't think the definition of genocide really has anything to do with cattle, figurative or no

I know a better word though. But since Internet laws says the one who uses it loses automatically I don't use it.

[mesmerizedish]

moilami wrote...

I know a better word though. But since Internet laws says the one who uses it loses automatically I don't use it.

I... don't understand? I might agree with your better word though, since my objection to "genocide" is purely symantic.

[Uzzy]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

moilami wrote...

I know a better word though. But since Internet laws says the one who uses it loses automatically I don't use it.

I... don't understand? I might agree with your better word though, since my objection to "genocide" is purely symantic.

Basically he's wanting to call it a holocaust.

[mesmerizedish]

Uzzy wrote...

Basically he's wanting to call it a holocaust.

Oh! Pfft. People are too afraid to use that word.

I think Meredith could totally be compared to Hitler, albeit on a much smaller scale. But damn you for Godwinning the thread!

[TobiTobsen]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

moilami wrote...

I know a better word though. But since Internet laws says the one who uses it loses automatically I don't use it.

I... don't understand? I might agree with your better word though, since my objection to "genocide" is purely symantic.

*gasp* Godwin's Law incoming!

[Wulfram]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Oh! Pfft. People are too afraid to use that word.

I think Meredith could totally be compared to Hitler, albeit on a much smaller scale. But damn you for Godwinning the thread!

Bioware pre-godwinned this sort of discussion with the "Tranquil Solution"

[Uzzy]

Rifneno wrote...

Uzzy wrote...

Trying to bring in modern morality is doomed to fail. The two highlighted points, acceptance of women and homosexual relationships, are pretty much the only thing equivalent to modern morality in the world of Thedas, and even that's far from universal. I'd go so far as to say those are only in Dragon Age to cater to the player base, though they are justified inworld.

Everything else? It's downright medieval, or more precisely, typical dark fantasy.

There's a reason modern morality is modern.  Because generally speaking it's better.  You can use the "well you can't compare their morality to ours!" idea to condone virtually anything.  Slavery for instance.  Should we all go tell Fenris that slavery is awesome because lots of ancient cultures didn't realize it was wrong to frickin' own other people?  No better yet, how about Tevinter?  If I'm not allowed to bring my morality into the Free Marches, why are you free to bring your morality into Tevinter?  Because by their society mass blood sacrifices for giggles is a-okay.  Who are you to judge?  ...  Exactly.

I think you missed my point. Which was simply that bringing in UN definitions and the Nuremburg defence isn't going to fly here, as Thedas operates under a very different standard of morality. You and others are holding characters up to a level of morality which simply does not exist in their world.

[mesmerizedish]

Wulfram wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Oh! Pfft. People are too afraid to use that word.

I think Meredith could totally be compared to Hitler, albeit on a much smaller scale. But damn you for Godwinning the thread!

Bioware pre-godwinned this sort of discussion with the "Tranquil Solution"

Point.

[AlexXIV]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

If you had some backbone you'd least admit it, you'd say 'Yes, it is genocide, but we believe it was the right call in this situation.' But you rather sneak around it like a politician. Which is the whole point this genocide discussion remains so long in this forum. People will say it was the right thing to do but not even give their victims the respect to reflect on it and feel bad about it.

Kind of like the people who refuse to label Anders a terrorist?

If we assume that one act of terrorism makes you a terrorist then he is one.

[mesmerizedish]

AlexXIV wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

If you had some backbone you'd least admit it, you'd say 'Yes, it is genocide, but we believe it was the right call in this situation.' But you rather sneak around it like a politician. Which is the whole point this genocide discussion remains so long in this forum. People will say it was the right thing to do but not even give their victims the respect to reflect on it and feel bad about it.

Kind of like the people who refuse to label Anders a terrorist?

If we assume that one act of terrorism makes you a terrorist then he is one.

I think committing an act of terrorism makes you a terrorist, yes. How many acts of terrorism did Timothy McVeigh commit?

[AlexXIV]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Genocide is, simply put, killing people for what they are. It can't get easier. The mages are not killed for doing something wrong or evil. They are killed for being born so. I don't know why people are so upset about the word genocide. It is merely a desciption for killing people for a very special reason. Reason being that they are different. A danger to 'normal' people, a danger to life style, culture, etc, etc. Does it really feel better to say 'we killed innocents' than 'we comitted genocide'? Well then call it as you wish, it makes no difference to the dead. Call it cleansing, call it restoring order, whatever makes you feel good. But if you have to hide your actions behind pretty words I'll just assume you know already that and why you have a reason to hide.

