353 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

No, she targets them becase they have commited crimes. Not because they are mages. She does not target them by virtue of being mages. But by virtue of being corrupted.

No.  She targets them because they are mages.  The circle very clearly had nothing to do (at least there is not one scintilla of evidence for it) with the Chantry bombing which prompted the Right of Annulment.  Sebastian says it best when he looks at Meredith in disbelief and asks, "Why are we even debating the Right of Annulment when the monster that did this is right here!"

Meridith is a fruit-loop by this point.  She wants all mages dead because they are mages.  It IS genocide by any reasonable standard of the word.

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I know some folks like throwing the term "genocide" around like it's always a terrible, terrible thing, but I would like to point out that the term would qualify even if all of them were abominations. Hawke and friends spend a good amount of time trying to commit genocide on demons, abominations and bandits over the course of the game too, but I don't see anyone saying "Please, won't someone please think of the giant spiders?".

There is also a rather strong theory that ******-sapiens (us) were at least indirectily responsable (some say directly) for the extinction of ******-erectus.  Our species is based at best on indirect genocide.

But eh, I don't want to get myself into this. The word has become too politicized as to lose academic value.

Wasn't it ******-sapiens-neanderthalensis we exterminated, but evovled from ******-erectus?

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 20 avril 2011 - 01:43 .

[Jedi Master of Orion]

You can't commit genocide against bandits. They aren't a group of people with a cultural identity. That's like say criminals are oppressed in every country in the world because they are imprisoned. And those other examples are either non sentient animals or monsters. "Genocide" is a term that was created for people

Modifié par Jedi Master of Orion, 20 avril 2011 - 01:54 .

[LobselVith8]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

At the end, DA2 is not black, nor white nor grey.

But an unimaginable mix of colors that is supposed to represent madness, which seemingly everyone in the game happens to share.

That's why getting the frak out of Kirkwall is the smartest thing Hawke does in DA2.

[Torax]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

No, she targets them becase they have commited crimes. Not because they are mages. She does not target them by virtue of being mages. But by virtue of being corrupted.

You do realize that that's how all genocides are justified right?

So if a guy goes into a cul-de-sac and begins shooting allt he people that live there cause he doesn't like the color of their houses is that Genocide? No. Reason being there are more humans elsewhere. Mass Murder but not Genocide. Now if they were killing every human they ever see in hopes to kill every last one? Maybe. It was genocide for WW2 cause they were rounding up all of a race they could gather in every country they entered to kill them. Meredith was only targeting one Circle not all fo them. Why you can try to call it Genocide but not all mages in Thedas are going to die that night.

[Herr Uhl]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

There is also a rather strong theory that ******-sapiens (us) were at least indirectily responsable (some say directly) for the extinction of ******-erectus.  Our species is based at best on indirect genocide.

But eh, I don't want to get myself into this. The word has become too politicized as to lose academic value.

Wasn't it ******-sapiens-neanderthalensis we exterminated, but evovled from ******-erectus?

Not all ******-Erectus evolved.

[KnightofPhoenix]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Wasn't it ******-sapiens-neanderthalensis we exterminated, but evovled from ******-erectus?

Evidence shows that ******-sapiens and ******-erectus did coexist, before the latter was eradicated, probably because it was not the fittest (competition over hunting, if not direct warfare).

I think the theory that ******-sapiens evolved from ******-erectus has been put in question by recent evidence (IIRC), but I am not an expert on this. All I know is that the two coexisted for a period of time and then one of them was eradicated.

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

No, she targets them becase they have commited crimes. Not because they are mages. She does not target them by virtue of being mages. But by virtue of being corrupted.

No.  She targets them because they are mages.  The circle very clearly had nothing to do (at least there is not one scintilla of evidence for it) with the Chantry bombing which prompted the Right of Annulment.  Sebastian says it best when he looks at Meredith in disbelief and asks, "Why are we even debating the Right of Annulment when the monster that did this is right here!"

Meridith is a fruit-loop by this point.  She wants all mages dead because they are mages.  It IS genocide by any reasonable standard of the word.

-Polaris

She had wanted to target the Circle for a long time. The bombing, was just the final straw, and incidently what gave her the authority to call it. Besides, discussing this incident helps little. The annulment as an action is not genocide. It is a purging (which is still a terrible thing, but at least the correct term).

[IanPolaris]

Torax wrote...

It's not precisely genocide if other mages still exist else where. It's why he calls it a purge. Removing disloyal/unwanted parts of a faction. But it's not killing every single mage in existence. They are other Circles which is clearly known. It's not like she was waiting until all of the Order would turn at once and kill every mage. That is why to him it's not Genocide. You just like the word cause it adds weight to an argument in your mind. Maybe to help you win it after how long.

