472 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

Satyricon331 wrote...

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.  

Wrong.  Fear (even reasonable fear) is not a valid defense against genocide and that is precisely what the Right of Annulment is.  It's not quarantine, its the express directive to kill all mages in a particular location.

-Polaris

[Satyricon331]

IanPolaris wrote...

Satyricon331 wrote...
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.  

Wrong.  Fear (even reasonable fear) is not a valid defense against genocide and that is precisely what the Right of Annulment is.  It's not quarantine, its the express directive to kill all mages in a particular location.

-Polaris

I already agreed with your opposition to the Right of Annulment.  The RoA has nothing to do with a quarantine analogy.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Did you just compare a demon possession with a common cold?....

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 30 septembre 2011 - 10:05 .

[Addai]

IanPolaris wrote...

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

a) Mind control does not require willingness.  How easy or difficult coerced possession is, is immaterial.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Possession does NOT require the host to be willing. A demon can force possession of a mage.

For a possession to be "cured" requires the host to have been willing.

[Addai]

IanPolaris wrote...

Satyricon331 wrote...

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.  

Wrong.  Fear (even reasonable fear) is not a valid defense against genocide and that is precisely what the Right of Annulment is.  It's not quarantine, its the express directive to kill all mages in a particular location.

-Polaris

Quarantine is an example of when a society- even one which recognizes individual rights in principle- decides to forfeit those for certain people even though they may be personally innocent, because the risk of not doing so is too high.  I did not use it as a one to one comparison with the RoA, rather as a moral equivalent.

You simply don't acknowledge the inherent danger that a mage- any mage- poses simply by existing.  This is the foundation for the lore of the Circle.  The devs said they considered- "how would a society respond to someone having the power to control minds?"  Some societies would react more conservatively to that threat than others.  Not simply because they're evil bastards, but because it's natural to try to protect yourself from danger.  It's fine to argue about whether or not such a conservative reaction is justified, but until you acknowledge that there is actually a real threat, you're going to keep spinning furious arguments out of straw.

Modifié par Addai67, 30 septembre 2011 - 10:16 .

[IanPolaris]

It's very simple. Genocide is never an option unless your whole entire species is directly threatened (which is why Genocide against Darkspawn is permissiable).

If you can't agree that Genocide is evil period, then we have nothing further to discuss.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Possession does NOT require the host to be willing. A demon can force possession of a mage.

For a possession to be "cured" requires the host to have been willing.

Which is why Keeran was possessed...oh wait he wasn't.  Which is why Irving was possessed...oh wait he wasn't.   The point is that a mage generally has to permit himself to be possessed although blood magic combined with extreme torture can force that OR the mage has to deliberately place himself in harms way (by summoning a demon).

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

Which is why mages and Templars are trained. To resist the powers of demons and other mages.

[Addai]

IanPolaris wrote...

It's very simple. Genocide is never an option unless your whole entire species is directly threatened (which is why Genocide against Darkspawn is permissiable).

If you can't agree that Genocide is evil period, then we have nothing further to discuss.

-Polaris

This is the part of the discussion where you can't actually address an argument, so you draw an arbitrary line and imply moral laxity for not simply signing your petition to BioWare to save the mages.  Got it.

[IanPolaris]

Addai67 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

It's very simple. Genocide is never an option unless your whole entire species is directly threatened (which is why Genocide against Darkspawn is permissiable).

If you can't agree that Genocide is evil period, then we have nothing further to discuss.

-Polaris

This is the part of the discussion where you can't actually address an argument, so you draw an arbitrary line and imply moral laxity for not simply signing your petition to BioWare to save the mages.  Got it.

I can and have addressed the arguement.  Mages and magic  are nothing like contagious diseases so the entire argument fails on the face of it.  The fact is you are trying to justify Genocide.  Don't.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Which is why mages and Templars are trained. To resist the powers of demons and other mages.

No one has said that mages shouldn't be trained athough I question just how much ant-demon training a circle mage gets.  It is wrong to treat them as sub-human while they get that training and that is precisely what you advocate by championing the Chantry's system.

