257 réponses à ce sujet

[jamesp81]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

I've read most of the federalist papers and studied the history of it.

Congratulations. You finished a high-school civics class. Maybe you even had an 'A'.

Your understanding is the one that lacks.  The patriots won their freedom through force of arms and an enormous dose of good luck (or divine intervention, if that's your belief).

And it wasn't won by executing the dissenters who didn't agree with the way things were going. You're thinking of the Communist Revolution of Russia.

They didn't win their freedom from the British by talking, negotiating, or reaching a compromise.  They didn't reach across the aisle, try to understand, or find common ground with the other side

That's exactly what the Revolutionaries did, even after the American Revolution started: attempts at negotiations went hand-in-hand with fighting. That was true at the first, and that continued to the end: the end of the American Revolution was a political agreement, not a military total victory: Britain was still far more powerful and still capable of war, but its reasons for agreeing to peace were political.

And in 1812 Britain tried another go at it.  Lost that time, too.

Don't kid yourself.  Things would've never changed without the war.  The populace wasn't even believed to have been strongly behind it at the time.  They needed something to push them.  Concord was that push.

Your interpretation of history is...interesting, to say the least.  Point of fact, though, no student was required to read the Constitution back in the dark ages when I was in high school, undoubtedly a massive indictment of the country's educational system or at least that of this state.  I studied history on my own time.  You've clearly decided I am some sort of uneducated fool or a complete idiot and I'm quite certain that little factoid cements it for you.  Think what you will, but if half your argumentative technique includes thinly veiled insinuations that I'm stupid, then we have nothing further to discuss.

[AlexXIV]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

I'm reminded about how it was usually the aristocracy who would think up all these newfangled ideas like "The rights of man" or "The separation of Church and State".

When you've got a relatively easy life you have much more time to think about the finer things.

No they thought that they could only enjoy their fine life while others were working hard for their rather poorly ones. And it didn't change to this day actually.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 10 octobre 2011 - 01:14 .

[Dean_the_Young]

AlexXIV wrote...

But mages are no peasants. No insult to peasants meant, but mage are probably among the more intelligent people of Thedas.

Being a intelligent has as much to be with being a mage as it does with being black. Which is to say, none.

The mages are educated. Where and why are they educated? The Circle, and for the Circle again.  Where will they not be educated if you absolve the Circle system? The Circles.

So they are more likely to rebel against oppression, as it has always been the more intelligent people who were among the first to protest against mistreatment. They are powerful and intelligent and they probably 'know' at some point that they deserve more. You can call it arrogance, but my problem is not just the morale side, it is also that the chantry and templars both fail at logic, or knowledge of human nature. I mean the common people may be happy in with their lot, at least they don't have enough self-esteem or courage or means (as in weapons) to ask for more.

First, you're confusing intelligence with education again. Second, the fact that the mages are in a position of opporession now proves that, if they try and rebel in another system, they can be re-chained again.

If mages were to rebel and try and overthrow the feudal order, the feudal order would turn around and press them back down... and with the applause of most of the public, because most people fear rampant mages more than they seek a social revolution. Your 'liberation' is dead-set to another war of suppression, the logical outcomes of a mage defeat being either a return to the Circle, or simply solving the mage threat once and for all by genocide because you argued not even the circle would work.

But the Chantry is trying to enslave the most intelligent and most powerful people of Thedas and use them for their purpose. In that case I am rather with the Qunari. I don't support them at all, but at least they do it in a way that seems safer than what the Chantry is doing.

First, you don't understand slavery. Second, 'the Chantry's purpose' with the Circles and the mages within consist of 'don't cause trouble' and 'be available in the course of war.' Mages are not the laborers of the Chantry.

The Qunari safety is by burning out all the remaining freedoms of the Circle system. It adds nothing.

Excuse me, I don't understand the part about chattel slavery and why it is relevant what kind of slavery there is.

Because different kinds of slavery are worse than others. Not all inequities are equal.

