Right So they're still hunting the Dalish, because of the keepers. They'll still murder any Dalish warrior who attempts to keep them from capturing or killing our keepers. To me, if one group is trying to murder or capture members of another group, and will kill any members of that group who try to prevent it, and this has been happening for centuries, that counts as an ongoing conflict.
All I am arguing is that the Chantry is still involved in a conflict with the elves, and is directly involved in keeping their standard of living low.
And I'm not trying to say what someone else's religion should include. My Hawke is a devout Andrastean, and believes that the expurgation of the canticle of Shartan is evidence that the current chantry has corrupted and disrespected Andraste's teachings.
I'm not saying that they have to include it. I'm saying that refusing to include it in the canonical chant that is taught to all followers of the chant contributes to the status of elves as second class citizens.
I'm not saying they have to include it. I'm saying that if they want anyone to take seriously the idea that they are not actively treating elves as inferior, they should include it. I'd also be more inclined to believe that they didn't view elves as inferior if I ever saw an elven revered mother, or an elven templar. But alas, no evidence of that, either.
On Templars and mages, authoritarianism and revolution
Débuté par
CulturalGeekGirl
, oct. 09 2011 02:38
Retour en haut
#52
Posté 10 octobre 2011 - 11:48
Xewaka
-
- Members
- 3 739 messages
The ongoing conflict is caused by the Dalish leadership. Let them have non-magical leads and the conflict with the Chantry dissapears.
The whole elf-chantry issue started like this:
Andrastians to ex-tevinter slave elves: "Okay, we have freed you from those heathen-worshipping Blood Mages. Have a country, remember the rules, and be cool."
Ex-slave elves: "Yay!" *Commence heathen-worshipping and Blood Magic.
Andrastians: "Dudes, wtf?"
The whole elf-chantry issue started like this:
Andrastians to ex-tevinter slave elves: "Okay, we have freed you from those heathen-worshipping Blood Mages. Have a country, remember the rules, and be cool."
Ex-slave elves: "Yay!" *Commence heathen-worshipping and Blood Magic.
Andrastians: "Dudes, wtf?"
#53
Posté 10 octobre 2011 - 11:56
Wulfram
-
- Members
- 18 948 messages
I don't think there's any evidence of widespread blood magic in the Dales - and really you'd expect Chantry sources at least to be full of references even if it wasn't true. Or that not worshipping the elvish gods was part of the deal.
And saying the Andrasteans freed the Elves is rather ignoring the elves own role in freeing themsleves. Sister Petrine refers to them as Andraste's vanguard.
And saying the Andrasteans freed the Elves is rather ignoring the elves own role in freeing themsleves. Sister Petrine refers to them as Andraste's vanguard.
#54
Posté 10 octobre 2011 - 01:19
Dean_the_Young
-
- Members
- 20 676 messages
Actually, that is a simple quarantine... by pre-modern standards. Mostly. Pre-modern quarantines were hardly pretty, or socially just, but they were certainly highly restrictive of the liberties of those inside. Even visitors only became possible with the advent of technology to allow safe communication.CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
Well, considering that mages are not permitted to marry each other, raise or maintain contact with their children, write letters to the outside world (with special exceptions granted to relatives of the rich and powerful), or receive visitors, this isn't a simple quarantine.
Enforcing a break with all external ties is a part of long-term quarantine enforcement: the external familes and friends can (and, as we see, do) serve as both a motivation and a means to escape the Quarantine and remain free of it. A self-enclosed community, however, sees fewer people who want to leave their community. The fewer people who leave a Quarantine, the better.
The marriage aspect is more regressive than most, but not all, quarantine procedures in real history, but the mage issue also has a separate point: passions are one of the key tools for triggering an outbreak, and so discouraging such things (including marriage) does have a point.
Plague-control isn't temporary, it's indefinite. It will always be maintained as long as the threat continues to exist, and it will always continue if there is a constant source of new carriers: the only difference between a long stay and a short stay is how long the carrier survives, and the maintenance of the quarantine center will continue as long as it has work to do.And all the examples you described are very different in that they are all temporary. This has persisted for centuries, and the human rights violations involved keep rising. Forced lobotomies? Executions based solely on the testimony of one person of the controlling party?