If the Mayor of Podunkville (not to insult any names that might actually be called Podunk) has a bad hair day and gets his police force to round up and shoot all people with blue eyes because he (thinks he) knows a dangerous criminal is hiding in town that is known to have blue eyes, then that mayor (and the policemen that followed this order) are guilty of genocide.  By definition.

It's the same here.

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Wasn't it ******-sapiens-neanderthalensis we exterminated, but evovled from ******-erectus?

Evidence shows that ******-sapiens and ******-erectus did coexist, before the latter was eradicated, probably because it was not the fittest (competition over hunting, if not direct warfare).

I think the theory that ******-sapiens evolved from ******-erectus has been put in question by recent evidence (IIRC), but I am not an expert on this. All I know is that the two coexisted for a period of time and then one of them was eradicated.

So we are responsible for two entire sentient races' extinction? Nice.... Though I doubt it was a elaborate effort from our side.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Torax wrote...
So if a guy goes into a cul-de-sac and begins shooting allt he people that live there cause he doesn't like the color of their houses is that Genocide? No. Reason being there are more humans elsewhere. Mass Murder but not Genocide. Now if they were killing every human they ever see in hopes to kill every last one? Maybe. It was genocide for WW2 cause they were rounding up all of a race they could gather in every country they entered to kill them. Meredith was only targeting one Circle not all fo them. Why you can try to call it Genocide but not all mages in Thedas are going to die that night.

Actually, a few years back I think a person was convicted of attempted genocide for being a serial killer who targetted a specific race. Didn't even kill a dozen. Words are tangible like that.

Genocides can be confined to one space or polity. If a country decides to kill a specific minority within its own borders, but doesn't care about the others outside, it still counts as genocide.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 20 avril 2011 - 01:49 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

Torax wrote...

It's not precisely genocide if other mages still exist else where. It's why he calls it a purge. Removing disloyal/unwanted parts of a faction. But it's not killing every single mage in existence. They are other Circles which is clearly known. It's not like she was waiting until all of the Order would turn at once and kill every mage. That is why to him it's not Genocide. You just like the word cause it adds weight to an argument in your mind. Maybe to help you win it after how long.

If the Mayor of Podunkville (not to insult any names that might actually be called Podunk) has a bad hair day and gets his police force to round up and shoot all people with blue eyes because he (thinks he) knows a dangerous criminal is hiding in town that is known to have blue eyes, then that mayor (and the policemen that followed this order) are guilty of genocide.  By definition.

It's the same here.

-Polaris

That is not only incorrect, it is also a gross over-simplification.

[IanPolaris]

KoP,

Yep. Genocide has a very specific legal definition.

-Polaris

[Torax]

It's a pointless argument. You use Genocide as a shield for your self righteous diatribe about the Right of Annulment or how evil the Templars are in DA2. It gets us no where. You don't like them. We get it. what purpose does any of this serve? You are as incapable of seeing another side as I am not capable of understanding why you care so much about a game made out of fiction.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Torax wrote...

It's not precisely genocide if other mages still exist else where. It's why he calls it a purge. Removing disloyal/unwanted parts of a faction. But it's not killing every single mage in existence. They are other Circles which is clearly known. It's not like she was waiting until all of the Order would turn at once and kill every mage. That is why to him it's not Genocide. You just like the word cause it adds weight to an argument in your mind. Maybe to help you win it after how long.

If the Mayor of Podunkville (not to insult any names that might actually be called Podunk) has a bad hair day and gets his police force to round up and shoot all people with blue eyes because he (thinks he) knows a dangerous criminal is hiding in town that is known to have blue eyes, then that mayor (and the policemen that followed this order) are guilty of genocide.  By definition.

It's the same here.

-Polaris

That is not only incorrect, it is also a gross over-simplification.

See KoP's post above.  It's actually very much to the point.  Genocide has a specific meaning and whether you like it or not, the Right of Annulment qualifies.

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Torax wrote...

It's not precisely genocide if other mages still exist else where. It's why he calls it a purge. Removing disloyal/unwanted parts of a faction. But it's not killing every single mage in existence. They are other Circles which is clearly known. It's not like she was waiting until all of the Order would turn at once and kill every mage. That is why to him it's not Genocide. You just like the word cause it adds weight to an argument in your mind. Maybe to help you win it after how long.

If the Mayor of Podunkville (not to insult any names that might actually be called Podunk) has a bad hair day and gets his police force to round up and shoot all people with blue eyes because he (thinks he) knows a dangerous criminal is hiding in town that is known to have blue eyes, then that mayor (and the policemen that followed this order) are guilty of genocide.  By definition.

It's the same here.

-Polaris

That is not only incorrect, it is also a gross over-simplification.

See KoP's post above.  It's actually very much to the point.  Genocide has a specific meaning and whether you like it or not, the Right of Annulment qualifies.