Point is they could have been happy ever after in the Matrix. Life outside was actually alot worse than inside. Still they wanted to be free. Because they were intelligent and probably arrogant enough to claim a life without control of machines. I am not really an expert about freedom and why we want it so much, but it seems to me that the more intelligent or knowning or cultivated a person is, the stronger is their desire to be in control of their own life.

Your analogy is flawed, however, because the situations of the Matrix and Thedas are NOT comparable. In the matrix universe, the alternative to being an unknowing captive of the machine is freedom in Xion. In Thedas, the alternative to being under the rule of the Circle is being under the rule of the feudal system.

[jamesp81]

TheJediSaint wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

I've read most of the federalist papers and studied the history of it.

Your understanding is the one that lacks.  The patriots won their freedom through force of arms and an enormous dose of good luck (or divine intervention, if that's your belief).

They didn't win their freedom from the British by talking, negotiating, or reaching a compromise.  They didn't reach across the aisle, try to understand, or find common ground with the other side.  In fact, they started shooting at the other side until they'd had enough and left.

Oversimplifications oversimpfy.  The American  Colonists did try to negotiate and compromise before they resorted to violence, even after the British started using violence against them, which seems to be the crucile point that you're missing.  They engaged in a shooting war only after every peaceful solution had been excausted, when the British demonstrated that they would never treat the American colonists as anything other than second class citizens.

Yes, they did try to negotiate.  Despite your belief that I must be a fool for disagreeing with you, I was, in fact, aware of the particulars of the situation.  Negotiation, however, failed.  And out came the guns.  If the colonists had determined to not fight, nothing would've changed.

My point stands.  The colonists won their freedom by force of arms.

Now, steering this thread back on topic......

There is, apparently, no negotiating with the Chantry on the conditions mages are kept in by force.  They're not hearing any of it.  The mages choices are to learn to live with their chains or fight to break them.

Modifié par jamesp81, 10 octobre 2011 - 01:15 .

[TheJediSaint]

I'm not even going to engage you on your (mostly wrong) use of real world examples in regards to the Mage-Templar debate. My point still stands that violence rarely serves the cause of freedom and is more often used as a tool of oppression. I think that you've just fetishized the use of violence to the point that you're blind to any solution that does not involved killing people.

[jamesp81]

TheJediSaint wrote...

I'm not even going to engage you on your (mostly wrong) use of real world examples in regards to the Mage-Templar debate. My point still stands that violence rarely serves the cause of freedom and is more often used as a tool of oppression. I think that you've just fetishized the use of violence to the point that you're blind to any solution that does not involved killing people.

Think what you will, then, even if it's sadly mistaken.  Do me the courtesy of not insinuating I've got a violence fetish, though <_<

Modifié par jamesp81, 10 octobre 2011 - 01:19 .

[Dean_the_Young]

jamesp81 wrote...

And in 1812 Britain tried another go at it.  Lost that time, too.

A war started by the US, with a failed invasion of Canada, which had the British raze Washington D.C.,  whose greatest American victory was after peace had been agreed, and which did not actualy stop the impressment of Americans by British ships at sea, the nominal (if not actual) aim of the opening phase of the war...

Was a British defeat? 

Don't kid yourself.  Things would've never changed without the war.  The populace wasn't even believed to have been strongly behind it at the time.  They needed something to push them.  Concord was that push.

Which is why Canada, Australia, and India remain British Colonies, there is no black president in the US, we are still facing off the Soviet Union, and the industrial revolution is a mirage. Oh, and China is still in the Cultural Revolution.

Big things change without war quite often.

Your interpretation of history is...interesting, to say the least.  Point of fact, though, no student was required to read the Constitution back in the dark ages when I was in high school, undoubtedly a massive indictment of the country's educational system or at least that of this state.  I studied history on my own time.  You've clearly decided I am some sort of uneducated fool or a complete idiot and I'm quite certain that little factoid cements it for you.  Think what you will, but if half your argumentative technique includes thinly veiled insinuations that I'm stupid, then we have nothing further to discuss.

