472 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

phaonica wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

The fact is that mages are treated by themselves and by everyone else as a specific sub-culture and that's all that's needed to define ethnicity...at least for purposes of genocide.  Yes, it's deliberately THAT LOOSE to discourage people from trying to lawyer out of genocide like you are trying to do.

Then there is no letter of the law, and there is only the spirit of the law, which implies that it's definition, by definition, is arguable.

Did you read my post above.  The UN itself says that if it "looks like genocide" it is and that the terms need to be used in the loosest possible way.  That from the people who define the term, so when it comes to genocide the spirit of the law is the letter of the law which is why defenses such as the ones you are attempting don't hold water.  Also it's clear that mages and non-mages alike hold mages as a seperate category of people that that easily meet the minimum bar for 'ethnicity' when it comes to genocide.

Also genocide in a city is still geneocide.  Ask Sebrenica.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

phaonica wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

The fact is that mages are treated by themselves and by everyone else as a specific sub-culture and that's all that's needed to define ethnicity...at least for purposes of genocide.  Yes, it's deliberately THAT LOOSE to discourage people from trying to lawyer out of genocide like you are trying to do.

Then there is no letter of the law, and there is only the spirit of the law, which implies that its definition, by definition, is arguable.

If you are targeting people for confinement/elmination because of what they are, then it's genocide.  That IS the working definition of the word and it's certainly used that way in the game.

-Polaris

[phaonica]

IanPolaris wrote...

People have a natural right not to be victims of genocide whether there is a UN or not.  The Constitution in the US doesn't give the right to bear arms.  It recognizes a preexisting natural right.  That's all.

Where do natural rights come from? From logic? Religion? The state?

[Xilizhra]

phaonica wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

People have a natural right not to be victims of genocide whether there is a UN or not.  The Constitution in the US doesn't give the right to bear arms.  It recognizes a preexisting natural right.  That's all.

Where do natural rights come from? From logic? Religion? The state?

The same place all morality comes from; out of the mind, or out of the ass. My Hawke believes in it. Some others may not. Those who do not will not stand long.

[IanPolaris]

phaonica wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

People have a natural right not to be victims of genocide whether there is a UN or not.  The Constitution in the US doesn't give the right to bear arms.  It recognizes a preexisting natural right.  That's all.

Where do natural rights come from? From logic? Religion? The state?

Basic morality as already explained.  Either you have a moral sense or you do not.  If you do, then all natural rights stem from that.  Natural rights exist whether or not states honor them or not.

-Polaris

[Sidney]

IanPolaris wrote...

TJPags wrote...

No, see, you don't get it.  Thedas isn't part of the UN.  It doesn't have anything to do with the Hague.  It's a fictional world in which the UN, the Hague, and "our" definition of genocide does not apply. 

Even if some "modern morality" is referenced, that means nothing.  Some =/= all.

So if a state isn't part of the UN they can't commit genocide?

I don't think so.  Words have meaning and the UN has defined the meaning of genocide and that word retains it's meaning even in Thedas.  BY DEFINITION then (UN notwithstanding), the Right of Annulement is genocide.

-Polaris

I think you've read something and not understood it very well. By your definition almost anything violent is genocide. In both the Malmedy Massacre and Bataan Death March prisoners (like the mages) were  murdered based on their ethnicity or nationality. You'd never call these sorts of localized mass murder the genocide of the Americans because it wasn't part of a wider campaign of elimination.

The RoA is clearly a localized mass murder but it is not a systematic (and that is the key)  attempt to eliminate all mages in Thedas nor even in a particular jursidiction - the circle is nullified but non-circle mages (you, the Dalish, etc) aren't affected by the order even in Kirkwall and it's environs.

[phaonica]

IanPolaris wrote...

Did you read my post above.  The UN itself says that if it "looks like genocide" it is and that the terms need to be used in the loosest possible way.  That from the people who define the term, so when it comes to genocide the spirit of the law is the letter of the law which is why defenses such as the ones you are attempting don't hold water.  Also it's clear that mages and non-mages alike hold mages as a seperate category of people that that easily meet the minimum bar for 'ethnicity' when it comes to genocide.

Then from now on, shall I consider people's wanting to obliterate Chantry members and the Templars to also be genocide? Looks like genocide to me, so by definition, it must be.

Modifié par phaonica, 30 septembre 2011 - 03:38 .

[phaonica]

IanPolaris wrote...

Basic morality as already explained.  Either you have a moral sense or you do not.  If you do, then all natural rights stem from that.  Natural rights exist whether or not states honor them or not.

I think I misunderstand, but natural rights stem from an individual's sense of morality?

[Xilizhra]

the circle is nullified but non-circle mages (you, the Dalish, etc) aren't affected by the order even in Kirkwall and it's environs.

