343 réponses à ce sujet

[CrimsonZephyr]

jlb524 wrote...

thats1evildude wrote...
Exactly! And hey, why use your own blood when you could just borrow a little life energy from someone else? If they refuse, you can just mind control them into submission OH WAIT.

You see how it's a slippery slope? Blood magic practically begs to be abused. Some mages might resist that temptation, but most will not. Some don't want to.

Slippery slope arguments kind of suck though (i.e., I never take them seriously).

Why do they suck? There's ample proof for them.

[SinnSly]

Tezzajh wrote...

soccerchick wrote...

Tezzajh wrote...

perhaps because she voiced by a welsh person? that explains most of it as the welsh apparently sound stupid anyway

Based on just hearing one person who was PLAYING a naive character, or have you talked to other welsh people?
I think she sounds nervous/curious most of the time. Not stupid.

 
I am welsh and we are always called stupid by the english because of the way we sound

I think the Welsh accent is amazing, it totally suits Merrill to be honest
Eve Myles done a fantastic job doing her voice~

[jlb524]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

thats1evildude wrote...
Exactly! And hey, why use your own blood when you could just borrow a little life energy from someone else? If they refuse, you can just mind control them into submission OH WAIT.

You see how it's a slippery slope? Blood magic practically begs to be abused. Some mages might resist that temptation, but most will not. Some don't want to.

Slippery slope arguments kind of suck though (i.e., I never take them seriously).

Why do they suck? There's ample proof for them.

What proof?

It's because you can't just go from A -> Z without showing how A -> B, B -> C, C -> D, etc.

Each premise has to be based in fact.

Slippery Slope arguments want to handwave all of that and jump from A -> Z.  It eliminates the possibility of a middle ground as well (it's either A or Z) setting up false-dichotomies..

[Gunderic]

Kill her. Together with Isabela and Fenris; they need to go.

[SinnSly]

Gunderic wrote...

Kill her. Together with Isabela and Fenris; they need to go.

Kill her... You are mental o.o

[CrimsonZephyr]

jlb524 wrote...

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

thats1evildude wrote...
Exactly! And hey, why use your own blood when you could just borrow a little life energy from someone else? If they refuse, you can just mind control them into submission OH WAIT.

You see how it's a slippery slope? Blood magic practically begs to be abused. Some mages might resist that temptation, but most will not. Some don't want to.

Slippery slope arguments kind of suck though (i.e., I never take them seriously).

Why do they suck? There's ample proof for them.

What proof?

It's because you can't just go from A -> Z without showing how A -> B, B -> C, C -> D, etc.

Each premise has to be based in fact.

Slippery Slope arguments want to handwave all of that and jump from A -> Z.  It eliminates the possibility of a middle ground as well (it's either A or Z) setting up false-dichotomies..

Slippery slope arguments don't say you go from A to Z immediately. They say that by doing A, it becomes easier to justify doing B, which makes it easier to justify doing C, which makes it easier to justify doing D, and so on, until the person ends up doing Z, as they rationalize further and their original motives decay. It's a gradual process. Something with such a huge potential for abuse as blood magic would fall under this category. Of course at first Merrill might only use her blood, but what if she needed more blood? Would she find a willing volunteer? What if they said no, would she mind-control them? If they resisted, would she kill them? Would she start descerating burial sites, or stealing cadavers? Would she use the excuse of scientific research, or that her clan's future depended upon it? What if the spell was too powerful for her? Would she accept a demon's help? Would she rationalize that her own possession would be worth the chance to revive a treasure of her peoples' past? And yes, she "knows the dangers" and she "has a conscience" but people are flawed, and thus cannot wholly be trusted to be checks on their own behavior. That's why there are laws and ethical standards.

And yes, if she, Isabela, and Anders had bitten it early on, a lot of suffering would have been averted, i.e. kill all criminals and well-intentioned extremists. No matter what, they will wreck everything.

Modifié par CrimsonZephyr, 14 décembre 2011 - 09:50 .

[jlb524]

'Becomes easier to justify' isn't factual proof that B -> C though.

So you are logically jumping from A -> Z still without providing hard factual evidence that B always leads to C no matter what.