Disease control is also notorious for the burden of proof being on the accused, not the accuser: the only ones who can leave a quarantine are those who can prove they are NOT sick. Given the entirely disproportionate costs of an outbreak, this is widely accepted. Even in the US, people even potentially exposed to bio-warfare viruses are locked in quarantine for the number of weeks until certainty can be made.
The Tranquil are the only proven surgury capable stopping an outbreak by any particular mage... and since this 'disease' is also triggered by wild emotions, that is a balance to be made for those who can't even pass the minimum standard of stability.
The executions are an excess of Meredith and her insanity, and I say nothing otherwise.
That's pre-modern quarantine to a t, actually. If a Quarantine can't be sustained, you have two choices: you can re-integrate the carriers into society and accept the likelyhood and costs of a breakout, or you let the disease burn itself out... and if the disease isn't running out fast enough, plenty of groups in history have helped it along.Also bear in mind that the regime controlling them reserves the right to murder every single one of them, even children, without trial, just after a simple call and answer. That's not a simple quarantine either.
It's been fortunate history and a merit of progress that it's been easier to let diseases burn themselves out in the past, but make no mistake that it's only that.
A quarantine is a forced internment of a minority group.And finally, internment isn't generally considered an "OK thing to do." It is pretty much frowned upon for anything other than temporary, humane treatment of captured enemy soldiers. You speak as if you consider centuries of internment of a minority group the same thing as a temporary, crisis-based quarantine of the sick... which it is not. Quarantine is not considered a human rights violation. Forced internment of a minority group is considered one.
I believed I addressed this in the start of the metaphor?Also, being-a-mage isn't transmissable. Quarantine is exclusively for transmissable diseases, because of the mechanics of transmission. You can't let a single mage out and then there'll be a hundred in a few days. It isn't like any disease, or like zombieism.
Magic isn't the disease. The damage from an abomination outbreak and misuse of magic is the disease.
There are plenty of socieities in history which accepted diseases as a natural order of things, and didn't care about the costs. Quarantine only came later, with the understanding and acceptance of such threats. We the ancient-elven socieities abomination-free, or did the abominations simply not destroy them? Were the mages as free as anyone else, or were the mages the leaders (the Tevinter concept) or slotted into another part of society by the nature of their gifts (the Circle concept). Was society any better, or was it worse?And finally, we have conclusive proof that free mages doesn't result in the collapse of society: the original elvish society survived for centuries with free mages, as did the Dales, as did the Dalish elves.Rivain can be called up as an example, too.
We know just about as much about Rivain, though we also know that Rivain is a backwater... and backwaters, by their nature, tend to be well-suited for containing a fast-burn outbreak in an unconnected world. AIDS never broke out of Africa until the advent of wide-spread air travel, for example.
Possibly because the only societies we have anything past the most superficial knowledge of without circles are the Qunari (who are even more extreme), the Dwarves (who don't have the problem at all), and the historical Tevinter?While quarantines are a proven way of preventing disease transmission, there's absolutely no evidence that the circles make a society any safer. None whatsoever. In fact, the vast majority of stories we have of mages going nuts and becoming abominations come from societies with circles.
I disagree, as listed above.So no, none of the examples you cite have any relevance or any bearing on the debate. Lovely try though. B+.
#55
Guest_Nyoka_*
Posté 10 octobre 2011 - 01:21
Guest_Nyoka_*
Guest_Nyoka_*
-
- Guests
Nashiktal, I didn't miss the point. I get it, mages are dangerous. I said your bomb analogy was bad because the bomb has only destructive results, while magic is more neutral. I never implied mages aren't dangerous. Internet is dangerous, too. A scalpel is very dangerous. If you remember, those were the examples I offered as dangerous yet neutral because they can be used for good or evil.
Also, you are creating a false dichotomy when you talk about letting them "run around unregulated". We aren't talking about whether to regulate them at all; we're talking about the Circle, about this specific system. Being against this system doesn't mean being against all forms of regulation. Please, be careful about these things.
I also get that mages are tempted by demons. Every person carries different responsibilities and deals with risks, and mages are no exception. Magic is a gift and a curse, great power implies great responsibility, etc. We know that. A demon's persuasion can very well be a motivation for a mage to do something bad. Other motivations can be greed, hatred, envy, etc. When a mage does something bad and gets charged, her motivation should be taken into account, like in any other trial.
