472 réponses à ce sujet

[phaonica]

IanPolaris wrote...

phaonica wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Regardless, it's still not genocide.  For it to rise to the level of gencide, an attempt must be made to kill/convert/contain all members of "religion X" in "region Y" and not even the most vile Resolutionists have reached that level (which is not to say they aren't vile terrorists because many are).

Then I stand by my claim that if someone says something like "everyone who is part of the Chantry should die" I will consider that to be genocide.

It's not.  It might be wrong and immoral, but it's not genocide.  Followers of Andraste ==/== Chantry, so you are simply wrong.

-Polaris

Yes it is, because saying that Chantry clergy should be killed, if not in self defense, is killing them because of their religion.

[IanPolaris]

phaonica wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Go look at all the constitutions (and most countries have them these days) and they all enshrine natural rights as part of the fundamental law (whether or not the county lives up to them is another matter) and almost all of them are cribbed from both the Bill of Rights (US) or the Declarations of the Rights of Man (France).  That's pretty universal acceptance in my book.

-Polaris

Except that, iirc, the US Declaration of Independance attributes natural rights as something given to men by a creator, and many of the men who wrote both the Declaration and the Constitution believed in a higher power, not that these rights came inherently from men.

Also, even the constitutions you mention don't protect all the same rights. And how many places in the world don't have government protected rights at all?

Most Western Democracies at least try to protect natural rights abeit imperfectly and with much disagreement.  Where they aren't protected doesn't mean they don't exist.  Also most of the Founding fathers were 'deists' and had remarkably heretical and fluid ideas about any higher power (including the notion of the absent clockmaker).  All would have read the Euthyphyro though, and would have agreed that morality is independant of God (or a Creator) and that human beings had these rights by virtue of being humans beiongs (and presumbably if you believed in a God and he made human beings he had to have given them these rights as part of his perfect moral knowledge).

In short your argument is getting you no where.  Argue against it all you like, but the RIght of Annulment IS genocide by any reasonable definition.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

phaonica wrote...

Yes it is, because saying that Chantry clergy should be killed, if not in self defense, is killing them because of their religion.

No.  Killing someone becuase of their religion (or even because they have blue eyes) is not genocide.  Trying to kill ALL people in a local because of their religion (or because they have blue eyes) is.

See the difference?

Killing the Chantry clergy is not in of itself trying to kill all those of a particular religion.  There can be (and in this care are) other factors that make them valid targets.  Killing them as part of an effort to stamp out Andastrianism would be genocide.  Please look up the full UN Code and you'll see the difference.

-Polaris

[TEWR]

phaonica wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

You seek power at the expense of the innocent.

None who hold the templar shield against freedom are innocent.

True.  You voluntarily join the templars and you do that knowing what it entails.  No templar is 'innocent' in this regard.

-Polaris

Well, not technically. The Kirkwall Order was riddled with dissent. It's too bad so many of them died.

Not every templar voluntarily joins, either. Alistair didn't join by choice.

Alistair's a very special and unique case. He neither joined the Chantry by choice nor holds views that the Chantry approves of regarding mages. He did join the Templars by choice -- and by choice I mean as much of a choice as he had because he was just tossed into the Chantry at a young age -- because he enjoyed the training and found solace in it.

[phaonica]

IanPolaris wrote...

Most Western Democracies at least try to protect natural rights abeit imperfectly and with much disagreement.  Where they aren't protected doesn't mean they don't exist.  Also most of the Founding fathers were 'deists' and had remarkably heretical and fluid ideas about any higher power (including the notion of the absent clockmaker).  All would have read the Euthyphyro though, and would have agreed that morality is independant of God (or a Creator) and that human beings had these rights by virtue of being humans beiongs (and presumbably if you believed in a God and he made human beings he had to have given them these rights as part of his perfect moral knowledge).

In short your argument is getting you no where.  Argue against it all you like, but the RIght of Annulment IS genocide by any reasonable definition.

-Polaris

Why would they say that their rights are given by God if they or the people whom they were protecting didn't believe it?  Just because they might have read Euthyphyro, doesn't mean they all agreed with him.