Their lives are already legally forfeit. And how convenient that Meredith tries to kill all of them in the immediate vicinity the first chance she gets.

[IanPolaris]

Sidney wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

TJPags wrote...

No, see, you don't get it.  Thedas isn't part of the UN.  It doesn't have anything to do with the Hague.  It's a fictional world in which the UN, the Hague, and "our" definition of genocide does not apply. 

Even if some "modern morality" is referenced, that means nothing.  Some =/= all.

So if a state isn't part of the UN they can't commit genocide?

I don't think so.  Words have meaning and the UN has defined the meaning of genocide and that word retains it's meaning even in Thedas.  BY DEFINITION then (UN notwithstanding), the Right of Annulement is genocide.

-Polaris

I think you've read something and not understood it very well. By your definition almost anything violent is genocide. In both the Malmedy Massacre and Bataan Death March prisoners (like the mages) were  murdered based on their ethnicity or nationality. You'd never call these sorts of localized mass murder the genocide of the Americans because it wasn't part of a wider campaign of elimination.

Actually the Baatan Death March was an act of genocide and surviving Japanese officers were subject to war crimes trials after the war on those charges.  I say surviving because most Japanese officers committed suicide rather than facing the charges.  In fact it was exactly these sorts of abuses that gave our society the impetus to define the word "genocide" in our langauge.

So yes, these were in fact acts of genocide that happened before the word was legally defined.

The RoA is clearly a localized mass murder but it is not a systematic (and that is the key)  attempt to eliminate all mages in Thedas nor even in a particular jursidiction - the circle is nullified but non-circle mages (you, the Dalish, etc) aren't affected by the order even in Kirkwall and it's environs.

Yes it is.  It's precisely an effort to elminate all mages (since being an apostate is punishable by death anyway) in a local.  That makes it genocide.  Please stop trying to dance around the term just because it's ugly.  If it's too ugly to talk about, perhaps people should think again about supporting Meredith, and perhaps the choice wasn't as morally "grey" as Bioware wanted? 

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

phaonica wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Did you read my post above.  The UN itself says that if it "looks like genocide" it is and that the terms need to be used in the loosest possible way.  That from the people who define the term, so when it comes to genocide the spirit of the law is the letter of the law which is why defenses such as the ones you are attempting don't hold water.  Also it's clear that mages and non-mages alike hold mages as a seperate category of people that that easily meet the minimum bar for 'ethnicity' when it comes to genocide.

Then from now on, shall I consider people's wanting to obliterate Chantry members and the Templars to also be genocide? Looks like genocide to me, so by definition, it must be.

Nope.  You can choose to be a member of the Chantry or the Templars and choose to leave.  You can't choose to be or not to be a mage.  That's what seperates Genocide from mere mass murder. 

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

phaonica wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Basic morality as already explained.  Either you have a moral sense or you do not.  If you do, then all natural rights stem from that.  Natural rights exist whether or not states honor them or not.

I think I misunderstand, but natural rights stem from an individual's sense of morality?

Nope.  Natural Rights come from a collective moral sense which all individual should have.   Just becasue an individual might not have any moral sense does not mean that Natural Rights don't exist.

-Polaris

[phaonica]

IanPolaris wrote...

Please stop trying to dance around the term just because it's ugly. If it's too ugly to talk about, perhaps people should think again about
supporting Meredith, and perhaps the choice wasn't as morally "grey" as
Bioware wanted? 

-Polaris

We're not dancing around the term. We're openly discussing the term's validity.

[phaonica]

IanPolaris wrote...

phaonica wrote...
Then from now on, shall I consider people's wanting to obliterate Chantry members and the Templars to also be genocide? Looks like genocide to me, so by definition, it must be.

Nope.  You can choose to be a member of the Chantry or the Templars and choose to leave.  You can't choose to be or not to be a mage.  That's what seperates Genocide from mere mass murder. 

-Polaris

Religious affiliation is specifically covered under the "defintion" of genocide, as is nationality, both of which can be chosen and changed.

Modifié par phaonica, 30 septembre 2011 - 03:49 .

[TJPags]

IanPolaris wrote...

phaonica wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Did you read my post above.  The UN itself says that if it "looks like genocide" it is and that the terms need to be used in the loosest possible way.  That from the people who define the term, so when it comes to genocide the spirit of the law is the letter of the law which is why defenses such as the ones you are attempting don't hold water.  Also it's clear that mages and non-mages alike hold mages as a seperate category of people that that easily meet the minimum bar for 'ethnicity' when it comes to genocide.

Then from now on, shall I consider people's wanting to obliterate Chantry members and the Templars to also be genocide? Looks like genocide to me, so by definition, it must be.