This however isn't a reason to charge a mage who does in fact deal successfully with her own demons and manages to live among people just fine in the first place, like Bethany for instance. I've yet to read a valid justification to charge a person for something s/he didn't do.
About the other thing on this thread, quarantines' point is to avoid horizontal infection because if that happens you have a lot of targets to neutralize instead of one and soon it becomes impossible to take under control because there are too many targets. Nothing about abominations and the damage they inflict is contagious. An abomination kills someone, and that's the end of it. The victim doesn't continue in turn doing damage to other people or misusing magic. An abomination is more comparable to some armed nutjob who goes apesh¡t at the mall and starts a killing spree. Take that one person down, problem solved. You put all mages together, and all you've done is making sure the next abomination's victims will be other mages instead of random neighbors, that's all.
Also, you are creating a false dichotomy when you talk about letting them "run around unregulated". We aren't talking about whether to regulate them at all; we're talking about the Circle, about this specific system. Being against this system doesn't mean being against all forms of regulation. Please, be careful about these things.
I also get that mages are tempted by demons. Every person carries different responsibilities and deals with risks, and mages are no exception. Magic is a gift and a curse, great power implies great responsibility, etc. We know that. A demon's persuasion can very well be a motivation for a mage to do something bad. Other motivations can be greed, hatred, envy, etc. When a mage does something bad and gets charged, her motivation should be taken into account, like in any other trial.
This however isn't a reason to charge a mage who does in fact deal successfully with her own demons and manages to live among people just fine in the first place, like Bethany for instance. I've yet to read a valid justification to charge a person for something s/he didn't do.
About the other thing on this thread, quarantines' point is to avoid horizontal infection because if that happens you have a lot of targets to neutralize instead of one and soon it becomes impossible to take under control because there are too many targets. Nothing about abominations and the damage they inflict is contagious. An abomination kills someone, and that's the end of it. The victim doesn't continue in turn doing damage to other people or misusing magic. An abomination is more comparable to some armed nutjob who goes apesh¡t at the mall and starts a killing spree. Take that one person down, problem solved. You put all mages together, and all you've done is making sure the next abomination's victims will be other mages instead of random neighbors, that's all.
Modifié par Nyoka, 10 octobre 2011 - 01:57 .
#56
Posté 10 octobre 2011 - 04:03
Joy Divison
-
- Members
- 1 837 messages
[quote]CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
Actually, no. I'm not moving any goalposts. [/quote]
No, you are just blissfully unaware that people who don't seem ostensibly evil in your way of thinking actually are if we use your standard. Which is my whole point. You assumed that peasants and janitors would be illiterate and unaware. Historically, they may be illiterate but they were aware.
You want to believe the fallacy that despicable regimes are the result of "five evil people at the top" who dupe millions to follow. Is that because you find it impossible that if people think on their own they can't possibly arrive to conclusions different from yours or because you chose not to pay attention in your history and political science classes? Because the woman who "thinks for a moment," and the child who has "independent thought encouraged" will of course realize mages are not cursed, the elves are victims of racial discrimination, and possess the same morals and ethics as you do? "If everyone refused to tell their children that a minority group was evil, then hatred would die out." Really? Is this because we are incapable of learning what we have not been taught or is it because we can't learn from experience?
[/quote]
[quote]
Please, I'm the only person who has actually formally acknowledged and defined my shades of grey. [/quote]
Before you strain a muscle patting yourself on the back, consider what you are claiming. You see a world with very few evil people imposing their ruthless and selfish evils on millions who because of their passivity (regardless of their reasoning or circumstances) are nearly as rotten as the evil leaders and more rotten than people who perpetrate violence in the cause of fighting evil.
[quote]
When I ask why you value the life of someone who sees injustice and does nothing over the life of someone who uses violence to oppose it, you won't answer. You refuse.[/quote]
You didn't ask. Now I'll answer. Mostly because violence is bad and rarely leads to a satisfactory solution. But nearly as compelling is that the list of those who used violence out of their own sense of self-righteousness is full of the worst miscreants humanity has ever had the misfortune of producing. You say "injustice" as if every human being ever born should inherently know what justice is and isn't (your sense of ethics naturally). Sorry, things aren't so simple. Why don't you do a google search on Robespierre and get back to me and the virtue of terror (his exact words) and its use to oppose injustice.