-Polaris

No it does not. The mass muder in question had the intention of killing ALL the people of that ethnicity. Which is why he was convicted as genocidal. Genocide has alot of definitions. The annulment does NOT fit any of them. It is a purge. Start using the correct term.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

In regards to the Circle in Kirkwall. I don't think that invoking the Right of Annulment would qualify as genocide. A massacre, yes. An atrocity, yes. The morally wrong thing to do, definately. But I think it would have to happen on a wider scale for it to truely be genocide. Trying to wiped out all mages in Thedas or even just the Free Marches would qualify. Kirkwall is just one city and the Right of Annulment isn't about wiping all mages just for being mages. It's about wiping out a specific collection of individuals on the basis that they are too dangerous. Now they weren't guilty Meredith's case, but the Right of Annulment still ends after the Circle has been purged. Invariably more mages would come and replace the Circle that was lost. Those mages wouldn't automatically be killed on the basis that they are mages.

I'd say genocide is what is likley to happen now in the war that followed the incident at the Gallows.

Modifié par Jedi Master of Orion, 20 avril 2011 - 01:55 .

[hoorayforicecream]

IanPolaris wrote...

See KoP's post above.  It's actually very much to the point.  Genocide has a specific meaning and whether you like it or not, the Right of Annulment qualifies.

-Polaris

According to Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide that define genocide, it is:

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group"

So... which of those applies to mages?

[TEWR]

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Torax wrote...

It's not precisely genocide if other mages still exist else where. It's why he calls it a purge. Removing disloyal/unwanted parts of a faction. But it's not killing every single mage in existence. They are other Circles which is clearly known. It's not like she was waiting until all of the Order would turn at once and kill every mage. That is why to him it's not Genocide. You just like the word cause it adds weight to an argument in your mind. Maybe to help you win it after how long.

If the Mayor of Podunkville (not to insult any names that might actually be called Podunk) has a bad hair day and gets his police force to round up and shoot all people with blue eyes because he (thinks he) knows a dangerous criminal is hiding in town that is known to have blue eyes, then that mayor (and the policemen that followed this order) are guilty of genocide.  By definition.

It's the same here.

-Polaris

That is not only incorrect, it is also a gross over-simplification.

See KoP's post above.  It's actually very much to the point.  Genocide has a specific meaning and whether you like it or not, the Right of Annulment qualifies.

-Polaris

You forgot some key words.

IN OUR WORLD IT WOULD QUALIFY.

Thedas is a different world with different ideologies, beliefs, definitions, political structures, etc. Some stuff may be based off of real world items, but they operate differently.

If mages existed in our world, and we did the Right of Annulment on them, then it would be genocide. The fact of the matter is that it isn't so IN THEDAS.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Eh let's just be done with it:

UN definition:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

* (a) Killing members of the group;
* ( Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
* © Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
* (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
* (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.


No where does it specify that it has to be an attempt on the entire group in the globe.
Under that definition, qualifying the Right as genocide has ground.

However one thing that could question that assessment is that after the Right, the Circle is reformed and rebuilt. A Right is not designed to permanently remove the mages from a specific area. That might make the situation a little more complicated.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 20 avril 2011 - 01:59 .

[IanPolaris]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

See KoP's post above.  It's actually very much to the point.  Genocide has a specific meaning and whether you like it or not, the Right of Annulment qualifies.

-Polaris

According to Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide that define genocide, it is:

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group"

So... which of those applies to mages?

Racial.  Magical ability runs in families.  That's been lore for a long time now.

-Polaris

[TEWR]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

See KoP's post above.  It's actually very much to the point.  Genocide has a specific meaning and whether you like it or not, the Right of Annulment qualifies.

-Polaris

According to Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide that define genocide, it is:

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group"

So... which of those applies to mages?

I never thought icecream would save the day*


*meant as a joke to mean the food saves the day, not as an attack on your person.

[hoorayforicecream]

IanPolaris wrote...

Racial.  Magical ability runs in families.  That's been lore for a long time now.

-Polaris

I don't think that word means what you think it does. 

[KnightofPhoenix]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
According to Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide that define genocide, it is:

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group"

So... which of those applies to mages?

Since the mages are forcibly segrated from society (physically and ideologically), are not considered part of the polity housing the Circle, one could argue that they virtually end up being an ethnie or seperate group.

[IanPolaris]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
You forgot some key words.

IN OUR WORLD IT WOULD QUALIFY.

Thedas is a different world with different ideologies, beliefs, definitions, political structures, etc. Some stuff may be based off of real world items, but they operate differently.

If mages existed in our world, and we did the Right of Annulment on them, then it would be genocide. The fact of the matter is that it isn't so IN THEDAS.

The people in Thedas share our morality and moral compass (which is why it's a fantasy world and NOT a midaeval one).  Furthermore, the moral choices presented in the game (not just mage v templar but all of them) do so with our modern real world moral compass in mind.

So yes, appealing to the real world definition of genocide is proper and applicable.

-Polaris