Nope.  You can choose to be a member of the Chantry or the Templars and choose to leave.  You can't choose to be or not to be a mage.  That's what seperates Genocide from mere mass murder. 

-Polaris

Didn't you say earlier that killing all Muslims was genocide?  Can't a person choose or not choose to be Muslim?

(yea, said I was checking out . . . but have to see the twisted logic of this one)

[phaonica]

IanPolaris wrote...


Nope.  Natural Rights come from a collective moral sense which all individual should have.   Just becasue an individual might not have any moral sense does not mean that Natural Rights don't exist.

And if a selection of people has a different collective moral sense than another, does that mean they have differing natural rights?

[IanPolaris]

phaonica wrote...

Teligious affiliation is specifically covered under the "defintion" of genocide, as is nationality, both of which can be chosen and changed.

Nope.  That would only apply if you were talking all Andrastians for death (or confinement).   Then indeed genocide would apply.  However, if you are only targeting soldiers, then it's not genocide.  Likewise if you are only targeting priests, it doesn't apply.  That's because you can CHOOSE to be a soldier or a priest.  It might be otherwise murder and/or immoral but not genocide.

Please.  You are being intellecually dishonest IMO.  Everyone knows what genocide means these days.  Targeting people for what they are rather than what they have done is the basic working requirement and you know it as well as I do.  You are just trying to 'lawyer' your way out of it...and it's a charge that even the UN says you should not be able to lawyer out of.

-Polaris

[Xilizhra]

Didn't you say earlier that killing all Muslims was genocide? Can't a person choose or not choose to be Muslim?

(yea, said I was checking out . . . but have to see the twisted logic of this one)

Islam is a religion, which does fall under current genocide definitions.
Of course, killing all Andrastians would be genocide, yes. However, templars are an army, and that's not the same thing.

[IanPolaris]

TJPags wrote...

Didn't you say earlier that killing all Muslims was genocide?  Can't a person choose or not choose to be Muslim?

(yea, said I was checking out . . . but have to see the twisted logic of this one)

Killing all members of a religous affilation is by definition genocide.  So is forced convesion btw.  It is considered immoral to force a person to change their religious affilation.  It is not considered immortal to force a person to chance their profession.

Nice try but it doesn't work.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

phaonica wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...


Nope.  Natural Rights come from a collective moral sense which all individual should have.   Just becasue an individual might not have any moral sense does not mean that Natural Rights don't exist.

And if a selection of people has a different collective moral sense than another, does that mean they have differing natural rights?

Natural Rights are not subject to Moral Relavism.  In this case those other people are wrong...and it's still genocide.

The only reason they might not be is if they were literally alien (and I don't mean humans in funny suits aliens either).

-Polaris 

[IanPolaris]

phaonica wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Please stop trying to dance around the term just because it's ugly. If it's too ugly to talk about, perhaps people should think again about
supporting Meredith, and perhaps the choice wasn't as morally "grey" as
Bioware wanted? 

-Polaris

We're not dancing around the term. We're openly discussing the term's validity.

No.  You are dancing around it.  The term is valid because the game uses the term in conjucntion with the circle system itself in actual game play.  That makes the term valid whether you wish to admit it or not.

-Polaris

[TJPags]

IanPolaris wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Didn't you say earlier that killing all Muslims was genocide?  Can't a person choose or not choose to be Muslim?

(yea, said I was checking out . . . but have to see the twisted logic of this one)

Killing all members of a religous affilation is by definition genocide.  So is forced convesion btw.  It is considered immoral to force a person to change their religious affilation.  It is not considered immortal to force a person to chance their profession.

Nice try but it doesn't work.

-Polaris

Your mental and linguistic gymnastics amaze me.

You should join a circus.

[Xilizhra]

TJPags wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Didn't you say earlier that killing all Muslims was genocide?  Can't a person choose or not choose to be Muslim?

(yea, said I was checking out . . . but have to see the twisted logic of this one)

Killing all members of a religous affilation is by definition genocide.  So is forced convesion btw.  It is considered immoral to force a person to change their religious affilation.  It is not considered immortal to force a person to chance their profession.

Nice try but it doesn't work.

-Polaris

Your mental and linguistic gymnastics amaze me.

You should join a circus.

Loopy though Ian may be at times, he's not a genocide apologist. That counts for rather more.

[GodWood]

Xilizhra wrote...
Loopy though Ian may be at times, he's not a genocide apologist. That counts for rather more.

Says the woman advocating the slaughter of every single Templar.

[IanPolaris]

GodWood wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Loopy though Ian may be at times, he's not a genocide apologist. That counts for rather more.

Says the woman advocating the slaughter of every single Templar.

Templars are uniformed soldiers.  That's all the difference.

-Polaris