472 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Ironically, the intention of the annulments are not to destroy all mages, but to protect the world. The most important factor of genocide, is the "intent to destroy". The Templars do not kill all the mages in the Circle during an annulment just because they are mages. But because the Circle has been deemed irredeemable, and the mages must be killed to be safe.

Actually, that's precisely what Meredith set out to do - kill an entire population of people because they are mages. Her argument was that the people would demand blood for the actions of one, single apostate, but she set out to kill every mage, as she explicitly orders.

[IanPolaris]

Emperor,

Have you read the codex entry on the Right of Annulment. When invoked it's purpose is very explicitly to kill all mages in a circle down to the last child. That's what makes it genocide.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

As I have said many times before. The Circles themselves are much closer to actual genocide than the annulmetns will ever be. However, the Circles are not formed with the "intent to destroy", but with the intent to educate, and protect (both the public and the mages themselves).

The circles were formed by the Chantry with the intend to completely subjegate mages (and as an alternative to a completely batty Ambrosia II from deciding to slaughter all mages everywhere).  It was never about protecting the common man or about educating mages.  It was a Chantry Power Play pure and simple (see Codex Entry "History of the Circle").

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

IanPolaris wrote...

Emperor,

Have you read the codex entry on the Right of Annulment. When invoked it's purpose is very explicitly to kill all mages in a circle down to the last child. That's what makes it genocide.

-Polaris

Considering Sebastian uses the word "holocaust" to Anders in reference to the Tranquil Solution, I'd imagine they would understand the concept in Thedas.

[EmperorSahlertz]

*Sigh*... I give up..

[Addai]

IanPolaris wrote...
Evidence would be nice.  No one has yet shown that mages as a group pose an ongoing dire danger to society, only that untrained and unregulated mages do, and no one is suggesting that magic be unregulated or that mages be permitted to exist without training.  The Chantry views with alarm, but when you really come down to it and look at the evidence, the argument of self defense falls apart.  Being fearful of a group is not a valid moral excuse to confine that group let alone commit acts of genocide, but that is what DG would have you believe apparently (or at least argue it might be justifiable).

-Polaris

Oh, well those are very fine points.  How trained is trained?  How regulated is regulated?  What gives you the right to curtail the freedom of mages just for being mages?  That's discrimination- a violation of a mage's natural rights.  If people in Thedas have no right to confine mages, you have no right to force them into mage school.

The intent and purpose of the RoA is not to eliminate mages.  It's a failsafe when a particular population of mages is deemed too dangerous to the populace to be allowed to live.  It is self defense- whether you deem it justifed or not.  That is where the argument lies, i.e. whether that means of self defense is legitimate, ever or specifically in act 3 in Kirkwall.  You're not making an honest argument.

[IanPolaris]

Addai67 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Evidence would be nice.  No one has yet shown that mages as a group pose an ongoing dire danger to society, only that untrained and unregulated mages do, and no one is suggesting that magic be unregulated or that mages be permitted to exist without training.  The Chantry views with alarm, but when you really come down to it and look at the evidence, the argument of self defense falls apart.  Being fearful of a group is not a valid moral excuse to confine that group let alone commit acts of genocide, but that is what DG would have you believe apparently (or at least argue it might be justifiable).

-Polaris

Oh, well those are very fine points.  How trained is trained?  How regulated is regulated?  What gives you the right to curtail the freedom of mages just for being mages?  That's discrimination- a violation of a mage's natural rights.  If people in Thedas have no right to confine mages, you have no right to force them into mage school.

Bolluxs.  It's not unreasonable to force people to get training especially if their talent is a potentially dangerous one.  That's a far cry from forced imprisonment.  Really.  It seems to me that to you it's either the Chantry system or no system at all, and that is a false dichotomy.  There are reasonable questions here but there is no reason they can't be answered in reasonable ways.  Simply "giving up" and accepting a genocidal solution isn't the answer.

The intent and purpose of the RoA is not to eliminate mages.  It's a failsafe when a particular population of mages is deemed too dangerous to the populace to be allowed to live.  It is self defense- whether you deem it justifed or not.  That is where the argument lies, i.e. whether that means of self defense is legitimate, ever or specifically in act 3 in Kirkwall.  You're not making an honest argument.

The goal of the Right of Annulment is very explicitly to elminate mages.  Read the codex entry.

-Polaris

[Wulfram]

I don't think being motivated by the belief, even a well founded one, that the targetted group pose a threat stops it being genocide

[IanPolaris]

Wulfram wrote...

I don't think being motivated by the belief, even a well founded one, that the targetted group pose a threat stops it being genocide

It doesn't.