Fortunately, I have to insinuate nothing of the sort. You're the one making a claim to educational supriority on a universal edecuation requirement of American public schools, after all.

[Dean_the_Young]

jamesp81 wrote...

TheJediSaint wrote...

I'm not even going to engage you on your (mostly wrong) use of real world examples in regards to the Mage-Templar debate. My point still stands that violence rarely serves the cause of freedom and is more often used as a tool of oppression. I think that you've just fetishized the use of violence to the point that you're blind to any solution that does not involved killing people.

Think what you will, then, even if it's sadly mistaken.  Do me the courtesy of not insinuating I've got a violence fetish, though <_<

I... don't remember him bringing up the accusation at all.

You, however, are.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 10 octobre 2011 - 01:23 .

[TJPags]

jamesp81 wrote...

Now, steering this thread back on topic......

There is, apparently, no negotiating with the Chantry on the conditions mages are kept in by force.  They're not hearing any of it.  The mages choices are to learn to live with their chains or fight to break them.

Staying on topic, you mention conditions.  It was covered earlier in the thread, the "conditions" the mages are kept in are better than those of most other people in Thedas not nobility.  The Ferelden Circle sure as heck seemed a lot nicer than Gamlen's shack, didn't it?

And yes, mages are housed, fed, educated, clothed, all on the Chantries payroll.  And I have no doubt the Chantry is funded, at least in part, by the congregations.

This whole issue really comes down to one question: is it right to make mages live in a certain place?

By Thedas convention, yes it is.  All other argument really seems pretty silly.

[TheJediSaint]

Fetishize ( tr ) to be excessively or irrationally devoted to (an object, activity, etc)

Who's insinuating what?

[jamesp81]

TJPags wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Now, steering this thread back on topic......

There is, apparently, no negotiating with the Chantry on the conditions mages are kept in by force.  They're not hearing any of it.  The mages choices are to learn to live with their chains or fight to break them.

Staying on topic, you mention conditions.  It was covered earlier in the thread, the "conditions" the mages are kept in are better than those of most other people in Thedas not nobility.  The Ferelden Circle sure as heck seemed a lot nicer than Gamlen's shack, didn't it?

And yes, mages are housed, fed, educated, clothed, all on the Chantries payroll.  And I have no doubt the Chantry is funded, at least in part, by the congregations.

This whole issue really comes down to one question: is it right to make mages live in a certain place?

By Thedas convention, yes it is.  All other argument really seems pretty silly.

"Conditions" do not refer to standard of living.  I have repeated this several times in this thread already.

As for convetion.....Thedas Convention can sod off:devil:  And if there is to be a new kind of 'conventional' thinking on the matter, it will require action.  Given the players involved, that almost certainly means war.

So really, it's a question of whether or not it's a war worth fighting.  One has to ask himself if it's worth fighting a war so his fellow man can be free.  Therein lies your answer.

Modifié par jamesp81, 10 octobre 2011 - 01:29 .

[Dean_the_Young]

jamesp81 wrote...


"Conditions" do not refer to standard of living.  I have repeated this several times in this thread already.

And never made a convincing argument about why the circumstances in which people live should not be weighed as part of whether they are actually badly off or not.

As for convetion.....Thedas Convention can sod off:devil:

Cultural chauvanism, much?

[Dean_the_Young]

jamesp81 wrote...
So really, it's a question of whether or not it's a war worth fighting.  One has to ask himself if it's worth fighting a war so his fellow man can be dead or a serf.  Therein lies your answer.

Perspective is a wonderful thing.

[jamesp81]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...


"Conditions" do not refer to standard of living.  I have repeated this several times in this thread already.

And never made a convincing argument about why the circumstances in which people live should not be weighed as part of whether they are actually badly off or not.