[quote]
As for good people legitimately trying to reform the Chantry from inside... well, if we'd met a single person like that in the entire game who wasn't dead, I'd definitely have a hugely different view on everything, But we don't.[/quote]
Because the game spends so much time here I can make an educated and informed opinion...
[quote]But yeah, when the church runs the military, and the military and their commanders live in the place of worship, you get in a weird situation where a place is the seat of evil power while masquerading as a holy place. That's the fault of the evil regime though, they are deliberately exposing innocent people to danger by mixing military action with religious establishment.[/quote]
So, just blow it up anyway, its the fault of the evil regime, right?
[quote]Are you sincerely arguing that apartheid and segregation are fine, as long as they occur before the words are invented? Because that's the only possible interpretation of this argument I see. You're saying it's morally acceptable to persecute a minority until someone comes up with a word telling you not to? I don't even... I can't... What? [/quote]
You can't what? Think beyond black and white? That if I don't accept your premise that everyone should inherently known that concepts like apartheid are bad rather than seeing them as products of specific historical and social contexts, then I must think they are fine and morally acceptable?
[quote]Well, if there's no evidence that mages are being tranquilled illegally, then that means that Elthina and Meredith are already being grossly, unforgiveably, criminally negligent at their jobs.[/quote]
Knowing something bad has happened is not the same as knowing the perpetrators.
[quote]There's one goddam rule... you can't tranquil a harrowed mage.[/quote]
No, there are actually many more.
[quote]You isolate suspects. You put them in a situation where they don't have the opportunity to do it again. Honestly this is the most basic stuff in the history of being a responsible human being.[/quote]
Umm...you were saying something about the evils of internment?
[quote]If you are honestly equating putting someone who has formally stated a desire to abuse a minority group in charge of that minority group with allowing someone who has never expressed a desire to harm anyone to freely walk the streets...[/quote]
Mages never expressed a desire to harm anyone? Umm...
[quote]I agree that people like Cullen and like the templar Alistair would have become if he weren't rescued by the Wardens are largely victims of the system. But that's just it.[/quote]
You are aware that Cullen says "mages are not people like you and me and cant be treated as such," right?
[quote]But if there was one lesson that Dragon Age 2 taught, it was that the most influential person in the city could do nothing, even working for seven years, nothing to stem the tide. It taught us that even people as great and powerful as the Warden lose relevance and fade away to uselessness. It taught us that not even the good king of an independent nation could do anything to influence policy. It showed us every possible form of peaceful attempt, and then it showed all of them failing...[/quote]
You really going to learn socio-political lessons from a game? A game with highly problematic plot holes and doesn't allow the player to make meaningful choices? Really?
[quote]But the lesson of Dragon Age 2 was either 1) Hawke is a hideously incompetent moron and so are all his friends[/quote]
Or the game is flawed in that it doesn't provide us with the opportunity to make meaningful choices.
[quote] 2) there was no other way to ensure that change would happen. We aren't given access to any better plan.[/quote]
Perhaps because the writers failed to provide any?
[quote]How else do you explain the fact that you can't save anyone, can't save the moderate templars, can't kill Meredith, can't make any god damn difference in the world at all, until someone sets it on fire?[/quote]
Because Act III railroaded us and didn;t provide us with meaningful choices.
[quote]
If there'd been another way, if we'd been given another path, then it would be different. But the structure of the story dictates this specific choice. The structure of the story gives us no column C, no middle path. In fact, we are explicitly shown over and over and over again that the spokesperson for "compromise" is really doing nothing but enabling continued oppression. [/quote]
Yes...so thus those "lessons" DA2 taught us which you referred to earlier aren't really applicable.
[quote]
I'm not saying everyone in that blast was a villain who needed to die. I've never said that.[/quote]
No, but you state that it is acceptable in the pursuit of something you deem in the name of justice. Combined with your assumptions that everyone should inherently hold the same standards of justice and those who are idle and not actively combat it are perpetrators of injustice and thus legitimate targets, that doesn't make your way of thinking very different from Robespierre's.