If you had some backbone you'd least admit it, you'd say 'Yes, it is genocide, but we believe it was the right call in this situation.' But you rather sneak around it like a politician. Which is the whole point this genocide discussion remains so long in this forum. People will say it was the right thing to do but not even give their victims the respect to reflect on it and feel bad about it.

Except they ARE killed for having done something wrong. It is not Genocide, it is a purge. The reason all mages die, is not because they are mages, it is because there is no way to discern the good apples from the bad.

If you pro-mages actually had any backbone, you would admit to have been wrong about calling it genocide, and start use the correct term. However, "purge" doesn't ring the same I am offended bell like "genocide" so you persist in its use. Even if it is wrong.

Sadly I am not really pro-mage. Just in this case. Because killing people for what they are is bad. And if a templar cannot discern good mages from bloodmages they should probably look for a new job. If the only thing that makes a templar is being good at killing mages then this says alot for me. It's not like mages have alot of freedom. There is basically a templar at every corner of the Circle. So was it so hard to find out bloodmages? My answer is that Meredith maybe wasn't interested to keep the bloodmages in check. Much better if they run through the streets and attack civilians, so she gets a good excuse to 'purge' them.

Did you ever look up the term purge? I just did and had a good laugh.

[AlexXIV]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

If you had some backbone you'd least admit it, you'd say 'Yes, it is genocide, but we believe it was the right call in this situation.' But you rather sneak around it like a politician. Which is the whole point this genocide discussion remains so long in this forum. People will say it was the right thing to do but not even give their victims the respect to reflect on it and feel bad about it.

Kind of like the people who refuse to label Anders a terrorist?

If we assume that one act of terrorism makes you a terrorist then he is one.

I think committing an act of terrorism makes you a terrorist, yes. How many acts of terrorism did Timothy McVeigh commit?

There is not really and good definition of what a terrorist is. So I don't disagree. Though sadly that would make the US Army terrorists too. Not to mention the templars and Chantry of Dragon Age. Oh well.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 22 avril 2011 - 10:57 .

[Paraxial]

moilami wrote...

HAHAHAHAHAHA, little one tries to be again high school intellectual. How cute 

In a society which is ruled by religious lunatics the word "terrorism" is best used as it was originally.

terrorism 1795, in specific sense of "government intimidation during the Reign of Terror in France" (1793-July 1794), from Fr. terrorisme (1798), from L. terror (see terror).

If the basis of a popular government in peacetime is virtue, its basis
in a time of revolution is virtue and terror -- virtue, without which
terror would be barbaric; and terror, without which virtue would be
impotent. [Robespierre, speech in French National Convention, 1794]

General sense of "systematic use of terror as a policy" is first
recorded in English 1798. At one time, a word for a certain kind of
mass-destruction terrorism was dynamitism (1883); and during World War I frightfulness (translating Ger. Schrecklichkeit) was used in Britain for "deliberate policy of terrorizing enemy non-combatants."

Chantry is the terrorist organisation.

Terrorism is defined as the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of specific politcal aims. Citing common definition(s) of terrorism/terrorists is foolish as they are as controversial and are debated on as much as terrorist acts are.

Most people debating on whether or not Anders is what we would call a 'terrorist' are doing so largely based on our current legal systems view on what a terrorist is, and moral issues. Common and legal definitions place a terrorist as an individual who uses violent means to further political gains in an unlawful manner. Now debating that issue is another matter, as it can lead to grey areas brought about by personal bias, but in terms of our modern stance on what a terrorist is, yes Anders is a terrorist. He is unlawfully using violence and a sizable amount of force to further a political ideal that he holds dear. In terms of what terrorism is historically and how that relates to the lore of the DA universe is another matter, one which could (and has been) debated on many times before. The definition of terrorism can be fogged up a bit if its tactics are being used by a government or large and well established organization. It tends to not be referred to as terrorism, but as tyranny or oppression. This is because the organization committing the atrocities is usually already in power, and is therefor preserving a political ideal not attempting to further or develop one.

I don't side with the Templars because Anders was not a circle mage, and did not have any influence in the Circle of Magi. This would make the Rite completely pointless, even if you really wanted to make an argument to support the Rite it would be difficult to do so. However I do support the Templar ideal. They are a force that exists to combat evil/dangerous magic and eliminate the threat of malicious mages. Templars, or an order similar to them, will always be necessary in a world with magic. The problem lies within their integration with the Chantry, whose goals are not always as pure as they say. The Templar Order should be a Lawful Good entity, existing to protect, enforce, and punish those who are touched by magic. Sadly however it is more of a Lawful Neutral organization, and some of the members are leaning towards a more Lawful Evil order simply out of fear and lack of understanding.