As for convetion.....Thedas Convention can sod off:devil:

Cultural chauvanism, much?

All cultures are not equal.  Thedas culture is overdue for an upgrade.

[jamesp81]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...
So really, it's a question of whether or not it's a war worth fighting.  One has to ask himself if it's worth fighting a war so his fellow man can be dead or a serf.  Therein lies your answer.

Perspective is a wonderful thing.

Your modification to my original comment didn't actually change the equation that much.

[Dean_the_Young]

jamesp81 wrote...

All cultures are not equal.  Thedas culture is overdue for an upgrade.

Self-determination is only for people who can determine the right path right away.

[Dean_the_Young]

jamesp81 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...
So really, it's a question of whether or not it's a war worth fighting.  One has to ask himself if it's worth fighting a war so his fellow man can be dead or a serf.  Therein lies your answer.

Perspective is a wonderful thing.

Your modification to my original comment didn't actually change the equation that much.

'Give me death or give me death' never had much of a ring to it for most free-thinking people.

[TJPags]

jamesp81 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Now, steering this thread back on topic......

There is, apparently, no negotiating with the Chantry on the conditions mages are kept in by force.  They're not hearing any of it.  The mages choices are to learn to live with their chains or fight to break them.

Staying on topic, you mention conditions.  It was covered earlier in the thread, the "conditions" the mages are kept in are better than those of most other people in Thedas not nobility.  The Ferelden Circle sure as heck seemed a lot nicer than Gamlen's shack, didn't it?

And yes, mages are housed, fed, educated, clothed, all on the Chantries payroll.  And I have no doubt the Chantry is funded, at least in part, by the congregations.

This whole issue really comes down to one question: is it right to make mages live in a certain place?

By Thedas convention, yes it is.  All other argument really seems pretty silly.

"Conditions" do not refer to standard of living.  I have repeated this several times in this thread already.

As for convetion.....Thedas Convention can sod off:devil:  And if there is to be a new kind of 'conventional' thinking on the matter, it will require action.  Given the players involved, that almost certainly means war.

So really, it's a question of whether or not it's a war worth fighting.  One has to ask himself if it's worth fighting a war so his fellow man can be free.  Therein lies your answer.

Ahhhh, okay - conditions refer to what, then?  Some vague idea about it being unfair?  Because I have no idea what else "conditions" could be referring to.

And Thedas convention can sod off . . . .so, you replace the world view we're given, with what?  Your own ideas?  Would it be equally valid for me to replace them with my own ideas?

[TheJediSaint]

jamesp81 wrote...

All cultures are not equal.  Thedas culture is overdue for an upgrade.

I think the Arishok was thinking the same thing when he decided to play bocce with the Vicount's head.

Modifié par TheJediSaint, 10 octobre 2011 - 01:38 .

[jamesp81]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...
So really, it's a question of whether or not it's a war worth fighting.  One has to ask himself if it's worth fighting a war so his fellow man can be dead or a serf.  Therein lies your answer.

Perspective is a wonderful thing.

Your modification to my original comment didn't actually change the equation that much.

'Give me death or give me death' never had much of a ring to it for most free-thinking people.

Yeah, you're right on that at least.

So, why go butchering up my post to mean something entirely different than what I originally said?  What's the point?

Modifié par jamesp81, 10 octobre 2011 - 01:37 .

[Dean_the_Young]

TJPags wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Now, steering this thread back on topic......

There is, apparently, no negotiating with the Chantry on the conditions mages are kept in by force.  They're not hearing any of it.  The mages choices are to learn to live with their chains or fight to break them.

Staying on topic, you mention conditions.  It was covered earlier in the thread, the "conditions" the mages are kept in are better than those of most other people in Thedas not nobility.  The Ferelden Circle sure as heck seemed a lot nicer than Gamlen's shack, didn't it?

And yes, mages are housed, fed, educated, clothed, all on the Chantries payroll.  And I have no doubt the Chantry is funded, at least in part, by the congregations.