Actually, no. I'm not moving any goalposts. [/quote]
No, you are just blissfully unaware that people who don't seem ostensibly evil in your way of thinking actually are if we use your standard. Which is my whole point. You assumed that peasants and janitors would be illiterate and unaware. Historically, they may be illiterate but they were aware.
You want to believe the fallacy that despicable regimes are the result of "five evil people at the top" who dupe millions to follow. Is that because you find it impossible that if people think on their own they can't possibly arrive to conclusions different from yours or because you chose not to pay attention in your history and political science classes? Because the woman who "thinks for a moment," and the child who has "independent thought encouraged" will of course realize mages are not cursed, the elves are victims of racial discrimination, and possess the same morals and ethics as you do? "If everyone refused to tell their children that a minority group was evil, then hatred would die out." Really? Is this because we are incapable of learning what we have not been taught or is it because we can't learn from experience?
[/quote]
[quote]
Please, I'm the only person who has actually formally acknowledged and defined my shades of grey. [/quote]
Before you strain a muscle patting yourself on the back, consider what you are claiming. You see a world with very few evil people imposing their ruthless and selfish evils on millions who because of their passivity (regardless of their reasoning or circumstances) are nearly as rotten as the evil leaders and more rotten than people who perpetrate violence in the cause of fighting evil.
[quote]
When I ask why you value the life of someone who sees injustice and does nothing over the life of someone who uses violence to oppose it, you won't answer. You refuse.[/quote]
You didn't ask. Now I'll answer. Mostly because violence is bad and rarely leads to a satisfactory solution. But nearly as compelling is that the list of those who used violence out of their own sense of self-righteousness is full of the worst miscreants humanity has ever had the misfortune of producing. You say "injustice" as if every human being ever born should inherently know what justice is and isn't (your sense of ethics naturally). Sorry, things aren't so simple. Why don't you do a google search on Robespierre and get back to me and the virtue of terror (his exact words) and its use to oppose injustice.
[quote]
As for good people legitimately trying to reform the Chantry from inside... well, if we'd met a single person like that in the entire game who wasn't dead, I'd definitely have a hugely different view on everything, But we don't.[/quote]
Because the game spends so much time here I can make an educated and informed opinion...
[quote]But yeah, when the church runs the military, and the military and their commanders live in the place of worship, you get in a weird situation where a place is the seat of evil power while masquerading as a holy place. That's the fault of the evil regime though, they are deliberately exposing innocent people to danger by mixing military action with religious establishment.[/quote]
So, just blow it up anyway, its the fault of the evil regime, right?
[quote]Are you sincerely arguing that apartheid and segregation are fine, as long as they occur before the words are invented? Because that's the only possible interpretation of this argument I see. You're saying it's morally acceptable to persecute a minority until someone comes up with a word telling you not to? I don't even... I can't... What? [/quote]
You can't what? Think beyond black and white? That if I don't accept your premise that everyone should inherently known that concepts like apartheid are bad rather than seeing them as products of specific historical and social contexts, then I must think they are fine and morally acceptable?
[quote]Well, if there's no evidence that mages are being tranquilled illegally, then that means that Elthina and Meredith are already being grossly, unforgiveably, criminally negligent at their jobs.[/quote]
Knowing something bad has happened is not the same as knowing the perpetrators.
[quote]There's one goddam rule... you can't tranquil a harrowed mage.[/quote]
No, there are actually many more.
[quote]You isolate suspects. You put them in a situation where they don't have the opportunity to do it again. Honestly this is the most basic stuff in the history of being a responsible human being.[/quote]
Umm...you were saying something about the evils of internment?
[quote]If you are honestly equating putting someone who has formally stated a desire to abuse a minority group in charge of that minority group with allowing someone who has never expressed a desire to harm anyone to freely walk the streets...[/quote]
Mages never expressed a desire to harm anyone? Umm...
[quote]I agree that people like Cullen and like the templar Alistair would have become if he weren't rescued by the Wardens are largely victims of the system. But that's just it.[/quote]
You are aware that Cullen says "mages are not people like you and me and cant be treated as such," right?