Modifié par jlb524, 14 décembre 2011 - 09:54 .

[CrimsonZephyr]

jlb524 wrote...

'Becomes easier to justify' isn't factual proof that B -> C though.

So you are logically jumping from A -> Z still without providing hard factual evidence that B always leads to C no matter what.

Not no matter what, but would you want to risk it?

[TEWR]

I have to agree jlb524. Slippery slope arguments seem to lump people into the same group and say that they will jump from A to B to C.

But that's just not true, especially in Merrill's case. There hasn't been one instance of her using other peoples' blood, controlling the minds of people, etc.

There's no basis to say she's on a slippery slope.

[CrimsonZephyr]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I have to agree jlb524. Slippery slope arguments seem to lump people into the same group and say that they will jump from A to B to C.

But that's just not true, especially in Merrill's case. There hasn't been one instance of her using other peoples' blood, controlling the minds of people, etc.

There's no basis to say she's on a slippery slope.

Lumping people into groups is sometimes necessary. Because blood magic can cause such catastrophe, even from good intentions, its usage should be subject to a crackdown. The damage one blood mage can do is so incredible, so total, and so subtle, that it's naive to simply think "okay, she knows the dangers, she's okay!"

The fact is that trusting Merrill means taking her at her word, which no one should ever do. That's why laws exist. They put knives at people's backs as checks against their behavior. And while Merrill might not have used others' blood, there was bound to have been a situation where it would have been required. Blood is a scarce resource just like any other, and Merrill's expectation that only hers would suffice all the time is naive to the extreme, and she puts the restoration of that mirror above all else, including normative ethical standards - which is why she used blood magic.

Modifié par CrimsonZephyr, 15 décembre 2011 - 12:02 .

[jlb524]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

'Becomes easier to justify' isn't factual proof that B -> C though.

So you are logically jumping from A -> Z still without providing hard factual evidence that B always leads to C no matter what.

Not no matter what, but would you want to risk it?

We aren't talking about risk or possibilities.

A 'slippery slope' is saying that A will always go to Z...always.

That's why it's a bad form of arguing a point.  For some people that may happen but it also might not happen in some cases (you'd have some middle ground).  Merrill is an example of a blood mage that didn't fall completely into being 'evil' and doing such things as human sacrifice.   She hasn't in seven years and there's no basis for arguing that she ever will besides 'some blood mages have done so' which doesn't convince me.

CrimsonZephyr wrote...
And while Merrill might not have used others' blood, there was bound to have been a situation where it would have been required. Blood is a scarce resource just like any other, and Merrill's expectation that only hers would suffice all the time is naive to the extreme, and she puts the restoration of that mirror above all else, including normative ethical standards - which is why she used blood magic.

That is absolutley false...there's no indication that Merrill has put aside 'normative ethical standards' for the mirror 'besides' the use of her own blood for blood magic.   

There's no indication that she'd use the blood of others.  I don't know how this makes her 'naive' if she's willing to stop at sacrificing others for blood  (Oh, i forgot that 'naive' is the 'I don't like Merrill' buzzword...nvm).

And I don't buy your slippery slope argument. 

Modifié par jlb524, 15 décembre 2011 - 01:06 .

[CrimsonZephyr]

Ethical standards include obeying the law. The argument "using A was more expedient" is not a valid defense when the law explicitly prohibits A. She had the option of using lyrium, but she did not. If she could not find lyrium, she should have shelved the experiment until she found some. Ergo, using blood magic, a blatantly illegal art, for expediency's sake, when other options exist, but may not be available, is unethical, especially considering how much conjecture she was basing her experiments on - i.e. she wasn't really sure what it did, or whether it was even beneficial at all. By using blood magic, she demonstrates a lack of adherence to normative ethical standards in the name of expediency.

[TEWR]

The Chantry's laws are not the laws of the Dalish.

And the Wardens use blood magic in both the Joining and the more common form to fight the Darkspawn. Are they unethical? Are they on a slippery slope?

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 15 décembre 2011 - 02:03 .

[jlb524]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...
Ethical standards include obeying the law. The argument "using A was more expedient" is not a valid defense when the law explicitly prohibits A. She had the option of using lyrium, but she did not.

Lyrium was not an option at all.