This whole issue really comes down to one question: is it right to make mages live in a certain place?

By Thedas convention, yes it is.  All other argument really seems pretty silly.

"Conditions" do not refer to standard of living.  I have repeated this several times in this thread already.

As for convetion.....Thedas Convention can sod off:devil:  And if there is to be a new kind of 'conventional' thinking on the matter, it will require action.  Given the players involved, that almost certainly means war.

So really, it's a question of whether or not it's a war worth fighting.  One has to ask himself if it's worth fighting a war so his fellow man can be free.  Therein lies your answer.

Ahhhh, okay - conditions refer to what, then?  Some vague idea about it being unfair?  Because I have no idea what else "conditions" could be referring to.

And Thedas convention can sod off . . . .so, you replace the world view we're given, with what?  Your own ideas?  Would it be equally valid for me to replace them with my own ideas?

No, no. If you don't agree with him, you're a freedom-hating person, and thus your opinion is invalid. Keep it up, and you might need to be purged and removed.

This is liberal democracy, dontchaknow.

[jamesp81]

TheJediSaint wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

All cultures are not equal.  Thedas culture is overdue for an upgrade.

I think the Arishok was thinking the same thing when he decided to play bacce with the Vicount's head.

Yes, indeed, he was.  Of course, I figured he was just more of the same with different PR when you get down to it.

[Dean_the_Young]

jamesp81 wrote...

So, why go butchering up my post to mean something entirely different than what I originally said?  What's the point?

Fun aside, you make the best counter-argument to your own position when you aren't aware that you're doing so.

[AlexXIV]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Being a intelligent has as much to be with being a mage as it does with being black. Which is to say, none.

The mages are educated. Where and why are they educated? The Circle, and for the Circle again.  Where will they not be educated if you absolve the Circle system? The Circles.

Intelligent people are usually educated and the other way round. That's why I make no difference here for the sake of this argument. Anyway, to learn the use of magic you need a certain grade of intelligence. There are certainly some examples of less intelligent mages, but I doubt they would ever be as powerful.

If mages were to rebel and try and overthrow the feudal order, the feudal order would turn around and press them back down... and with the applause of most of the public, because most people fear rampant mages more than they seek a social revolution. Your 'liberation' is dead-set to another war of suppression, the logical outcomes of a mage defeat being either a return to the Circle, or simply solving the mage threat once and for all by genocide because you argued not even the circle would work.

Actually I think mages could become independent. Like the Chantry is independent. I don't think they need to be outside of the Circles, I never said that. But I think neither Chantry not Templars should rule the Circles. At least not in the way they did it in the past.

The Qunari safety is by burning out all the remaining freedoms of the Circle system. It adds nothing.

My point is, if you think you need to oppress someone, do it throughly. Giving the oppressed chances to overthrow you will just result in them overthrowing you. Eventually. I'm not argueing that the Qunari mages are free or more free.

Not all inequities are equal.

But the more freedoms you gain, the more you want. To a certain point, granted, but if you were at one point only free to go to school, but not free to vote, then at some point you would want to vote too. It does not matter how unfree you are, you will always want more, until you value the comfort of peace more than the value of more freedom gained by conflict.

Your analogy is flawed, however, because the situations of the Matrix and Thedas are NOT comparable. In the matrix universe, the alternative to being an unknowing captive of the machine is freedom in Xion. In Thedas, the alternative to being under the rule of the Circle is being under the rule of the feudal system.

Freedom in Xion. You'd still have a sort of government, and who knows what other hardships there restrict individual freedom. And as I said the Circles in Thedas could rule themselves, independent of the feudal systems around them. Hell they could even have their own country. After all so do the Grey Wardens.

[jamesp81]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

So, why go butchering up my post to mean something entirely different than what I originally said?  What's the point?

Fun aside, you make the best counter-argument to your own position when you aren't aware that you're doing so.

Riiiiiiight <_<