1207 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

Silfren wrote...
Any time the discussion turns to whether a revolution can be bloodless, someone inevitably refers to Gandhi sooner or later.  One thing that always gets overlooked is that Gandhi's revolution was against the British government, and not, say, **** Germany.  If Gandhi had been fomenting a rebellion against someone like Hitler or Stalin, it is quite likely that his peaceful revolution would have been crushed.  The enemy you're going up against is very much a pertinent part of the equation when debating whether a non-bloody revolution is even possible.

A more important factor is the political / strategic context. Gandhi succeeded in large part because of popularity, but most importantly Britain losing its power after WW1 and drastically losing its preminence in WW2. If we want to be moe accurate, Birtain was facing tough competition from 1870s, which is when Germany was founded as a state. Forget about Stalin. Gandhi would not have succeeded at the height of British power.

That said, comparing Anders to violent revolutionaries / rebels / freedom fighters when implying that they are sometimes necessary, is impertinente. He was not part of a movement, nor did he organize and lead one. He was acting on his own, blinded by insanity which naturally meant he had no real grasp of what he was doing and no real plan for both short and long term.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 juin 2011 - 02:37 .

[Soul Cool]

Rifneno wrote...
Ahh, prejudice, the solution to every problem. Mass murder because of a people with a genetic trait because other people long since dead with the same trait did something one didn't approve of. Didn't some guy have a similar idea back in the 30's?

Yes, because the passage of time makes things less evil because we don't actually care about whether or not something is evil, only that it's happening to us. I see your point.

[Silfren]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

The Chantry's official policy is to treat mages with respect, and doesn't demonize those who follow the Chantry's laws.

Divine Justinia I said "Those mages who honor the Maker and keep his laws we welcome as our brothers and sisters."

It's the implementation of this by the Templars that they struggle with. Fundamentally, I guess the problem is that people who like mages probably aren't going to want to sign up to be their jailors.

See, you can't find anyone past Justina I to quote positively about mages. You've got to bear in mind that that was long ago, before Andraste's teachings were so warped, before they ordered the exalted march on the Dales and expurgated the canticle of Shartan. (I know I seem a bit obsessed with that, but when you start declaring major portions of your own prophet's teachings heretical for political reasons, something is very, very wrong with that particular institution.) Andrasteism is no longer the church of Justina I. It has not been for centuries.

If they still truly believed this, any Templar who showed hatred against mages or viewed their talents as a curse would not rise very far in their ranks, and those who were compassionate would reach positions of power. This does not seem to be the case. In fact, in DA:O , Wynne implies that compassion toward mages is rapidly and deliberately stripped from anyone who completes Templar training. When she finds that Alistair does not hate her, even when he learns that she had a child while in the circle, she remarks that he was saved from Templar training just in time.

Whatever the "ideal" interpretation of Andraste's teaching on mages is, it has been lost for centuries and no one we have encountered who exists within the structure of the Templar system seems to have any interest in changing it. It is not just an issue that people who dislike mages are more likely to choose to be Templars, anyone who chooses to be a Templar is systematically brainwashed to hate mages, and such hatred is encouraged and rewarded with promotions.

Also, it was Divine Justinia I that equated maleficar with apostate as if the terms were synonymous, even though they're specifically not.  So I'm not sure she could be taken as a source of someone speaking positively of them. 

[Ryzaki]

The Baconer wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
First off I wrote that not Addai

Second of the Qunari already have gunpowder or did you not realize that? 

The Baconer wrote...
human civilization

...Right and its totally impossible for their tech to be spread around eventually.

[Ryzaki]

Silfren wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

I love when people compare freeing slaves to freeing mages.

Unlike freeing mages the slaves were freed at the END of the war.  The slaves freed during the war weren't part of the North anyway and they actually had no authority to free those slaves. It was a tatical decision. 

But don't let history get in the way of your arguement.

I was unaware that America was the only country to ever have slaves, or that the American Civil War was the only battle ever fought to free slaves.  Thank you for enlightening me.

 

Oh don't try to be smug when you specifically brought up LINCOLN. 

Nice try. 

I was responding within the context you gave. 

But go ahead and rant away. 

And in the end, it really doesn't matter.  The American Civil War WAS fought over the question of slavery.  The details notwithstanding, that was an indisputably integral part of the whole question, and in fact the question of slavery was a point of contention from the founding of the nation.  But the fact remains that mages in Thedas ARE slaves for all intents and purposes, and a war for mage freedom amounts to a war to end legal slavery.  WHY they are locked away and treated as slaves is irrelevant to that being the practical result of their treatment.  