-Polaris

[Satyricon331]

Addai67 wrote...
Quarantine is an example of when a society- even one which recognizes individual rights in principle- decides to forfeit those for certain people even though they may be personally innocent, because the risk of not doing so is too high.  I did not use it as a one to one comparison with the RoA, rather as a moral equivalent.

Addai, I disagree with you here.  The reason involuntary quarantine is compatible with a rights-based moral outlook is because the outlook views people as having a right (against the world) to their lives, which implies an individual duty to respect that right.  A disease carrier actively jeapordizes those rights by not voluntarily submitting to quarantine, and in this respect an involuntary quarantine is just the remedy to the rights violation.  Expecting someone in a quarantine to submit to killing to protect others just turns the framework on its head.  

And Ian, I see you again asserting there is no analogy between magic and diseases, which is an irrational position.  If you have a new argument, then offer it.  I agree there's no analogy to the RoA,but it doesn't follow there's no analogy to magic.

[IanPolaris]

What rational comparison can we make with magic to any reasonable disease that requires quarantine? You can not. A disease can be transmitted from one person to the next. Magical ability can not be, and neither can being an abomination. At worst a mage can with knowledge of bloodmagic and a lot of time and effort coerce others and force consent of possession (see Uldred) but that's hardly an R-naught factor (to use the disease term) that even remotely comes close to justifying a quarantine (it's an R-0 of nearly zero in fact).

We also know that abominations can be detected even without visible signs (we know this because both Merrill and Anders can do it in DA2 as part of game lore).

Given that abominations can be detected and that the condition can not be transmitted by any reasonable contact, the entire quarantine justification becomes completely nonsensical. In fact if it were valid then we should see spreads of abominations from mages outside the circles especially in those societies that don't quarantine mages and we do not.

That's why there is no anology between magic and disease. At most you might make an analogy between an inherited genetic defect and magic but that certainly doesn't justify quarantine let alone the Right of Annulment.

In simple terms a trained mage simply by existing does not pose enough of a threat to others to justify quarantine despite what the Templars would have you believe.

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

An abomination can "infect" others and even use the dead as vessels for other demons. So magic can be used in a quarentine comparison. At least in some cases.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

An abomination can "infect" others and even use the dead as vessels for other demons. So magic can be used in a quarentine comparison. At least in some cases.

Um no.  Some abominations can summon demons and can sunder the veil so said demons might possess the veil but it's NOT a contangious condition.  A mage doesn't become an abomination just by being in mere proximinity with an abomination.  As best I can tell the R-0 factor is nearly zero.

-Polaris

[Satyricon331]

IanPolaris wrote...
What rational comparison can we make with magic to any reasonable disease that requires quarantine? You can not. A disease can be transmitted from one person to the next. Magical ability can not be, and neither can being an abomination. At worst a mage can with knowledge of bloodmagic and a lot of time and effort coerce others and force consent of possession (see Uldred) but that's hardly an R-naught factor (to use the disease term) that even remotely comes close to justifying a quarantine (it's an R-0 of nearly zero in fact).

We also know that abominations can be detected even without visible signs (we know this because both Merrill and Anders can do it in DA2 as part of game lore).

Given that abominations can be detected and that the condition can not be transmitted by any reasonable contact, the entire quarantine justification becomes completely nonsensical. In fact if it were valid then we should see spreads of abominations from mages outside the circles especially in those societies that don't quarantine mages and we do not.

That's why there is no anology between magic and disease. At most you might make an analogy between an inherited genetic defect and magic but that certainly doesn't justify quarantine let alone the Right of Annulment.

In simple terms a trained mage simply by existing does not pose enough of a threat to others to justify quarantine despite what the Templars would have you believe.

-Polaris

Moral analogies hinge on their moral salient aspects, and (once again) the morally relevant issue in quarantine is the endangerment of others.  A disease's transmissibility is empirically relevant for this matter only as a proxy measurement, and that's what you seem to be missing.  If we quarantined only on the basis of transmissibility, then (once again) we would quarantine people for the common cold, which is nonsensical no matter how many times you imply it.  Nobody cares about the R0 factor of a cold, because the morally relevant issue is the endangerment of others.  