-Polaris

[Killjoy Cutter]

Addai67 wrote...
The intent and purpose of the RoA is not to eliminate mages.  It's a failsafe when a particular population of mages is deemed too dangerous to the populace to be allowed to live.  It is self defense- whether you deem it justifed or not.  That is where the argument lies, i.e. whether that means of self defense is legitimate, ever or specifically in act 3 in Kirkwall.  You're not making an honest argument.

The key there, that you seem to be glossing over, is that the determination is made about a population of mages, not about individual mages -- it's an appalling case of collective guilt .  Self-defense also doesn't apply to potential threats, only to direct threats. 

You rationally and legally assert "some blonde guy was talking about killing me, so I killed every blonde guy in the county, it was self-defense!" 

[EmperorSahlertz]

It would be like every blonde guy in the building. But I guess exagerration amplifies understanding...

It is also a collective punishment of a Circle which has allowed itself to become corrupt. If a Circle functions perfectly, an annulment will never be needed, ever. The Kirkwall Circle was far from functioning perfectly (it was hardly even functioning).

It is however still not genocide. The key to genocide is the "intent to destroy". I cannot stress enough how important that single short line is. Cause that is the very essence of genocide. The annulment is NOT genocide, since it is not the killing of mages, with the intent to destroy all mages, just for being mages. It is a punsihment and a failsafe. WHich regretably cost all the mages in the specific Circle their lives.

[IanPolaris]

Collective punishment against a group IS (by definition) a form of genocide. You can not paint all members of a group and sentence them to death for the crimes of some (even henious crimes of some).

-Polaris

Edit:  When the collective punishment is instituted (Right of Annulment) the goal is very clearly to destroy all mages in a local.  That's genocide.  Collective Punishment is no defense.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 30 septembre 2011 - 08:24 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...
Edit:  When the collective punishment is instituted (Right of Annulment) the goal is very clearly to destroy all mages in a local.  That's genocide.  Collective Punishment is no defense.

Again... No it is not. It is intended to prevent and defend. This is accomplished by killing the mages, but they do not kill the mages just for being mages.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Edit:  When the collective punishment is instituted (Right of Annulment) the goal is very clearly to destroy all mages in a local.  That's genocide.  Collective Punishment is no defense.

Again... No it is not. It is intended to prevent and defend. This is accomplished by killing the mages, but they do not kill the mages just for being mages.

Actually yes they do.  In fact the Right of Annulment explicitly does this. It's a dictionary perfect example of what is called "Collective Punishment" and that IS genocide.

-Polaris

[Addai]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
The key there, that you seem to be glossing over, is that the determination is made about a population of mages, not about individual mages -- it's an appalling case of collective guilt .  Self-defense also doesn't apply to potential threats, only to direct threats. 

You rationally and legally assert "some blonde guy was talking about killing me, so I killed every blonde guy in the county, it was self-defense!" 

Uh, no.  You don't pull the plug on a Circle in Orlais because a mage in Ferelden did a bad.  A RoA is called on a particular Circle.

It's comparable to a quarantine.  If you're in the zone, you're deemed sick whether you are or not.

[IanPolaris]

Addai67 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
The key there, that you seem to be glossing over, is that the determination is made about a population of mages, not about individual mages -- it's an appalling case of collective guilt .  Self-defense also doesn't apply to potential threats, only to direct threats. 

You rationally and legally assert "some blonde guy was talking about killing me, so I killed every blonde guy in the county, it was self-defense!" 

Uh, no.  You don't pull the plug on a Circle in Orlais because a mage in Ferelden did a bad.  A RoA is called on a particular Circle.

It's comparable to a quarantine.  If you're in the zone, you're deemed sick whether you are or not.

No it's not.  Meredith expressly uses the Right of Annulment as collective punishment.  In fact if you read the codex entry on it, that's how Rights of Annulment are normally used.  What Gregoire was doing was quarantine and that's not the usual case.  In fact the Right itself expressly gives the right to kill all mages in a tower.

The disease model fails as we determined many months ago.

-Polaris

[Addai]

IanPolaris wrote...
No it's not.  Meredith expressly uses the Right of Annulment as collective punishment.  In fact if you read the codex entry on it, that's how Rights of Annulment are normally used.  What Gregoire was doing was quarantine and that's not the usual case.  In fact the Right itself expressly gives the right to kill all mages in a tower.

The disease model fails as we determined many months ago.

-Polaris

I'm not talking about Meredith.  If anyone wants to try to defend Meredith, bless 'em.  She's crackerjacks.  However, that doesn't mean Hawke can't make a determination that the RoA is justified, or that the RoA as a practice, in general, is what you say it is.

The disease model doesn't "fail."  It works perfectly well as an example of when even a "moral" society (using your dubious definition) will consider all people in a particular population forfeit for the sake of the greater good.