...*facepalms* 

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Silfren wrote...
And in the end, it really doesn't matter.  The American Civil War WAS fought over the question of slavery. 

Eh
no. A lot of social, economic and political factors were at play then,
and was the result of a economic lagging behind of the South compared to
the North (as evidenced when they established barriers to European
manufactured goods and imposed on the South American domestic products
which at the time were of lesser quality and were more expensive). In
essence, it was the culmination of a trend: the North overpowering
the South and the latter imposing on the former the Union which they
technically and constitutionally could secede from.  Another trend was
the establishment of a real American State with a more centralized
authority, albeit still in a Federal context (though no longer of the
classical liberal variety).

Slavery was at best one of the
facets of the conflict which resulted in the death of hundreds of
thousands. At worst, a propaganda tool.

Wouldn't be new, as Europeans used the emancipation of slavery to legitimately colonize mainland Africa in the 19th century.

Didn't
the Simpsons often mock the over-simplification of probably the most
important historical event in the history of the USA?

Thank you KoP.

Everytime I hear that I facepalm.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 03 juin 2011 - 02:50 .

[LobselVith8]

Ryzaki wrote...

Thank you KoP.

Everytime I hear that I facepalm.

Is that because Silfren didn't go into a dissertation over the issue and talk about it being one of the facets of the conflict? You're acting as though slavery wasn't one of the issues.

[Silfren]

Sure, and as a Southern-born American, I find attempts to dismiss the sheer importance of slavery to the American Civil War as ludicrous. But a more in-depth discussion of this issue outside of comparisons to DA2 will likely lead to having this thread locked, so let's not, please.

Oh noez, I'm trying to have the last word and avoid having my face rubbed in how wronge I am OMG.

Modifié par Silfren, 03 juin 2011 - 02:53 .

[Ryzaki]

Silfren wrote...

Sure, and as a Southern-born American, I find attempts to dismiss the sheer importance of slavery to the American Civil War as ludicrous. But a more in-depth discussion of this issue outside of comparisons to DA2 will likely lead to having this thread locked, so let's not, please.

Oh noez, I'm trying to have the last word and avoid having my face rubbed in how wronge I am OMG.

Because you're wrong? I'm not saying slavery wasn't an issue. But saying that's why the war happened is laughable. Anders little bomb isn't comparable to the American Civil War. Maybe just maybe you should leave some arguments alone. Like saying her is exchangeable with you. And indeed let's drop it here.

And you're not the only American here. That's nothing special.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 03 juin 2011 - 02:57 .

[Ryzaki]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Thank you KoP.

Everytime I hear that I facepalm.

Is that because Silfren didn't go into a dissertation over the issue and talk about it being one of the facets of the conflict? You're acting as though slavery wasn't one of the issues.

Even if Silfren did go into a dissertation of the issue the civil war wasn't started with the express reasoning of freeing the slaves. It's not comparable to Anders gambit.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 03 juin 2011 - 02:55 .

[Silfren]

Ryzaki wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Sure, and as a Southern-born American, I find attempts to dismiss the sheer importance of slavery to the American Civil War as ludicrous. But a more in-depth discussion of this issue outside of comparisons to DA2 will likely lead to having this thread locked, so let's not, please.

Oh noez, I'm trying to have the last word and avoid having my face rubbed in how wronge I am OMG.

Because you're wrong? I'm not saying slavery wasn't an issue. But saying that's why the war happened is laughable. Maybe just maybe you should leave some arguments alone.

Like saying her is exchangeable with you.

It IS why the war happened.  States rights blah blah blah, the right the Southern States wanted to protect was slavery.  And you may note that I went on to point out that the details notwithstanding it was an integral part of the war.  I maintain that position.  Pretending that slavery wasn't a huge part of the equation, if not the most important bit, is an attempt to whitewash what the Southern states who rebelled were fighting for.  And I mentioned being a Southern-born American to counteract any potential remarks about my being a Northern apologist, as is usually what happens. 

Also, I didn't say it was started with the intention of "freeing slaves," but was started over the question of slavery.  Not exactly the same thing.  

But again, I DON'T want to see this discussion locked because we're talking about non-Bioware related subjects.  So can we drop it now?

