945 réponses à ce sujet

[Benchmark]

ajm317 wrote...


First criteria is met.  The intent of a RoA is to kill every mage in a circle.  That is intent to destroy.

That they repopulate their concentration camp later is not relevant. 

"First criteria is met.  The intent of a RoA is to kill every mage in a circle."

Correct, but not because the are mages. The purpose is because the mages represent a significant threat to themselves and the surrounding populations.

snipped from a larger quote

louise101 wrote...

Divine Galatea, responding to the catastrophe in Nevarra
and hoping to prevent further incidents, granted all the grand clerics
of the Chantry the power to purge a Circle entirely if they rule it
irredeemable. This Right of Annulment has been performed 17 times in the
last 700 years.

—From Of Fires, Circles, and Templars: A History of Magic in the Chantry, by Sister Petrine, Chantry scholar

Not genocide. No intent to kill for the sole purpose of being part of a unique group.

edited because I messed up quote format in original

Modifié par Benchmark, 20 avril 2011 - 05:19 .

[ajm317]

Benchmark wrote...

Emperor is right. The actual proof of genocide isn't to show that someone died and then say that person who died was part of a larger group. Genocide is only a possible charge if it can be reasonably proven that the intent of the killing was solely a sytematic plan to eliminate the larger group, and not to kill the individual in question.

I'm not sure how the destruction of an entire circle is not a plan to eliminate a larger group.  Clearly a part of the Mage population is destroyed.

The question of what constitutes "in part" was looked at in Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic.  The judge found that the part must be a substantial part of that group" and continued:

"The determination of when the targeted part is substantial enough to
meet this requirement may involve a number of considerations. The
numeric size of the targeted part of the group is the necessary and
important starting point, though not in all cases the ending point of
the inquiry. The number of individuals targeted should be evaluated not
only in absolute terms, but also in relation to the overall size of the
entire group. In addition to the numeric size of the targeted portion,
its prominence within the group can be a useful consideration. If a
specific part of the group is emblematic of the overall group, or is
essential to its survival, that may support a finding that the part
qualifies as substantial within the meaning of Article 4 [of the
Tribunal's Statute].""

There is only about a dozen circles in Thedas.  The destruction of one of them is clearly "substantial" and a circle is clearly "prominent". 

Correct, but not because the are mages. The purpose is because the mages
represent a significant threat to themselves and the surrounding
populations.

The only distinguishing factor the Templars use in their assessment of circle residents during a RoA is whether or not the person in question is a mage.  They are being killed for being mages, regardless of what the reasoning behind that is.

Hitler didn't kill 6 million Jews because he thought they had funny noses.  He killed them because he viewed them as a threat to the greater European community.  Obviously being afraid of mages in a circle overrun by abominations makes a lot more sense than being afraid of Jews, but the difference has no bearing on whether the act fits the definition of genocide, only on whether or not said genocide is justifiable.

Modifié par ajm317, 20 avril 2011 - 05:24 .

[Wulfram]

Benchmark wrote...

Not genocide. No intent to kill for the sole purpose of being part of a unique group.

The intent to kill is entirely for the sole purpose of being part of a unique group.  Because that group is held to be a threat.

[Rifneno]

Benchmark wrote...

ajm317 wrote...


First criteria is met.  The intent of a RoA is to kill every mage in a circle.  That is intent to destroy.

That they repopulate their concentration camp later is not relevant. 

"First criteria is met.  The intent of a RoA is to kill every mage in a circle."

Correct, but not because the are mages. The purpose is because the mages represent a significant threat to themselves and the surrounding populations.

snipped from a larger quote

louise101 wrote...

Divine Galatea, responding to the catastrophe in Nevarra
and hoping to prevent further incidents, granted all the grand clerics
of the Chantry the power to purge a Circle entirely if they rule it
irredeemable. This Right of Annulment has been performed 17 times in the
last 700 years.

—From Of Fires, Circles, and Templars: A History of Magic in the Chantry, by Sister Petrine, Chantry scholar

Not genocide. No intent to kill for the sole purpose of being part of a unique group.

edited because I messed up quote format in original

There is no asterix that says it only counts if you intend to destroy them because you hate them.

[EmperorSahlertz]

I'm gonna stop you right there ajm317. You keep bringing up the "in whole or in part" part of the definition. THat is the wrong part of the sentence you are focusing on. THe first criteria of the definition has to be met, for the second criteria to have any value. The first criteria is "with the intent to destroy", this means they target a specific group, on the virtue of them being part of said specific group. That is not what an annulment is. Thus the first criteria of genocide is not met, thus the second criteria does not matter, thus the annulment is not genocide, thus it is wrong to call it so.

