817 réponses à ce sujet

[TEWR]

berelinde wrote...

Right, and it requires both the Knight-Commander and the First Enchanter to sign off on it.

The act of making someone Tranquil requires lyrium. We are never told how much, but considering its market value, I would expect that somebody would have to keep meticulous records of its distribution within both the Order and the Circle. Unauthorized dispersements are probably also illegal. It's akin to arresting somebody for jaywalking after they have already robbed a bank, but it's yet another sign of corruption within the Order.

Exactly so.

Though remember that smugglers bring in illegal lyrium to the Templars. If the Templars like Alrik weren't dipping into the Circle's stash, they were probably buying their own portions of lyrium from smugglers.

[TEWR]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Well, given that you do not respond to standard debating techniques, I figures lowering myself ot your level might work.

Because the sheer idiocy of this statement bears a reply, this is the only thing of yours I'm replying to right now.

Then I'm done. Hopefully.

I have never brought up Hitler in any debate on these forums to try and prove a point. Never. Not once.

So you've lowered yourself to a level I've never allowed myself to go near. Congratulations.

[berelinde]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

berelinde wrote...

Right, and it requires both the Knight-Commander and the First Enchanter to sign off on it.

The act of making someone Tranquil requires lyrium. We are never told how much, but considering its market value, I would expect that somebody would have to keep meticulous records of its distribution within both the Order and the Circle. Unauthorized dispersements are probably also illegal. It's akin to arresting somebody for jaywalking after they have already robbed a bank, but it's yet another sign of corruption within the Order.

Exactly so.

Though remember that smugglers bring in illegal lyrium to the Templars. If the Templars like Alrik weren't dipping into the Circle's stash, they were probably buying their own portions of lyrium from smugglers.

And buying unregulated lyrium from smugglers to perform unauthorized Rites of Tranquility would be construed by any conscientious overseer as misuse of Chantry funds. It really doesn't matter how you turn it, Kirkwall's Order is betraying the faith they claim to serve.

The problem with absolute authority such as the Kirkwall templars, Meredith especially, hold is that it opens the door wide to any number of abuses. Chantry law as it is written contains checks and balances to prevent a destabilizing imbalance of power. By circumventing those laws, balance is lost and the system becomes unstable. It would take a strong person indeed to resist the temptaion of absolute power, and Meredith is not that strong.

[berelinde]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I have never brought up Hitler in any debate on these forums to try and prove a point. Never. Not once.

So you've lowered yourself to a level I've never allowed myself to go near. Congratulations.

Oh, dear. Has somebody proven Godwin's Law again?

Well, it was probably inevitable considering the inspiration for Alrik's "Tranquil Solution". It's still sad, though.


Edit: I am kind of curious how this all relates to DA3, though. No matter who you sided with in DA2, Thedas is at war, templars and mages are running amok, and the Qunari are watching the fracas with growing interest.

Modifié par berelinde, 16 novembre 2012 - 05:09 .

[StarcloudSWG]

Kirkwall's circle, historically, has had an abnormally high number of blood mages, demons, and abominations. Thanks to Tevinter and its massive use of blood magic in the city, the Veil is very thin and mages can reach demons easily. And vice versa.

It's entirely possible that Kirkwall was the place where the Tevinter Magisters made their attempt to breach the Veil and physically enter the Black City.

And the Gallows is probably the worst place to put a Circle, however 'convenient' it may have been. Especially with no attempts to get rid of those statues or change the decor into something more livable.

So, Meredith's constant, unceasing pressure on the Circle didn't help the positive feedback loop any, but her vigilance was justified and justifiable.

Modifié par StarcloudSWG, 16 novembre 2012 - 05:28 .

[TEWR]

berelinde wrote...

Oh, dear. Has somebody proven Godwin's Law again?

Well, it was probably inevitable considering the inspiration for Alrik's "Tranquil Solution". It's still sad, though.


Edit: I am kind of curious how this all relates to DA3, though. No matter who you sided with in DA2, Thedas is at war, templars and mages are running amok, and the Qunari are watching the fracas with growing interest.

Lotion on the previous page took a stance of mine and misrepresented it while simultaneously using Hitler to do so. Funnily enough, Alrik's Tranquil Solution wasn't the cause of this instance as one might have expected.

I'm still unsure if his use of it constitutes Godwin's Law or Henderson's, because dammit Godwin's Law has been revised so many times and other laws have been made that I just don't know anymore.

The exact quote:

Lotion_Soronnar wrote...

TEWR wrote...

Hey, I'm not against a tower search in general. Have Gregoir proposing it and I'll support it. Have Cullen propose it and I'll consider it.

Have Meredith propose it and I'll take issue with it.