Modifié par Silfren, 03 juin 2011 - 03:01 .

[LobselVith8]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Heh.

Welcome to FREEDOM LAND!
Where mages run free and can do anything they want!

Replace "mages" with "templars" and you have the Andrastian nations.

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Like indulge in outright blood magic infused with demons meaning they can control your mind or murder you with a thought and well you cant do much about that.

As opposed to the templars, who are torturing, raping, killing, and making mages tranquil?

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Just dont look under the rugs because that is where we stuffed the bodies it took to get here.

Didn't the templar Rylock try to do that with the Warden-Commander and Anders?

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Also RUN if you see any demons or abominations since.... well no really is there to stop them for the most part.

Malcolm and Leandra were certainly running from the templars; there's also the charlatan, the Magnificent D'Sims, who was murdered because the mages thought he was a mage who was healing people.

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Now does THAT sound like a country you want to live in?
All we will get is Tevinter 2.0

Tevinter 2.0? Are we talking about the Chantry of Andraste now?

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Freedom comes with a price all its own that people many times simply try and not talk about.
People often cite the Civil War here, a war that claimed well over HALF A MILLION lives.

I'd wager millions were killed in the Rights of Annulment over the near millennia under the Chantry controlled Circles, not to mention the mages lost to abuses of authority and the Rite of Tranquility.

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Freedom is a nice IDEAL, its not so nice in reality.
Nor does it really exist in any real pure form.

Freedom is preferable to subjugation.

[KnightofPhoenix]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Thank you KoP.

Everytime I hear that I facepalm.

Is that because Silfren didn't go into a dissertation over the issue and talk about it being one of the facets of the conflict? You're acting as though slavery wasn't one of the issues.

As Nate would say, I am not a fan of over-simplification.

Silfren wrote...

Sure, and as a Southern-born American, I
find attempts to dismiss the sheer importance of slavery to the American
Civil War as ludicrous. But a more in-depth discussion of this issue
outside of comparisons to DA2 will likely lead to having this thread
locked, so let's not, please.

If you are not willing to go in depth in regards to an example you gave, then best not to use the example in the first place.

No one is dimissing the importance of slavery. That doesn't mean it was THE cause or even the most important cause (really, it's a symptom of economic conditions and nto a cause). I wonder how much the North would have cared about slavery if they had an economy based on agriculture and not industry which necessitates a relatively trained workforce for the most part and consummers to buy their products.

Same reason why Europeans emancipated slaves before Africans did. Not really because of the kindness of their hearts (and yes, they argued that Europeans are more morale than Africans, hence the "burden of the great white man"). But because with the Industrial revolution, they became on a whole different economic level, one that does not really require slaves (indeed, they became too expensive and not cost-efficient to maintain). 

[Ryzaki]

Silfren wrote...
It IS why the war happened.  States rights blah blah blah, the right the Southern States wanted to protect was slavery.  And you may note that I went on to point out that the details notwithstanding it was an integral part of the war.  I maintain that position.  Pretending that slavery wasn't a huge part of the equation, if not the most important bit, is an attempt to whitewash what the Southern states who rebelled were fighting for.  

But again, I DON'T want to see this discussion locked because we're talking about non-Bioware related subjects.  So can we drop it now?

 

Oh god.  Right its whitewashing. Saying it wasn't a huge issue but was still an issue is "whitewashing." because ra forbid there be something more important to the "good guys" than freeing the slaves. 

Edit: Before you jump down my throat. It was a big deal but there was far more important things going on. Lincoln himself said something along of the lines of "if its possible to make peace without freeing a single slave I'll do so." did he not? 

Yet instead of dropping it you keep bringing it up? How is that dropping the issue? 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 03 juin 2011 - 03:02 .

[Silfren]

Ryzaki wrote...

Silfren wrote...
It IS why the war happened.  States rights blah blah blah, the right the Southern States wanted to protect was slavery.  And you may note that I went on to point out that the details notwithstanding it was an integral part of the war.  I maintain that position.  Pretending that slavery wasn't a huge part of the equation, if not the most important bit, is an attempt to whitewash what the Southern states who rebelled were fighting for.  

But again, I DON'T want to see this discussion locked because we're talking about non-Bioware related subjects.  So can we drop it now?

 

Oh god.  Right its whitewashing. Saying it wasn't a huge issue but was still an issue is "whitewashing." because ra forbid there be something more important to the "good guys" than freeing the slaves. 