[IanPolaris]

phaonica wrote...

Why would they say that their rights are given by God if they or the people whom they were protecting didn't believe it?  Just because they might have read Euthyphyro, doesn't mean they all agreed with him.

1.  Both the Declaration of Independance and the Bill of Rights (and the Declarations of the Rights of Man in France) were first and formost political documents.  Whether or not the authors believed in the source of natural rights is irrelevenat.  They had to convice the people that these rights came from an unimpeachable source and almost everyone at the time (in their respective countries) did believe in the Christian God (whatever other denominational differences there might have been).

2.  Pretty much every educated person that read Greek (which at that period was pretty much every educated person) agreed with Socrates' conclusions with regard to the Euthyphro.  In fact all branches of Christianity (even the Greek Orthodox Branch) agreed with the basic conclusions of the Euthyphro's logical conclusion that objective morality existed independant of any supreme being (but allowed for the fact that any supreme being would have perfect knowledge of that objective morality).

-Polaris

[phaonica]

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

[quote]phaonica wrote...

Yes it is, because saying that Chantry clergy should be killed, if not in self defense, is killing them because of their religion.

[/quote]

No.  Killing someone becuase of their religion (or even because they have blue eyes) is not genocide. [/quote] Agreed. Killing one person because of their religion is not genocide [/quote]
[quote]  Trying to kill ALL people in a local because of their religion (or because they have blue eyes) is. [/quote] That's what I said. Killing ALL Chantry clergy in a local (Thedas or other smaller areas) because of their religion is genocide.


[quote] Killing the Chantry clergy is not in of itself trying to kill all those of a particular religion. [/quote] Right, it's trying to kill those responsible for the relgion, either out of intolerance for the religion or to weaken a potential threat.

[quote]  Killing them as part of an effort to stamp out Andastrianism would be genocide. [/quote] Agreed. Killing a large number of clergy or civilians just because they are Andrastian is also genocide, even with no ultimate goal of irradicating the religion, is also genocide, just like killing a large group of mages for being mages with no intent of attempting to wipe out ALL mages is genocide.

Modifié par phaonica, 30 septembre 2011 - 05:55 .

[IanPolaris]

phaonica wrote...

That's what I said. Killing ALL Chantry clergy in a local (Thedas or other smaller areas) because of their religion is genocide.

No it's not at least not automatically.  Sure killing all local priests may weaken the Chantry, but it's only genocide if you are doing this with the express mission to supress the religion.  That was never the declared intent of anyone save the most insane radicals.

Targeting the Chantry because they are your enemy and have been providing support to enemies that are clearly hostile to you is a completely different matter, and honestly probably justified.

In short, WHY you are killing matters when you raise the issue of genocide.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Btw, nice try at a reductio ad aburdem but it's not going to work. There is a clear distinction between the various cases and most reasonable people can see it I think.

-Polaris

[phaonica]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Alistair's a very special and unique case.

Is it? Is there a codex entry about it somewhere?

He neither joined the Chantry by choice nor holds views that the Chantry approves of regarding mages. He did join the Templars by choice -- and by choice I mean as much of a choice as he had because he was just tossed into the Chantry at a young age -- because he enjoyed the training and found solace in it.

Fair enough.  He certainly didn't join the Chantry by choice. I don't know if it is said that he volunteered to be a Templar, or if, like you said, he had as much choice as a child would be given, which potentially isn't much.

[IanPolaris]

phaonica wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Alistair's a very special and unique case.

Is it? Is there a codex entry about it somewhere?

He neither joined the Chantry by choice nor holds views that the Chantry approves of regarding mages. He did join the Templars by choice -- and by choice I mean as much of a choice as he had because he was just tossed into the Chantry at a young age -- because he enjoyed the training and found solace in it.

Fair enough.  He certainly didn't join the Chantry by choice. I don't know if it is said that he volunteered to be a Templar, or if, like you said, he had as much choice as a child would be given, which potentially isn't much.

In his conversations, he says he joined the Templars because he "took" to the education.  Originally he was a monk (read Lay Brother) like Sebastian.