What about unethical laws?  Should they be obeyed?

CrimsonZephyr wrote... 
If she could not find lyrium, she should have shelved the experiment until she found some. Ergo, using blood magic, a blatantly illegal art, for expediency's sake, when other options exist, but may not be available, is unethical, especially considering how much conjecture she was basing her experiments on - i.e. she wasn't really sure what it did, or whether it was even beneficial at all. By using blood magic, she demonstrates a lack of adherence to normative ethical standards in the name of expediency.

You still cannot make a logical leap from this to 'Merrill will use human sacrifices'.  That is faulty reasoning, plain and simple.  

It's like saying anyone who's willing to speed is also likely to murder someone.  Many people will break laws such as speeding but won't go as far as murder or even theft.  People who are willing to commit theft might not ever wish to murder someone.  This is why you're slippery slope argument is bad...it ignores the possibility of a middle ground.

Modifié par jlb524, 15 décembre 2011 - 02:05 .

[CrimsonZephyr]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

The Chantry's laws are not the laws of the Dalish.

And the Wardens use blood magic in both the Joining and the more common form to fight the Darkspawn. Are they unethical? Are they on a slippery slope?

She is living in a city which follows Chantry law, ergo she is obligated to follow them,

The laws banning blood magic are one of the few ethical laws the Chantry has regarding magc. The rest? Not so much.

And Ethereal, considering how much jerkassery the Warden can do, how they possess extralegal powers, and apparently are free from any restriction on their power, I'd say the slippery slope definitely exists. Wasn't it a Warden blood mage who summoned an army of demons and mind-controlled noblemen? Ah, that's right, the King who was ruling was a nutter, so that justifies everything!

Laws don't make exceptions for middle grounds. Juries do, and that's part of why they exist. But laws don't. Making exceptions in enforcement based on what has been done without considering what could be done invites people to keep committing that offense and use that rationalization. Laws are supposed to be preventative as well as retaliatory.

As for that example you gave, jib, about speeders. Eventually, a speeder will kill someone. It might be another driver, a pedestrian, or himself. By not following the law, he put all those people in more danger. Similarly, the thief who breaks into a store might not have to kill anyone, but what if there's a clerk there and he doesn't back down? What if there's a cop? Will the thief simply surrender? Not likely. That's not to say thieves should be punished as murderers, but it makes the defense, "I'm committing X crime, don't worry, Y won't happen!" fallacious.

Modifié par CrimsonZephyr, 15 décembre 2011 - 02:21 .

[TEWR]

Renegade Wardens -- which is exactly what Avernus, Sophia Dryden, and her Warden allies were at that time because they went against what the Wardens do. Insofar as the current Warden mantra is regarding political involvement -- do not reflect on the entire Warden order.

Saying the entire Warden order is on a slippery slope for what rogue Wardens did is just as absurd as saying that Merrill is on a slippery slope because Danarius and other blood mages are evil pricks who abuse their power.

And while the Warden can become politically involved, the words that he/she can utter in Soldier's Peak remain true:

The Blight changes everything.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 15 décembre 2011 - 02:18 .

[CrimsonZephyr]

Yeah, they weren't operating during a Blight, were they? But they had powers beyond any other faction in Thedas, save the Chantry, and blatantly abused it. Dismissing one group as rogue does not dismiss the point! The freedoms Grey Wardens have invite and encourage abuse. They don't simply use magic, they regularly use blood magic, and have shown a willingness to make use of its nefarious applications. They don't simply get volunteers, they can forcibly conscript anyone. So that nobleman who resists their political interference? Yeah, they can forcibly induct him into their order and send him to the Deep Roads, and then take his family's land. Sure, they can do it in the name of fighting the Blight, but without any restrictions, as is shown with your Wardens actions, these people can easily maim a country and its people in the process.

Modifié par CrimsonZephyr, 15 décembre 2011 - 02:28 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

You really have an issue with anyone having freedom to do anything without strict and harsh supervision, don't you?   Everything anyone can do that can't be controlled is a risk and threat in your mind? 

You're the perfect subject for the security / surveilance state that some politicians want to enact.

To paraphrase Ben Franklin, those who would sacrifice liberty in the name of security deserve neither.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 15 décembre 2011 - 06:17 .