The correct term is a purge. It is a concept almost as terrible as genocide, but with more of a political tone to it (removeal of undesireables within a body or government).
I'm not bothered that people disaggree with the moral concept of an annulment. I am bothered that people insist on using wrong terms to describe the annulment, even when proven wrong.

[Wulfram]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
 The first criteria is "with the intent to destroy", this means they target a specific group, on the virtue of them being part of said specific group. That is not what an annulment is.

Yes, it is.  They kill mages, because they're mages.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Wulfram wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
 The first criteria is "with the intent to destroy", this means they target a specific group, on the virtue of them being part of said specific group. That is not what an annulment is.

Yes, it is.  They kill mages, because they're mages.

No they don't. They kill the mages because they are a threat.
Edit: and also because they are a potential threat. Either way, they do not kill the mages simply for being mages.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 20 avril 2011 - 05:29 .

[ajm317]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

I'm gonna stop you right there ajm317. You keep bringing up the "in whole or in part" part of the definition. THat is the wrong part of the sentence you are focusing on. THe first criteria of the definition has to be met, for the second criteria to have any value. The first criteria is "with the intent to destroy", this means they target a specific group, on the virtue of them being part of said specific group. That is not what an annulment is. Thus the first criteria of genocide is not met, thus the second criteria does not matter, thus the annulment is not genocide, thus it is wrong to call it so.

Again, everyone in the circle is dead.  I do not understand how that is not "intent to destroy a part of the mage population."  It seems very cut and dry to me.  Although this may make sense to you it makes no sense at all to me, so you will have to explain yourself a bit better rather that just repeating the statement a third time.

The correct term is a purge. It is a concept almost as terrible as genocide, but with more of a political tone to it (removeal of undesireables within a body or government).
I'm not bothered that people disaggree with the moral concept of an annulment. I am bothered that people insist on using wrong terms to describe the annulment, even when proven wrong.

Purge and genocide are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
 The
first criteria is "with the intent to destroy", this means they target a
specific group, on the virtue of them being part of said specific
group. That is not what an annulment is.

Yes, it is.  They kill mages, because they're mages.

No they don't. They kill the mages because they are a threat.

Hitler would argue the same about Jews.

Modifié par ajm317, 20 avril 2011 - 05:30 .

[Wulfram]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Yes, it is.  They kill mages, because they're mages.

No they don't. They kill the mages because they are a threat.
Edit: and also because they are a potential threat. Either way, they do not kill the mages simply for being mages.

They kill mages because they're mages.  Because mages are a threat. Because they're mages.

[Benchmark]

Wulfram wrote...

Benchmark wrote...

Not genocide. No intent to kill for the sole purpose of being part of a unique group.

The intent to kill is entirely for the sole purpose of being part of a unique group.  Because that group is held to be a threat.

If this was the case they would immediately move on to killing mages in other circles. The mages in one Circle are seen as a threat. It has become impossible to salvage anyone from that one Circle. They are not a threat or irredeemable because they are mages. They are a threat because they are from a circle that is rampant with demonology and blood magic.

kill=/=mage
kill = mage corrupted by evil practices

Not genocide. You may want a more perfect solution where the Templars go in and drag out every individual mage and test them with 100% certainty to determine if they are corrupted, so do I. The game world doesn't allow this as a possibility. Apparently the Templars aren't capable of testing, and they aren't so overpowering that they can walk casually into a Circle that is full of demons and blood mages.

The only way they can go into a circle that is beyond redemption, is to go in with the intent to kill. Any hesitation would get a normal Templar killed. No Templar commander would tell their Knights to go in and "hesitate".

Maybe you are wanting to protect the rights of blood mages and abominations? If you were saying that killing them was genocide, I actually think you would be right in the case of abominations. Blood mages are part of their group through action, not inherent characteristics. Killing them for their actions couldn't be called genocide.

Modifié par Benchmark, 20 avril 2011 - 05:33 .

[ajm317]

Benchmark wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Benchmark wrote...

Not genocide. No intent to kill for the sole purpose of being part of a unique group.

The intent to kill is entirely for the sole purpose of being part of a unique group.  Because that group is held to be a threat.

If this was the case they would immediately move on to killing mages in other circles. The mages in one Circle are seen as a threat. It has become impossible to salvage anyone from that one Circle. They are not a threat or irredeemable because they are mages. They are a threat because they are from a circle that is rampant with demonology and blood magic.

kill=/=mage
kill = mage corrupted by evil practices

Not genocide. You may want a more perfect solution where the Templars go in and drag out every individual mage and test them with 100% certainty to determine if they are corrupted, so do I. The game world doesn't allow this as a possibility. Apparently the Templars aren't capable of testing, and they aren't so overpowering that they can walk casually into a Circle that is full of demons and blood mages.