-Polaris

[Addai]

IanPolaris wrote...
Again, murder is murder but to have that be risen to the level of genocide, it has to be a systematic attempt to confine/eliminate a certain group for merely existing.  A pogram to eliminate all Andrastians (or all followers of the Qun) is genocide (and the Chantry is guilty of this many times over).  Killing a church full of people is a reprehensible Act of Terror but not in of itself geneocide unless the purpose was part of a systematic  attempt to kill/convert all Andrastians and it clearly wasn't.

The Right of Annulment on the other hand IS very clearly an attempt to kill all mages simply for being mages.  That makes it genocide.

-Polaris

No, the RoA exists- as does the Circle in general- to protect the innocent populace from threat of harm.

Your whole natural law argument fails because all societies, including our own, recognize that natural rights are limited.  You are not free when your freedom endangers others.  Whether or not you agree with the definition of threat, or consider the evidence of threat in a particular instance of the RoA to be justified, is a different matter.

[phaonica]

IanPolaris wrote...

No it's not at least not automatically.  Sure killing all local priests may weaken the Chantry, but it's only genocide if you are doing this with the express mission to supress the religion.  That was never the declared intent of anyone save the most insane radicals.

It is the declared intent of some people on this board, who have specifically said that the Andrastean religion is wrong and thus must be irradicated, even if by force.

Targeting the Chantry because they are your enemy and have been providing support to enemies that are clearly hostile to you is a completely different matter, and honestly probably justified.

What about targeting the religion, and considering the relgion your enemy, and thus attempt to destroy the religion by force. Are the people doing the killing with that intent comitting genocide?

[IanPolaris]

Addai67 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Again, murder is murder but to have that be risen to the level of genocide, it has to be a systematic attempt to confine/eliminate a certain group for merely existing.  A pogram to eliminate all Andrastians (or all followers of the Qun) is genocide (and the Chantry is guilty of this many times over).  Killing a church full of people is a reprehensible Act of Terror but not in of itself geneocide unless the purpose was part of a systematic  attempt to kill/convert all Andrastians and it clearly wasn't.

The Right of Annulment on the other hand IS very clearly an attempt to kill all mages simply for being mages.  That makes it genocide.

-Polaris

No, the RoA exists- as does the Circle in general- to protect the innocent populace from threat of harm.

Your whole natural law argument fails because all societies, including our own, recognize that natural rights are limited.  You are not free when your freedom endangers others.  Whether or not you agree with the definition of threat, or consider the evidence of threat in a particular instance of the RoA to be justified, is a different matter.

It's not "my" argument. Whether you like it or not, the Right of Annulment fits the definition of genocide to a tee, and there is no evidence that it's justified whatsoever.  In fact the "right" didn't even exist until a couple of centuries after the modern Chantry was formed, but somehow societies managed just fine....

Look, I'm not being stubborn just for the sake of being stubborn. I am being stubborn because I think a lot of people are putting on their moral blinders and advocating things that really are monstrous and one of those is the slaughter of an entire group of people simple for what they are (and especially if they had no role in what caused the crisis).  Words have meanings.  The Right of Annulment is genocide.  Wake up and accpet what that means and then ask yourself how you can support the Chantry or Templars in light of this.  I don't think a moral person that fully understands the issue can and remain a moral person.

-Polaris

[TEWR]

phaonica wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Alistair's a very special and unique case.

Is it? Is there a codex entry about it somewhere?

He neither joined the Chantry by choice nor holds views that the Chantry approves of regarding mages. He did join the Templars by choice -- and by choice I mean as much of a choice as he had because he was just tossed into the Chantry at a young age -- because he enjoyed the training and found solace in it.

Fair enough.  He certainly didn't join the Chantry by choice. I don't know if it is said that he volunteered to be a Templar, or if, like you said, he had as much choice as a child would be given, which potentially isn't much.

He is. His pro-mage views are different from other Templars'. Most Templar pro-mage views are more "be nice to the mages" rather than try and give them better lives.

King Alistair showed us that. And even then he was never a real Templar at any point in his life. He never took the vows and whatever else is required beyond the training, so calling him a Templar isn't quite right. He's a Templar in training, but not in mindset or name. He was recruited by Duncan before he could become one.