[quote]But if there was one lesson that Dragon Age 2 taught, it was that the most influential person in the city could do nothing, even working for seven years, nothing to stem the tide. It taught us that even people as great and powerful as the Warden lose relevance and fade away to uselessness. It taught us that not even the good king of an independent nation could do anything to influence policy. It showed us every possible form of peaceful attempt, and then it showed all of them failing...[/quote]
You really going to learn socio-political lessons from a game? A game with highly problematic plot holes and doesn't allow the player to make meaningful choices? Really?
[quote]But the lesson of Dragon Age 2 was either 1) Hawke is a hideously incompetent moron and so are all his friends[/quote]
Or the game is flawed in that it doesn't provide us with the opportunity to make meaningful choices.
[quote] 2) there was no other way to ensure that change would happen. We aren't given access to any better plan.[/quote]
Perhaps because the writers failed to provide any?
[quote]How else do you explain the fact that you can't save anyone, can't save the moderate templars, can't kill Meredith, can't make any god damn difference in the world at all, until someone sets it on fire?[/quote]
Because Act III railroaded us and didn;t provide us with meaningful choices.
[quote]
If there'd been another way, if we'd been given another path, then it would be different. But the structure of the story dictates this specific choice. The structure of the story gives us no column C, no middle path. In fact, we are explicitly shown over and over and over again that the spokesperson for "compromise" is really doing nothing but enabling continued oppression. [/quote]
Yes...so thus those "lessons" DA2 taught us which you referred to earlier aren't really applicable.
[quote]
I'm not saying everyone in that blast was a villain who needed to die. I've never said that.[/quote]
No, but you state that it is acceptable in the pursuit of something you deem in the name of justice. Combined with your assumptions that everyone should inherently hold the same standards of justice and those who are idle and not actively combat it are perpetrators of injustice and thus legitimate targets, that doesn't make your way of thinking very different from Robespierre's.
Modifié par Joy Divison, 10 octobre 2011 - 04:49 .
#57
Posté 11 octobre 2011 - 04:56
LobselVith8
-
- Members
- 16 993 messages
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
[quote]CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
Well, considering that mages are not permitted to marry each other, raise or maintain contact with their children, write letters to the outside world (with special exceptions granted to relatives of the rich and powerful), or receive visitors, this isn't a simple quarantine.[/quote]
Actually, that is a simple quarantine... by pre-modern standards. [/quote]
By modern standards, putting people into prison because of how they are born isn't "a simple quarantine." In fact, by the standards of some mages, they view it (in Thedas terms) as slavery. Sebastian (to Anders) even uses the term 'holocaust' in reference to the events of "The Tranquil Solution," both seem to be a reference to WWII.
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
[quote]CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
And all the examples you described are very different in that they are all temporary. This has persisted for centuries, and the human rights violations involved keep rising. Forced lobotomies? Executions based solely on the testimony of one person of the controlling party? [/quote]
Plague-control isn't temporary, it's indefinite. It will always be maintained as long as the threat continues to exist, and it will always continue if there is a constant source of new carriers: the only difference between a long stay and a short stay is how long the carrier survives, and the maintenance of the quarantine center will continue as long as it has work to do. [/quote]
Slavery is also indefinite, and according to the view of some in Thedas (from Ferelden's co-founder Aldenon to pro-mage Hawke), that's precisely what the Chantry controlled Circles are.
Mages don't have a disease, they have abilities that they must be trained to use, which is why Duncan wants to recruit the mage protagonist in the Magi Origin (because magic is powerful against large groups of darkspawn). In fact, the Chantry preaches that mages are "cursed" and Cullen even says that templars have "divine right" over mages, when addressing why he thinks Grand Cleric Elthina must agree with Meredith and the Order of Templars. I don't see how your analogy of 'disease' fits with the oppression of a minority because of how they were born, which is Aldenon's argument against the Chantry and the templars.
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
[quote]CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
Also bear in mind that the regime controlling them reserves the right to murder every single one of them, even children, without trial, just after a simple call and answer. That's not a simple quarantine either. [/quote]
That's pre-modern quarantine to a t, actually. If a Quarantine can't be sustained, you have two choices: you can re-integrate the carriers into society and accept the likelyhood and costs of a breakout, or you let the disease burn itself out... and if the disease isn't running out fast enough, plenty of groups in history have helped it along.