[Rifneno]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

You are aware that those charters are written for a world where mages don't exist, right?  You'll have to excuse me if I roll my eyes while you claim we should follow the letter of the law rather than the spirit of it when it's written for something totally alien to the subject at hand.

I'm not the one calling it genocide and bringing up the UN, sweetie. You'll have to take that up with IanPolaris over yonder.

Well, "sweetie," that might be because he's got more respect for you than I do.  He seems to actually still think that people like you and Louise might stop sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling real loud because you don't have the guts to hear the truth.  You want your actions black and white and don't want to hear any of these foul but truthful words such as "genocide" or "butchering children" because as long as every mage is Quentin then things are all neat and tidy and you're the grand hero.  Unfortunately that's not how it is.  He's trying to fight technicalities with technicalities.  I'm just writing you off.  I'd apologize for bursting your bubble, but it's clear we'd need a mass accelerator canon to pierce that vault door of a bubble.

AlexXIV wrote...

If you had some backbone you'd least admit it, you'd say 'Yes, it is genocide, but we believe it was the right call in this situation.' But you rather sneak around it like a politician. Which is the whole point this genocide discussion remains so long in this forum. People will say it was the right thing to do but not even give their victims the respect to reflect on it and feel bad about it.

Awww, Alex beat me to the punch.  

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Kind of like the people who refuse to label Anders a terrorist?

kind of, except that the reason there is over a hundred documented definitions of the word.  And guess what?  By the most liberal of them, half of us are terrorists!  Ever gotten onto a friend's computer and changed his desktop as a practical joke?  Congratulations, that fits the description of hacking type terrorism under some of the nutbag definitions.

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Nothing, but his point is that the Templars can't be sure. At that point, every mage is ostensibly ripe for possession, and there's no way to tell whether a mage is a demon or a human.

Hey, remember the Enemiest Among Us quest?  Where we see templar abominations?  Hmm, look at all the templars we see acting "suspicious" compared to all the suspicious ones in DAO... which would what, 0?  Hmm.  Sounds like there might be more templar abominations than we know for sure.  Clearly, the only safe route of action is execute every templar in Kirkwall.  Without trial.  And since they can't be tranquilled, no surrendering.

Uzzy wrote...

I think you missed my point. Which was simply that bringing in UN definitions and the Nuremburg defence isn't going to fly here, as Thedas operates under a very different standard of morality. You and others are holding characters up to a level of morality which simply does not exist in their world.

It was brought up under the foolish notion that the pro-templar side would stop sticking their fingers in their ears and admit what they're supporting.  Sure, it's all well and good to slaughter innocent people begging for mercy because they *might* be a threat but let's not hear any ugly words!

[Lewie]

Many people have seen the effects of genocide/terrorism/hitler etc in real life. I saw the street after the Omagh bombing what scares me that people think you actually agree with these types of acts if you kill fictional people in a game. Its just ridiculous. In game combat is hilarious at times.

I guess im a pixel terrorist.

[Uzzy]

Rifneno wrote...

Uzzy wrote...

I think you missed my point. Which was simply that bringing in UN definitions and the Nuremburg defence isn't going to fly here, as Thedas operates under a very different standard of morality. You and others are holding characters up to a level of morality which simply does not exist in their world.

It was brought up under the foolish notion that the pro-templar side would stop sticking their fingers in their ears and admit what they're supporting.  Sure, it's all well and good to slaughter innocent people begging for mercy because they *might* be a threat but let's not hear any ugly words!

I don't think anyone on the 'pro-templar' side has disputed the fact that the Right of Annulment is a horrible act that results in many deaths, often of innocents. Calling it 'genocide', however, is quite wrong and demeans the argument.

[Paraxial]

Uzzy wrote...
Calling it 'genocide', however, is quite wrong and demeans the argument. 

Calling it genocide is not wrong, it fits the exact definition of the word. It is a systematic extermination of a group of people, that is exactly was the Rite is. The issue is that people tend to relate that word with a specific act in history, The Holocaust. Comparing the rite to the Holocaust is incorrect. It would be technically correct to call what the Grey Wardens want to do to the Darkspawn genocide. Wiping out an entire group is what genocide is.

The argument should be, do you believe that genocide is ever an appropriate solution to an issue. More specifically, do you believe genocide is appropriate if a group may be corrupted.