He tells the Warden that the training was the only reason why he tried to become a Templar. Reason being because he was good at it and found solace in it.

[IanPolaris]

phaonica wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

No it's not at least not automatically.  Sure killing all local priests may weaken the Chantry, but it's only genocide if you are doing this with the express mission to supress the religion.  That was never the declared intent of anyone save the most insane radicals.

It is the declared intent of some people on this board, who have specifically said that the Andrastean religion is wrong and thus must be irradicated, even if by force.

Could you supply some quotes for that because that's not been my impression.  I have certainly never advocated eradicating the Chantry or the Andrastian religion for it's treatment of mages.  I do think that magical regulation needs to be removed from the Chanty by force of need be and but isn't genocide.

Targeting the Chantry because they are your enemy and have been providing support to enemies that are clearly hostile to you is a completely different matter, and honestly probably justified.

What about targeting the religion, and considering the relgion your enemy, and thus attempt to destroy the religion by force. Are the people doing the killing with that intent comitting genocide?

Yes, trying to destroy a religion by force probably is genocide but no one is advocating this!

-Polaris

[phaonica]

IanPolaris wrote...

1.  Both the Declaration of Independance and the Bill of Rights (and the Declarations of the Rights of Man in France) were first and formost political documents.  Whether or not the authors believed in the source of natural rights is irrelevenat.  They had to convice the people that these rights came from an unimpeachable source and almost everyone at the time (in their respective countries) did believe in the Christian God (whatever other denominational differences there might have been).

So you're saying that they fabricated a tale for the simple and uneducated people, to whom it would make more sense and make them feel more empowered if their rights came from God rather than from themselves. My original argument was that the majority of people do not necessarily believe in inherent rights. You seem to be saying that this is somewhat true, but only because they are uneducated.

[IanPolaris]

phaonica wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

1.  Both the Declaration of Independance and the Bill of Rights (and the Declarations of the Rights of Man in France) were first and formost political documents.  Whether or not the authors believed in the source of natural rights is irrelevenat.  They had to convice the people that these rights came from an unimpeachable source and almost everyone at the time (in their respective countries) did believe in the Christian God (whatever other denominational differences there might have been).

So you're saying that they fabricated a tale for the simple and uneducated people, to whom it would make more sense and make them feel more empowered if their rights came from God rather than from themselves. My original argument was that the majority of people do not necessarily believe in inherent rights. You seem to be saying that this is somewhat true, but only because they are uneducated.

Why is this revelation?  Until facts are discovered we remain ignorant of them (or unedcuated if you prefer).  You find this in most political writing of the day.  I don't see it detracts from my point one iota.  If the ideas were wrong or bad, then they wouldn't have survived and prospered as they have.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  Just because someone doesn't believe something doesn't make it false after all.  Some things had to be discovered and the concept of human rights was one of these at least as far as general moral concensus.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 30 septembre 2011 - 06:23 .

[phaonica]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

He is. His pro-mage views are different from other Templars'. Most Templar pro-mage views are more "be nice to the mages" rather than try and give them better lives.

King Alistair showed us that. And even then he was never a real Templar at any point in his life. He never took the vows and whatever else is required beyond the training, so calling him a Templar isn't quite right. He's a Templar in training, but not in mindset or name. He was recruited by Duncan before he could become one.

He tells the Warden that the training was the only reason why he tried to become a Templar. Reason being because he was good at it and found solace in it.

True. He's not a Templar any more, but the whole point is that he didn't join by choice. I don't see in any of his dialog where he says he chose to join the order. He says he took to the training, but "took to" also means he was good at it, not that he chose it. And if not for Duncan's intervention, he could still be a Templar, again not by choice.

[esper]

@phaonica
I am one of those who have said the Chantry religion is 'wrong'. As in I don't like the whole faith of the Maker - I think it is kind of sick, the way the chantry present it. I have never said that that alone is enough to start killing priests.