[CrimsonZephyr]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

You really have an issue with anyone having freedom to do anything without strict and harsh supervision, don't you?   Everything anyone can do that can't be controlled is a risk and threat in your mind? 

You're the perfect subject for the security / surveilance state that some politicians want to enact.

To paraphrase Ben Franklin, those who would sacrifice liberty in the name of security deserve neither.

Oh please, slitting one's hands open to harness powers for mind control, world-sundering, demonology, and necromancy is not the same thing as having a vote, a free press, the right to representation before taxation, the right for free assembly, the right of religious freedom, or the right to free enterprise. When something can very easily deprive others of their free will and liberty by force, then yes, it should be regulated and/or banned so that it does not. You quote Ben Franklin, but you forget that many of the US founding fathers were authors of the Constitution, which specifically put limits on positions of power which were prone to abuse when left unchecked. They realized that leaving these people unchecked, but rationalizing "not everyone will abuse it" was not good enough. The ones that do abuse it would ruin it for everyone.

Modifié par CrimsonZephyr, 15 décembre 2011 - 08:02 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

So you're anti-Second Amendment as well, right? And against private vehicle ownership?


Never mind that we never see Merrill use mind-control or violate the dead... and her dealing with the demon on Sundermount is more cautious and restrained than a lot of the non-blood-mage spirit dealings we see going on over the course of DA:O and DA2.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 15 décembre 2011 - 08:04 .

[CrimsonZephyr]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

So you're anti-Second Amendment as well, right? And against private vehicle ownership?

I'm for both, but with regulations and limits, especially on the second amendment.

[Killjoy Cutter]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

So you're anti-Second Amendment as well, right? And against private vehicle ownership?

I'm for both, but with regulations and limits, especially on the second amendment.

But you consider blood magic a capital offense no matter how it's used or what it's used for?

[CrimsonZephyr]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

So you're anti-Second Amendment as well, right? And against private vehicle ownership?

I'm for both, but with regulations and limits, especially on the second amendment.

But you consider blood magic a capital offense no matter how it's used or what it's used for?

Considering that it's most nefarious applications can be used for raising the dead, summoning demons, or simply controlling individuals ranging from the mundane to the powerful, with few, if any reliable methods of regulation outside of self-restraint - which is never enough - I'd say considering blood magic a capital crime is probably the lesser evil. Simply put, the only way to ensure that it is not abused is to hope that the user has scruples - which are neither veriable nor universal.

Modifié par CrimsonZephyr, 15 décembre 2011 - 08:36 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

You're not really thinking through the broader implications of your position.

More than 300 million Americans have access to a plethora of objects that can cause dire harm with a minimum of effort, and the only thing keeping any of them from doing so is their "scruples". A vehicle is a deadly weapon, as is any baseball bat or sharp knife or hammer or nailgun or... Countless household chemicals that can be bought with cash can be used to lethal or maiming effect. We all have hands that can kill with a bit more effort than that.

We're not actually safe from each other, we all represent a constant potential deadly threat to each other just by having hands and the minds to use them. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 15 décembre 2011 - 08:44 .

[CrimsonZephyr]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

You're not really thinking through the broader implications of your position.

More than 300 million Americans have access to a plethora of objects that can cause dire harm with a minimum of effort, and the only thing keeping any of them from doing so is their "scruples". A vehicle is a deadly weapon, as is any baseball bat or sharp knife or hammer or nailgun or... Countless household chemicals that can be bought with cash can be used to lethal or maiming effect. We all have hands that can kill with a bit more effort than that.

We're not actually safe from each other, we all represent a constant potential deadly threat to each other just by having hands and the minds to use them. 

Yes, and these threats are quite obvious, whereas it has been shown that blood magic can be very subtle. Not to mention, you kill one person with a bat, that's just one person. Let's say you mind control a national leader. What then? And blood magic is willingly allowed in a group (the Grey Wardens) that completely disaregard every single check placed upon their behavior, whose numbers include convicted criminals. Do you see where the problem comes? You're giving a deadly art to a band of unscrupulous people.

Modifié par CrimsonZephyr, 15 décembre 2011 - 08:50 .