It's been fortunate history and a merit of progress that it's been easier to let diseases burn themselves out in the past, but make no mistake that it's only that. [/quote]
Imprisoning people because of how they are born, preaching against them as a group of people by the religious views of the Chantry of Andraste, and committing genocide against them through the Right of Annulment doesn't sound like your analogy fits.
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
[quote]CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
And finally, internment isn't generally considered an "OK thing to do." It is pretty much frowned upon for anything other than temporary, humane treatment of captured enemy soldiers. You speak as if you consider centuries of internment of a minority group the same thing as a temporary, crisis-based quarantine of the sick... which it is not. Quarantine is not considered a human rights violation. Forced internment of a minority group is considered one. [/quote]
A quarantine is a forced internment of a minority group. [/quote]
Except magic isn't a disease, and neither is being an abomination. Being an abomination is a possession.
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
[quote]CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
Also, being-a-mage isn't transmissable. Quarantine is exclusively for transmissable diseases, because of the mechanics of transmission. You can't let a single mage out and then there'll be a hundred in a few days. It isn't like any disease, or like zombieism. [/quote]
I believed I addressed this in the start of the metaphor?
Magic isn't the disease. The damage from an abomination outbreak and misuse of magic is the disease. [/quote]
Which doesn't fit the analogy of disease.
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
[quote]CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
And finally, we have conclusive proof that free mages doesn't result in the collapse of society: the original elvish society survived for centuries with free mages, as did the Dales, as did the Dalish elves.Rivain can be called up as an example, too. [/quote]
There are plenty of socieities in history which accepted diseases as a natural order of things, and didn't care about the costs. Quarantine only came later, with the understanding and acceptance of such threats. We the ancient-elven socieities abomination-free, or did the abominations simply not destroy them? Were the mages as free as anyone else, or were the mages the leaders (the Tevinter concept) or slotted into another part of society by the nature of their gifts (the Circle concept). Was society any better, or was it worse? [/quote]
Gaider addressed that mages aren't controlled in those societies, and that abominations are viewed as natural disasters.
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
We know just about as much about Rivain, though we also know that Rivain is a backwater... and backwaters, by their nature, tend to be well-suited for containing a fast-burn outbreak in an unconnected world. AIDS never broke out of Africa until the advent of wide-spread air travel, for example. [/quote]
Rivain is a kingdom. The Dales was a nation. If Merrill is correct about the history of the People, then the kingdom of Arlathan was a society comprised of elven mages.
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
[quote]CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
While quarantines are a proven way of preventing disease transmission, there's absolutely no evidence that the circles make a society any safer. None whatsoever. In fact, the vast majority of stories we have of mages going nuts and becoming abominations come from societies with circles. [/quote]
Possibly because the only societies we have anything past the most superficial knowledge of without circles are the Qunari (who are even more extreme), the Dwarves (who don't have the problem at all), and the historical Tevinter? [/quote]
The same society where a rebellion has erupted acros the continent because of the Chantry controlled Circles and an act of genocide lead to the mages emancipating themselves from a thousand years of Chantry and templar rule (what Bioware dev Michael Hamilton called a "dictatorship")?
[quote]CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
Well, considering that mages are not permitted to marry each other, raise or maintain contact with their children, write letters to the outside world (with special exceptions granted to relatives of the rich and powerful), or receive visitors, this isn't a simple quarantine.[/quote]
Actually, that is a simple quarantine... by pre-modern standards. [/quote]
By modern standards, putting people into prison because of how they are born isn't "a simple quarantine." In fact, by the standards of some mages, they view it (in Thedas terms) as slavery. Sebastian (to Anders) even uses the term 'holocaust' in reference to the events of "The Tranquil Solution," both seem to be a reference to WWII.
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
[quote]CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
And all the examples you described are very different in that they are all temporary. This has persisted for centuries, and the human rights violations involved keep rising. Forced lobotomies? Executions based solely on the testimony of one person of the controlling party? [/quote]
Plague-control isn't temporary, it's indefinite. It will always be maintained as long as the threat continues to exist, and it will always continue if there is a constant source of new carriers: the only difference between a long stay and a short stay is how long the carrier survives, and the maintenance of the quarantine center will continue as long as it has work to do. [/quote]
Slavery is also indefinite, and according to the view of some in Thedas (from Ferelden's co-founder Aldenon to pro-mage Hawke), that's precisely what the Chantry controlled Circles are.