I have also argued that I want to remove the Seeker Branch of the chantry because it is a military branch and I think militaries and religion does not fit. I have also said that if it is not possible to separete the chantry from politics (which I think is hard) I want to destroy the insitution.

I have also said that the mages is not a soft target because of the military branch, and I have stated that the chantry is basically at war with the chantry and have a certain right to fight back using violent means.

All the other anti-chantry posters I have seen have made the same distiction in their posts as me.Between the institution The Chantry and the people working in it. Just because you want to destroy an instituition because you think it is doing a lot of harm, it doesn't mean that you have to line up every chantry priest and killing them for every daring to join the religion. I am pretty sure you have misunderstood some of us.

Modifié par esper, 30 septembre 2011 - 06:32 .

[IanPolaris]

phaonica wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

He is. His pro-mage views are different from other Templars'. Most Templar pro-mage views are more "be nice to the mages" rather than try and give them better lives.

King Alistair showed us that. And even then he was never a real Templar at any point in his life. He never took the vows and whatever else is required beyond the training, so calling him a Templar isn't quite right. He's a Templar in training, but not in mindset or name. He was recruited by Duncan before he could become one.

He tells the Warden that the training was the only reason why he tried to become a Templar. Reason being because he was good at it and found solace in it.

True. He's not a Templar any more, but the whole point is that he didn't join by choice. I don't see in any of his dialog where he says he chose to join the order. He says he took to the training, but "took to" also means he was good at it, not that he chose it. And if not for Duncan's intervention, he could still be a Templar, again not by choice.

It was my impression that he was forced to join the Chantry (was packed off to the monestary) but within the Chantry he could have chosen to be a Brother or a Knight Templar Trainee.  Indeed Lelianna simply assumes that Alistair was a Lay Brother before undergoing his Templar training which involves choice.

I think it's clear that Alistiar didn't feel like he had much of a choice, but unhardened Alistair has all the will and backbone of soft butter.  Just because he didn't think he had a choice didn't in fact mean he didn't have one (as Morrigan points out to him when they first arrive at Lothering in her rather brutal way).

-Polaris

[phaonica]

IanPolaris wrote...

What about targeting the religion, and considering the relgion your enemy, and thus attempt to destroy the religion by force. Are the people doing the killing with that intent comitting genocide?

Yes, trying to destroy a religion by force probably is genocide but no one is advocating this!

-Polaris

Could you put that in red font, too, next time, I almost missed it. <_<

At any rate, I've heard the system must be destroyed, the entire religion is corrupt, those who claimed that those in the bombed chantry deserved to die, and even those who do refer to the religion as the enemy.

Modifié par phaonica, 30 septembre 2011 - 06:44 .

[phaonica]

IanPolaris wrote...

phaonica wrote...
So you're saying that they fabricated a tale for the simple and uneducated people, to whom it would make more sense and make them feel more empowered if their rights came from God rather than from themselves. My original argument was that the majority of people do not necessarily believe in inherent rights. You seem to be saying that this is somewhat true, but only because they are uneducated.

Why is this revelation?  Until facts are discovered we remain ignorant of them (or unedcuated if you prefer).  You find this in most political writing of the day.  I don't see it detracts from my point one iota.  If the ideas were wrong or bad, then they wouldn't have survived and prospered as they have.

I just wanted to clarify that you were pretty much referring to anyone who disagrees with you as being ignorant.

[thats1evildude]

phaonica wrote...

At any rate, I've heard the system must be destroyed, the entire religion is corrupt, those who claimed that those in the bombed chantry deserved to die, and even those who do refer to the religion as the enemy.

Yeah, I can vouch for that. I've heard the same.

[phaonica]

esper wrote...

All the other anti-chantry posters I have seen have made the same distiction in their posts as me.Between the institution The Chantry and the people working in it. Just because you want to destroy an instituition because you think it is doing a lot of harm, it doesn't mean that you have to line up every chantry priest and killing them for every daring to join the religion. I am pretty sure you have misunderstood some of us.

Fair enough, wanting to dismantle the institution peacefully is fine, but if one believes in dismantling the institution enough that one would do so by force (i.e. the religion is the enemy) then those killings are genocidal.