[IanPolaris]

Addai67 wrote...

The disease model doesn't "fail."  It works perfectly well as an example of when even a "moral" society (using your dubious definition) will consider all people in a particular population forfeit for the sake of the greater good.

If fails because contagious diseases have properties that magic does not.  Specifically a contagious disease is well, contagious, which means healthy people get sick just by being in proximity (how depends on the disease) with the sick.  There is absolutely no evidence that this happens at all with magic.  You don't become an abomination just by being near an abomination.  In fact it's actually quite hard "just to become" an abomination according to the available lore and it requires distinct effort to do so...and even then the mage's will must be broken.

We also know that abominations can be detected.

Given that combination, the proper course of action is to detect and eliminate the abominations, so yes the disease model completely fails.  It's Chantry fear mongering, nothing but.

-Polaris

[Lady Jess]

IanPolaris wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
The key there, that you seem to be glossing over, is that the determination is made about a population of mages, not about individual mages -- it's an appalling case of collective guilt .  Self-defense also doesn't apply to potential threats, only to direct threats. 

You rationally and legally assert "some blonde guy was talking about killing me, so I killed every blonde guy in the county, it was self-defense!" 

Uh, no.  You don't pull the plug on a Circle in Orlais because a mage in Ferelden did a bad.  A RoA is called on a particular Circle.

It's comparable to a quarantine.  If you're in the zone, you're deemed sick whether you are or not.

No it's not.  Meredith expressly uses the Right of Annulment as collective punishment.  In fact if you read the codex entry on it, that's how Rights of Annulment are normally used.  What Gregoire was doing was quarantine and that's not the usual case.  In fact the Right itself expressly gives the right to kill all mages in a tower.

The disease model fails as we determined many months ago.

-Polaris

Gregoir was only holding them in quarentine while he waited for the Rite of Annulment to be approved, he had already requested it. The rite is only used on individual circles when there is no other option as felt by the Knight Commander.

[Addai]

@ IanPolaris:  And the innocent in proximity to blood mages can be mind controlled and/or forced into possession against their will. See, Uldred and Tarohne.

Modifié par Addai67, 30 septembre 2011 - 09:30 .

[IanPolaris]

Lady Jess wrote...

Gregoir was only holding them in quarentine while he waited for the Rite of Annulment to be approved, he had already requested it. The rite is only used on individual circles when there is no other option as felt by the Knight Commander.

Gregoire was using his power responsibly because he sincerely believed that no mages could possibly be left alive under the circumstances.  It's also worht noting that if you DO side with the Templars, Gregoire still forbids the killing of all surving mages and tells his templars to capture them and put them under observation instead in contravention with the Right of Annulment.

Moral of this story is that Gregoire is a very liberal Templar (for a Templar) and knows the difference between legal authority and moral right.  That's somthing that Meredith (even when sane) never knew.

If you read the codex entries, the Right of Annulment was used and is used when the Templars feel that the Circle is in a state of rebellion.  That's hardly a "last resort" and it's very much a case of collective punishment.  By any standard it IS genocide.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Addai67 wrote...

@ IanPolaris:  And the innocent in proximity to blood mages can be mind controlled and/or forced into possession against their will. See, Uldred and Tarohne.

No.  Their minds are broken by physical torture and then by a very complicated blood ritual.  The mage has to agree to be possessed although that agreement can be corerced.  Read your lore again.

-Polaris

[Satyricon331]

IanPolaris wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
The disease model doesn't "fail."  It works perfectly well as an example of when even a "moral" society (using your dubious definition) will consider all people in a particular population forfeit for the sake of the greater good.

If fails because contagious diseases have properties that magic does not.  Specifically a contagious disease is well, contagious, which means healthy people get sick just by being in proximity (how depends on the disease) with the sick.  There is absolutely no evidence that this happens at all with magic.  You don't become an abomination just by being near an abomination.  In fact it's actually quite hard "just to become" an abomination according to the available lore and it requires distinct effort to do so...and even then the mage's will must be broken.

We also know that abominations can be detected.

Given that combination, the proper course of action is to detect and eliminate the abominations, so yes the disease model completely fails.  It's Chantry fear mongering, nothing but.

-Polaris

Consider a disease that is very quickly fatal for nearly all infectees - in fact it kills them off so quickly those people can't infect others, as the virus is too fragile to survive the death of the host.  The virus persists in the population because some people are carriers, having the virus incubate in them.  While the virus incubates, it is noninfectious, but sometimes the person can (for whatever reason) become a transmitter, infecting everyone around them (killing the non-carrier people off altogether, or at least risking it).  (To complete the analogy to mages, the carriers transmit the disease to their carrier children, but not to their non-carrier children.)  You can tweak the analogy as needed for templars, combat magic, etc.