The only way they can go into a circle that is beyond redemption, is to go in with the intent to kill. Any hesitation would get a normal Templar killed. No Templar commander would tell their Knights to go in and "hesitate".

Maybe you are wanting to protect the rights of blood mages and abominations? If you were saying that killing them was genocide, I actually think you would be right in the case of abominations. Blood mages are part of their group through action, not inherent characteristics. Killing them for their actions couldn't be called genocide.

You are looking at this wrong.

You only need to answer two questions.

1.  Was a substantial portion of the mage population killed?
2.  Was this intentional?

You do not need to kill all mages in all Thedas, or attempt to, or even desire to.  No where is that required by the definition.

[Lewie]

ajm317 wrote...

Benchmark wrote...

Emperor is right. The actual proof of genocide isn't to show that someone died and then say that person who died was part of a larger group. Genocide is only a possible charge if it can be reasonably proven that the intent of the killing was solely a sytematic plan to eliminate the larger group, and not to kill the individual in question.

I'm not sure how the destruction of an entire circle is not a plan to eliminate a larger group.  Clearly a part of the Mage population is destroyed.

The question of what constitutes "in part" was looked at in Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic.  The judge found that the part must be a substantial part of that group" and continued:

"The determination of when the targeted part is substantial enough to
meet this requirement may involve a number of considerations. The
numeric size of the targeted part of the group is the necessary and
important starting point, though not in all cases the ending point of
the inquiry. The number of individuals targeted should be evaluated not
only in absolute terms, but also in relation to the overall size of the
entire group. In addition to the numeric size of the targeted portion,
its prominence within the group can be a useful consideration. If a
specific part of the group is emblematic of the overall group, or is
essential to its survival, that may support a finding that the part
qualifies as substantial within the meaning of Article 4 [of the
Tribunal's Statute].""

There is only about a dozen circles in Thedas.  The destruction of one of them is clearly "substantial" and a circle is clearly "prominent". 

Correct, but not because the are mages. The purpose is because the mages
represent a significant threat to themselves and the surrounding
populations.

The only distinguishing factor the Templars use in their assessment of circle residents during a RoA is whether or not the person in question is a mage.  They are being killed for being mages, regardless of what the reasoning behind that is.

Mages are always going to be under significant risk, resorting to blood magic endangers fellow mages simply by association. The destruction of a circle may be substantial but mages aren't in danger of going extinct more are born every day the law needs to be clear and defined for their safety and everyone elses. It has to be clear regarding demons theres no middle ground but there should be a way to separate those that are possessed from those not. 

17 RoA's in 700 years is not a lot.

Also when the Ferelden circle was cleared they started rebuilding, the circle it was not completely erradicated indefinately. It was restarted.

Modifié par louise101, 20 avril 2011 - 05:36 .

[Wulfram]

I want to protect the rights of children and other innocents, which the right of annulment exists to authorise the slaughter of.

The right of annulment is not necessary to kill blood mages and abominations.  Templars can do that routinely.  It's necessary to kill all the mages the Templars can find in the free marches, because Anders is an idiot and Orsino is annoying.

[Rifneno]

ajm317 wrote...

Hitler would argue the same about Jews.

Hehe.  I didn't want to go invoking Godwin's Law, but I have to admit I was thinking the same thing.  Still wondering where this magic "it doesn't count if they think the group is a threat" rule came from.

[EmperorSahlertz]

While I aggree that the Anbulments are in some cases close to genocide, it is not the intention of Annulments to destroy. That is why it is not a genocide. Yes, the mages die during an annulment, but that does not make it genocide.
Intention is the number one criteria of genocide. The intention of an annulment is to purge the tower and make it safe again for mages. This is acheved by cleansing the tower. The only reason that all the mages has to die, is simply because the Templars have no way of discerning the good from the rotten within the Circle.
In an example: Is what happens in the Circle of Ferelden genocide? The tower has gone completely bonkers, Abominations are running rampant, and you have no way of knowing if any of the seemingly human "survivors" are actually Abominations/blood mages or not. The Annulment is called in this case, to make the tower safe again, for the mages to live in. If an Annulment were genocide, it would be called to kill all the mages, by virtue of being mages. That is not the case. Which is why it isn't genocide.

In short. The Annulment was not designed with the purpose of killing mages in mind. It was designed with the purpose of making a Circle safe again, and purging it of undesireables.

[Rifneno]

louise101 wrote...
Also when the Ferelden circle was cleared they started rebuilding, the circle it was not completely erradicated indefinately. It was restarted.

So... Hitler's concentration camps didn't count because they kept bringing in more "guests?"

[ajm317]

17 RoA's in 700 years is not a lot.

Wha?

There is about a dozen circles in Thedas.

17 RoA's in 700 years is once every 41 years.

That means that there's about 2 every lifetime.