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

An abomination can "infect" others and even use the dead as vessels for other demons. So magic can be used in a quarentine comparison. At least in some cases.

Um no.  Some abominations can summon demons and can sunder the veil so said demons might possess the veil but it's NOT a contangious condition.  A mage doesn't become an abomination just by being in mere proximinity with an abomination.  As best I can tell the R-0 factor is nearly zero.

-Polaris

Cullen even says that blood mages and demons can force demons into others. So I guess you are completely wrong. Again...

[TEWR]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

An abomination can "infect" others and even use the dead as vessels for other demons. So magic can be used in a quarentine comparison. At least in some cases.

Um no.  Some abominations can summon demons and can sunder the veil so said demons might possess the veil but it's NOT a contangious condition.  A mage doesn't become an abomination just by being in mere proximinity with an abomination.  As best I can tell the R-0 factor is nearly zero.

-Polaris

Cullen even says that blood mages and demons can force demons into others. So I guess you are completely wrong. Again...

No, you are. That has nothing to do with being infected by a nearby Abomination. It isn't some disease.

A demon or a blood mage can summon more demons and force them into unwilling hosts. Your post that Ian quoted has you saying that Abominations can infect others. You're trying to say that if I'm next to an Abomination I'll just magically turn into an Abomination myself because of the proximity.

Could I become an Abomination if the Abomination nearby summoned demons? Yes, but that's radically different from being infected. Summoning a demon in a person takes work.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Hard to compare Annulment to a quaratine... how often does a quarantine include the deliberate slaughter of everyone inside the quarantine zone?

[TEWR]

Comparing the mages to infectious creatures that need to be quarantined is, to me, a comparison that shouldn't have been made because it doesn't have a strong foundation.

concentration camps work better. Not just the **** ones though. I mean the ones America did too after Pearl Harbor.

They did that because of a threat they perceived would be the case from a bunch of people with the same ethnic and racial background.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

An abomination can "infect" others and even use the dead as vessels for other demons. So magic can be used in a quarentine comparison. At least in some cases.

Um no.  Some abominations can summon demons and can sunder the veil so said demons might possess the veil but it's NOT a contangious condition.  A mage doesn't become an abomination just by being in mere proximinity with an abomination.  As best I can tell the R-0 factor is nearly zero.

-Polaris

Cullen even says that blood mages and demons can force demons into others. So I guess you are completely wrong. Again...

No, you are. That has nothing to do with being infected by a nearby Abomination. It isn't some disease.

A demon or a blood mage can summon more demons and force them into unwilling hosts. Your post that Ian quoted has you saying that Abominations can infect others. You're trying to say that if I'm next to an Abomination I'll just magically turn into an Abomination myself because of the proximity.

Could I become an Abomination if the Abomination nearby summoned demons? Yes, but that's radically different from being infected. Summoning a demon in a person takes work.

So actually when a Zombie bites you, he doesn't infect you. So zombies aren't contagious. So it is genocide to kill zombies! (Yes. That was a jab at the often shabby logic used in this thread)

No. An abomination will often actively attempt to create more of its kind, sort of like zombies. So while not disease like, it is similar to outbreaks, and infections. So the quarentine analogy is true.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Except, of course, that the isolation of a quarantine is not immediately followed up with the deliberate slaughter of all the contained persons.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Comparing the mages to infectious creatures that need to be quarantined is, to me, a comparison that shouldn't have been made because it doesn't have a strong foundation.

concentration camps work better. Not just the **** ones though. I mean the ones America did too after Pearl Harbor.

They did that because of a threat they perceived would be the case from a bunch of people with the same ethnic and racial background.

Japanese people don't turn into powerful creatures with the ability to summon more of its kind and eradicate entire cities on its own....

While the premisse shares some similarities, the actual seperate instances are nothing alike. The concentration camps were in response to a percieved threat. The Circles are a response to an actual threat.