I think there are reasonable arguments for quarantining the carriers, and if the carriers have to do something volitionally to become a transmitter (as a mage who chooses to become an abomination and endangers everyone around them), I think there are reasonable arguments not to quarantine the carriers if other disincentives to that choice exist.  But the disease analogy does not fail - although I agree I don't see an argument here for killing off all carriers in a quarantine zone.  The US and most other countries have laws for involuntary quarantines, but not culling the entire quarantine zone.  

[IanPolaris]

Satyricon331 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
The disease model doesn't "fail."  It works perfectly well as an example of when even a "moral" society (using your dubious definition) will consider all people in a particular population forfeit for the sake of the greater good.

If fails because contagious diseases have properties that magic does not.  Specifically a contagious disease is well, contagious, which means healthy people get sick just by being in proximity (how depends on the disease) with the sick.  There is absolutely no evidence that this happens at all with magic.  You don't become an abomination just by being near an abomination.  In fact it's actually quite hard "just to become" an abomination according to the available lore and it requires distinct effort to do so...and even then the mage's will must be broken.

We also know that abominations can be detected.

Given that combination, the proper course of action is to detect and eliminate the abominations, so yes the disease model completely fails.  It's Chantry fear mongering, nothing but.

-Polaris

Consider a disease that is very quickly fatal for nearly all infectees - in fact it kills them off so quickly those people can't infect others, as the virus is too fragile to survive the death of the host.  The virus persists in the population because some people are carriers, having the virus incubate in them.  While the virus incubates, it is noninfectious, but sometimes the person can (for whatever reason) become a transmitter, infecting everyone around them (killing the non-carrier people off altogether, or at least risking it).  (To complete the analogy to mages, the carriers transmit the disease to their carrier children, but not to their non-carrier children.)  You can tweak the analogy as needed for templars, combat magic, etc.

I think there are reasonable arguments for quarantining the carriers, and if the carriers have to do something volitionally to become a transmitter (as a mage who chooses to become an abomination and endangers everyone around them), I think there are reasonable arguments not to quarantine the carriers if other disincentives to that choice exist.  But the disease analogy does not fail - although I agree I don't see an argument here for killing off all carriers in a quarantine zone.  The US and most other countries have laws for involuntary quarantines, but not culling the entire quarantine zone.  

The model still fails.  Abomination is NOT a contangious disease and so quarantine accomplishes nothing.

-Polaris

[Satyricon331]

IanPolaris wrote...

Satyricon331 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
The disease model doesn't "fail."  It works perfectly well as an example of when even a "moral" society (using your dubious definition) will consider all people in a particular population forfeit for the sake of the greater good.

If fails because contagious diseases have properties that magic does not.  Specifically a contagious disease is well, contagious, which means healthy people get sick just by being in proximity (how depends on the disease) with the sick.  There is absolutely no evidence that this happens at all with magic.  You don't become an abomination just by being near an abomination.  In fact it's actually quite hard "just to become" an abomination according to the available lore and it requires distinct effort to do so...and even then the mage's will must be broken.

We also know that abominations can be detected.

Given that combination, the proper course of action is to detect and eliminate the abominations, so yes the disease model completely fails.  It's Chantry fear mongering, nothing but.

-Polaris

Consider a disease that is very quickly fatal for nearly all infectees - in fact it kills them off so quickly those people can't infect others, as the virus is too fragile to survive the death of the host.  The virus persists in the population because some people are carriers, having the virus incubate in them.  While the virus incubates, it is noninfectious, but sometimes the person can (for whatever reason) become a transmitter, infecting everyone around them (killing the non-carrier people off altogether, or at least risking it).  (To complete the analogy to mages, the carriers transmit the disease to their carrier children, but not to their non-carrier children.)  You can tweak the analogy as needed for templars, combat magic, etc.

I think there are reasonable arguments for quarantining the carriers, and if the carriers have to do something volitionally to become a transmitter (as a mage who chooses to become an abomination and endangers everyone around them), I think there are reasonable arguments not to quarantine the carriers if other disincentives to that choice exist.  But the disease analogy does not fail - although I agree I don't see an argument here for killing off all carriers in a quarantine zone.  The US and most other countries have laws for involuntary quarantines, but not culling the entire quarantine zone.  

The model still fails.  Abomination is NOT a contangious disease and so quarantine accomplishes nothing.

-Polaris

It endangers the lives of those around it, just like in the analogy.  The two are the same in the morally relevant aspects.  If you think we quarantine people for their risk of transmission itself rather than its effects, then you believe we quarantine the common cold, which is ridiculous.