Yet instead of dropping it you keep bringing it up? How is that dropping the issue? 

Er.  After I asked if we could drop it, OTHER people insisted on bringing it up again.  

[Ryzaki]

Silfren wrote...
Er.  After I asked if we could drop it, OTHER people insisted on bringing it up again.  

 

Why not simply say me? 

Though *shrugs* as you wish. 

Though FYI might be best not to jump into a conversation if you're not willing to explain your POV. 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Silfren wrote...
the right the Southern States wanted to protect was slavery.

Why do you think?
Economics.

Why did the North want to free them?
Economics.

And that's but one facet.

Pretending that slavery wasn't a huge part of the equation, if not the most important bit, is an attempt to whitewash what the Southern states who rebelled were fighting for. 

You're claiming it's THE cause, when it's not. Such a statement would not be taken seriously at all on an academic level. And yes, I think when trying to use historical examples, that one should use them correctly as much s possible. Or not at all.

There is not a single conflict in human history that can be summed up in one word or reduced to one cause.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 juin 2011 - 03:05 .

[Silfren]

Ryzaki wrote...

Silfren wrote...
Er.  After I asked if we could drop it, OTHER people insisted on bringing it up again.  

 

Why not simply say me? 

Though *shrugs* as you wish. 

Though FYI might be best not to jump into a conversation if you're not willing to explain your POV. 

Probably because you weren't the only other one to continue bringing it up?

I said what I needed to say.  It isn't my problem that you felt I should have gone into a dissertation-level post.

[Ryzaki]

Silfren wrote...

Probably because you weren't the only other one to continue bringing it up?

I said what I needed to say.  It isn't my problem that you felt I should have gone into a dissertation-level post.

 

You make an statement and then balk at backing it up? 

If you're gonna quote someone and then bring up an issue that was dead expect to get into a "dissertion-level post". 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Silfren wrote...
I said what I needed to say.  It isn't my problem that you felt I should have gone into a dissertation-level post.

Well the problem is, you are using it to justify Anders.

So yes, I feel I should step in and add nuance. Which I usually do when I percieve that any historical example is being used innaccurately. And yes, I do wish that people would do the same with me if they feel I am not accurate or specific enough. It's pedagogical. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 juin 2011 - 03:10 .

[Ryzaki]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Silfren wrote...
Any time the discussion turns to whether a revolution can be bloodless, someone inevitably refers to Gandhi sooner or later.  One thing that always gets overlooked is that Gandhi's revolution was against the British government, and not, say, **** Germany.  If Gandhi had been fomenting a rebellion against someone like Hitler or Stalin, it is quite likely that his peaceful revolution would have been crushed.  The enemy you're going up against is very much a pertinent part of the equation when debating whether a non-bloody revolution is even possible.

A more important factor is the political / strategic context. Gandhi succeeded in large part because of popularity, but most importantly Britain losing its power after WW1 and drastically losing its preminence in WW2. If we want to be moe accurate, Birtain was facing tough competition from 1870s, which is when Germany was founded as a state. Forget about Stalin. Gandhi would not have succeeded at the height of British power.

That said, comparing Anders to violent revolutionaries / rebels / freedom fighters when implying that they are sometimes necessary, is impertinente. He was not part of a movement, nor did he organize and lead one. He was acting on his own, blinded by insanity which naturally meant he had no real grasp of what he was doing and no real plan for both short and long term.

 

I heard somewhere (not sure if try this is why I'm asking) that there was several people willing to make war if Ghandi was harmed. 

Is that true? 

[Silfren]

Ryzaki wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Probably because you weren't the only other one to continue bringing it up?

I said what I needed to say.  It isn't my problem that you felt I should have gone into a dissertation-level post.

 

You make an statement and then balk at backing it up? 

If you're gonna quote someone and then bring up an issue that was dead expect to get into a "dissertion-level post". 

Uh, no, I make a statement that conveys my opinion on the matter, and then try to head off a discussion that threatens to get so far off-topic from anything DA2 related that it's not worth risking having a mod come in and lock down the thread.  I'm not balking at backing anything up, I'm balking at having a discussion that will necessitate so much off-topic discussion that the entire discussion will be summarily executed as soon as Bioware gets alerted to it.  I don't really give a flip if you interpret that to mean something it doesn't.