That means that if you're a mage, in the circle, you have a 1 in 6 chance of dying in a RoA.

Even if we assume life expectancy in Thedas is only 40 you have a 1 in 12 chance.

That sounds like a lot to me.

Rifneno wrote...

ajm317 wrote...

Hitler would argue the same about Jews.

Hehe.
 I didn't want to go invoking Godwin's Law, but I have to admit I was
thinking the same thing.  Still wondering where this magic "it doesn't
count if they think the group is a threat" rule came from.

I could be wrong, but I don't think Godwin's Law is applicable in discussions on actual genocide.  I think it's more for "and thus Republicans are ****s" type arguments.

Modifié par ajm317, 20 avril 2011 - 05:41 .

[Wulfram]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

In short. The Annulment was not designed with the purpose of killing mages in mind. It was designed with the purpose of making a Circle safe again

By killing all the mages

, and purging it of undesireables.

namely, mages.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Wulfram wrote...

I want to protect the rights of children and other innocents, which the right of annulment exists to authorise the slaughter of.

The right of annulment is not necessary to kill blood mages and abominations.  Templars can do that routinely.  It's necessary to kill all the mages the Templars can find in the free marches, because Anders is an idiot and Orsino is annoying.

I am talking about the Right of Annulment as a whole. Not a single case, which is called on dubious ground. The Right of Annulment, as a concept, is not genocide. And if a child has become an Abomination, you better be ready to chop its head off, instead of "protect its rights".

[Rifneno]

ajm317 wrote...

17 RoA's in 700 years is not a lot.

Wha?

There is about a dozen circles in Thedas.

17 RoA's in 700 years is once every 41 years.

That means that there's about 2 every lifetime.

That means that if you're a mage, in the circle, you have a 1 in 6 chance of dying in a RoA.

That sounds like a lot to me.

Now now.  Let's be fair.  Mages don't live as long as most people because templars try to kill them so much.  And of course, lots of them commit suicide.  So see?  Don't you feel silly now?  

[Wulfram]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

I am talking about the Right of Annulment as a whole. Not a single case, which is called on dubious ground. The Right of Annulment, as a concept, is not genocide. And if a child has become an Abomination, you better be ready to chop its head off, instead of "protect its rights".

The right of Annulment should be judged by it's implementation.

And if a child has become an abomination, the Templars need no Right of Annulment to kill it.

Modifié par Wulfram, 20 avril 2011 - 05:44 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Wulfram wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

In short. The Annulment was not designed with the purpose of killing mages in mind. It was designed with the purpose of making a Circle safe again

By killing all the mages

, and purging it of undesireables.

namely, mages.

Is there a reason you refuse to listen? If the Tempalrs could, they would spare all innocents. However, that is not possible. So they make the safe choice of killing everybody. It is a grim task, but it is a neccesary one.

[ajm317]

Rifneno wrote...

ajm317 wrote...

17 RoA's in 700 years is not a lot.

Wha?

There is about a dozen circles in Thedas.

17 RoA's in 700 years is once every 41 years.

That means that there's about 2 every lifetime.

That means that if you're a mage, in the circle, you have a 1 in 6 chance of dying in a RoA.

That sounds like a lot to me.

Now now.  Let's be fair.  Mages don't live as long as most people because templars try to kill them so much.  And of course, lots of them commit suicide.  So see?  Don't you feel silly now?  

Good point.  I rescind my absurd argument.

[Lewie]

Rifneno wrote...

louise101 wrote...
Also when the Ferelden circle was cleared they started rebuilding, the circle it was not completely erradicated indefinately. It was restarted.

So... Hitler's concentration camps didn't count because they kept bringing in more "guests?"

I don't compare real life to the dragon age world. That was in response to the comment about eliminating 'a part' with the intent of targeting a larger group. This isn't the case here the circle would rebuild and start over.

[Benchmark]

ajm317 wrote...

You are looking at this wrong.

You only need to answer two questions.

1.  Was a substantial portion of the mage population killed?
2.  Was this intentional?

You do not need to kill all mages in all Thedas, or attempt to, or even desire to.  No where is that required by the definition.

Meh, I think you are looking at this wrong too. Your two questions would correctly define any battle or event in history. Genocide(legal), not genocide(literal), requires a third.

1.  Was a substantial portion of the mage population killed?
2.  Was this intentional?
3.  Was the purpose of the killing solely due to belonging to a specific ethnic group.

For something to be genocide, you do need to be killing someone for the purpose of eradicating a group based on ethnicity. If the purpose was because the particular susbstantial portion of the population was breaking laws that hold the death penalty, then killing them is not genocide(legal).

If you happened to execute a large group, and they happened to be the entire subset of a population, you would have caused a genocide(literal) event.