Mages don't have a disease, they have abilities that they must be trained to use, which is why Duncan wants to recruit the mage protagonist in the Magi Origin (because magic is powerful against large groups of darkspawn). In fact, the Chantry preaches that mages are "cursed" and Cullen even says that templars have "divine right" over mages, when addressing why he thinks Grand Cleric Elthina must agree with Meredith and the Order of Templars. I don't see how your analogy of 'disease' fits with the oppression of a minority because of how they were born, which is Aldenon's argument against the Chantry and the templars.
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
[quote]CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
Also bear in mind that the regime controlling them reserves the right to murder every single one of them, even children, without trial, just after a simple call and answer. That's not a simple quarantine either. [/quote]
That's pre-modern quarantine to a t, actually. If a Quarantine can't be sustained, you have two choices: you can re-integrate the carriers into society and accept the likelyhood and costs of a breakout, or you let the disease burn itself out... and if the disease isn't running out fast enough, plenty of groups in history have helped it along.
It's been fortunate history and a merit of progress that it's been easier to let diseases burn themselves out in the past, but make no mistake that it's only that. [/quote]
Imprisoning people because of how they are born, preaching against them as a group of people by the religious views of the Chantry of Andraste, and committing genocide against them through the Right of Annulment doesn't sound like your analogy fits.
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
[quote]CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
And finally, internment isn't generally considered an "OK thing to do." It is pretty much frowned upon for anything other than temporary, humane treatment of captured enemy soldiers. You speak as if you consider centuries of internment of a minority group the same thing as a temporary, crisis-based quarantine of the sick... which it is not. Quarantine is not considered a human rights violation. Forced internment of a minority group is considered one. [/quote]
A quarantine is a forced internment of a minority group. [/quote]
Except magic isn't a disease, and neither is being an abomination. Being an abomination is a possession.
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
[quote]CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
Also, being-a-mage isn't transmissable. Quarantine is exclusively for transmissable diseases, because of the mechanics of transmission. You can't let a single mage out and then there'll be a hundred in a few days. It isn't like any disease, or like zombieism. [/quote]
I believed I addressed this in the start of the metaphor?
Magic isn't the disease. The damage from an abomination outbreak and misuse of magic is the disease. [/quote]
Which doesn't fit the analogy of disease.
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
[quote]CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
And finally, we have conclusive proof that free mages doesn't result in the collapse of society: the original elvish society survived for centuries with free mages, as did the Dales, as did the Dalish elves.Rivain can be called up as an example, too. [/quote]
There are plenty of socieities in history which accepted diseases as a natural order of things, and didn't care about the costs. Quarantine only came later, with the understanding and acceptance of such threats. We the ancient-elven socieities abomination-free, or did the abominations simply not destroy them? Were the mages as free as anyone else, or were the mages the leaders (the Tevinter concept) or slotted into another part of society by the nature of their gifts (the Circle concept). Was society any better, or was it worse? [/quote]
Gaider addressed that mages aren't controlled in those societies, and that abominations are viewed as natural disasters.
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
We know just about as much about Rivain, though we also know that Rivain is a backwater... and backwaters, by their nature, tend to be well-suited for containing a fast-burn outbreak in an unconnected world. AIDS never broke out of Africa until the advent of wide-spread air travel, for example. [/quote]
Rivain is a kingdom. The Dales was a nation. If Merrill is correct about the history of the People, then the kingdom of Arlathan was a society comprised of elven mages.
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
[quote]CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
While quarantines are a proven way of preventing disease transmission, there's absolutely no evidence that the circles make a society any safer. None whatsoever. In fact, the vast majority of stories we have of mages going nuts and becoming abominations come from societies with circles. [/quote]
Possibly because the only societies we have anything past the most superficial knowledge of without circles are the Qunari (who are even more extreme), the Dwarves (who don't have the problem at all), and the historical Tevinter? [/quote]
The same society where a rebellion has erupted acros the continent because of the Chantry controlled Circles and an act of genocide lead to the mages emancipating themselves from a thousand years of Chantry and templar rule (what Bioware dev Michael Hamilton called a "dictatorship")?