[Silfren]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Silfren wrote...
I said what I needed to say.  It isn't my problem that you felt I should have gone into a dissertation-level post.

Well the problem is, you are using it to justify Anders.

So yes, I feel I should step in and add nuance. Which I usually do when I percieve that any historical example is being used innaccurately. And yes, I do wish that people would do the same with me if they feel I am not accurate or specific enough. It's pedagogical. 

I wasn't using it to justfy Anders.  At least, I wasn't trying to specifically use the American Civil War to justify Anders.  More that I think the simple fact of believing slavery itself to be evil justifies Anders.  And yes, I very much do think that the situation of mages living in Circles amounts to slavery. 

[Ryzaki]

Silfren wrote...
Uh, no, I make a statement that conveys my opinion on the matter, and then try to head off a discussion that threatens to get so far off-topic from anything DA2 related that it's not worth risking having a mod come in and lock down the thread.  I'm not balking at backing anything up, I'm balking at having a discussion that will necessitate so much off-topic discussion that the entire discussion will be summarily executed as soon as Bioware gets alerted to it.  I don't really give a flip if you interpret that to mean something it doesn't.

 

So making an invalid comparison is okay because it's your opinion now? 

And i's not off topic. It's comparing the causes of the civil war to Anders' reasoning for starting the mage/templar debate. 

Compare and contrast to actual historical events should be just fine as long as we keep the comparisons to DA2. After all I've seen quite a few catholic church comparisons in this thread. 

You don't give a flip? *shrugs* No need to get angry. I do hope you learn not to jump into discussions that you don't plan on actually participating in.  

Modifié par Ryzaki, 03 juin 2011 - 03:16 .

[Silfren]

Ryzaki wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Silfren wrote...
Any time the discussion turns to whether a revolution can be bloodless, someone inevitably refers to Gandhi sooner or later.  One thing that always gets overlooked is that Gandhi's revolution was against the British government, and not, say, **** Germany.  If Gandhi had been fomenting a rebellion against someone like Hitler or Stalin, it is quite likely that his peaceful revolution would have been crushed.  The enemy you're going up against is very much a pertinent part of the equation when debating whether a non-bloody revolution is even possible.

A more important factor is the political / strategic context. Gandhi succeeded in large part because of popularity, but most importantly Britain losing its power after WW1 and drastically losing its preminence in WW2. If we want to be moe accurate, Birtain was facing tough competition from 1870s, which is when Germany was founded as a state. Forget about Stalin. Gandhi would not have succeeded at the height of British power.

That said, comparing Anders to violent revolutionaries / rebels / freedom fighters when implying that they are sometimes necessary, is impertinente. He was not part of a movement, nor did he organize and lead one. He was acting on his own, blinded by insanity which naturally meant he had no real grasp of what he was doing and no real plan for both short and long term.

 

I heard somewhere (not sure if try this is why I'm asking) that there was several people willing to make war if Ghandi was harmed. 

Is that true? 

I'm certain that's true of any revolution with an immensely popular leader.  However much they may preach non-violence, there's always going to be at least one group willing to spill blood if they are maimed or killed.

[Silfren]

Ryzaki wrote...

Silfren wrote...
Uh, no, I make a statement that conveys my opinion on the matter, and then try to head off a discussion that threatens to get so far off-topic from anything DA2 related that it's not worth risking having a mod come in and lock down the thread.  I'm not balking at backing anything up, I'm balking at having a discussion that will necessitate so much off-topic discussion that the entire discussion will be summarily executed as soon as Bioware gets alerted to it.  I don't really give a flip if you interpret that to mean something it doesn't.

 

So making an invalid comparison is okay because it's your opinion now? 

And i's not off topic. It's comparing the causes of the civil war to Anders' reasoning for starting the mage/templar debate. 

Compare and contrast to actual historical events should be just fine as long as we keep the comparisons to DA2. After all I've seen quite a few catholic church comparisons in this thread. 

You don't give a flip? *shrugs* No need to get angry. I do hope you learn not to jump into discussions that you don't plan on actually participating in.  

Oh, for the love of God...!  I can and have made on-topic comparisons between the two, but that is not what going into a detailed and long discussion of the American Civil War would involve and you bloody well know that.  And you can call it invalid all you like, I don't consider it to be invalid, and that's all there is to it. 

I'm not responding to any further posts from you on this subject.  Done.  Deal with it.