Which shows you utter inability to think straight and let go of your bias.
An action is either sensible or not, regardless who is proposing it.

So if Hitler told you it was a good idea to feed the poor, you'd go "Hell no! I'll do the opposite of what you say!" and go around stealing food from the poor?

to which I said the following...

TEWR wrote...

Yeah, no. I wouldn't steal from the poor. You're just King of the Strawmans, aren't you?

If Hitler was the one proposing it, he'd have an ulterior motive behind it -- like bolstering his armies, or gaining more popular support for him being in power, or using it to find more Jewish people. The person proposing the idea often has a different reason for proposing it then someone else.

People are not so simple as to share the same reasons for doing something.

Know the person, know their mindset, and you can begin to understand why they want to do something. Feeding the poor is a noble goal, provided noble intentions are backing it. But do something noble with something sinister behind it, and you're doing a good deed with malicious intentions. You're just masking a bad stance with something good, tainting it in the process.

It doesn't become inherently bad, but you're not doing it for the right reasons.

And fact: crime lords have often donated to charity, built schools, and so on to give them good PR. They did something good despite being bad people. Still good things to do, but not for the right reasons.

You are incredibly naive if you believe that people have the same reasoning for supporting/proposing the same suggestion.

And though I'm unsure whether Godwin's Law or Henderson's Law applies here:

And resorting to a Hitler comparison? A strawman one at that? There's no point in continuing a discussion with someone who would bring up Hitler to try and prove a point along with saying that if Hitler supported X, I'd do the exact opposite like the whole "Hitler Ate Sugar" trope is about.

No, I would not start stealing from the poor. I'd help feed the poor, but for the sole reason of feeding the poor and to be a good person. But I would always disagree with the man who put it forth if he was not a good person, because his reasons for doing so would not be as altruistic as one might think

Either way, I'm done conversing with someone who brought up Hitler, Godwin or Henderson notwithstanding.

Made a slight edit by adding the "because his reasons for doing so would not be as altruistic as one might think" bit.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 16 novembre 2012 - 06:34 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

* SNIP *

I know you like the sound of your voice (or in the this case the look of your tpyed text), but whas it really necessary to repeat half hte conversation that is on the previous page?

Speaking of which, your entire line of reasoning is flawed, because it superposes complete understanding of Meredith AND her motives for any given action...and you don't have either of those.

Even tough - you admitted - the tower search is a reasonalbe (and necessary) course of action, you object on it  for no reason other than you don't like the person in change, and theorize (unsopported) that she has some dark motivations.
Furthermore you take Orsinos stance that if she does find something, she will use it to squeeze on mages even more, even tough:
- blood mages in the Circle have to be rooted out, and this is the most sensible way
- you fail to prove an alternative solution
- you fail to prove Meredith will lash out against all mages
- you claim she will lash out agaisnt all mages regardless (which then makes the whole point moot)
- Orisno has very good reasons of his own to argue against the search.


AND furthermore, you take the stance that since Kirkwall is known to be a harsh circle, it has to be because Meredith is an evil mage-hating b***.
When mages do something wrong you're quick to shift the blame to "templar pressure"
But when templars  include stricter rules, you ignore the possiblity that they do it because the mages are getting out of hand - no, ti has to be because they are EVIIL.

You postulate that the Circle in Kirkwall is strict because templars are evil, and NOT because Kirkwall is apparently a mecca for crazy mages. Strict rules are the product of mage activity.

[Lotion Soronarr]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Because the sheer idiocy of this statement bears a reply, this is the only thing of yours I'm replying to right now.

Then I'm done. Hopefully.

I have never brought up Hitler in any debate on these forums to try and prove a point. Never. Not once.

So you've lowered yourself to a level I've never allowed myself to go near. Congratulations.

Should I care waht you think? Nope, not really.

Is mentioning Hitler the worst thing ever? The lowest form of debating?
Nope.
Hitler.
Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.Hitler.
There you go.

There are far worse things and approcahes in debating than mentioning Hitler. In fac,t Hitler is IRRELEVANT.
I could have used any historical figure or dubious character - or invented my own. It makes no difference. It bears absolutely no impact on the point.

Which you attempt to steer the discussion away from by focusing on Hitler.
Irony.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 16 novembre 2012 - 05:15 .

[dragonflight288]

This has gotten out of hand. I haven't been on in awhile because my job and college is kicking my butt, but when I came back, it's Godwin's law this, Hitler that, calling the need to stoop down to another person's debating level because you can't make a logical case against them.

It's just ridiculous. How on earth can I debate when all that's on the screen is "strawman" "hitler" or even (and this is paraphrased, but it's the tone of the statement, not word for word) "You're an idiot because I say common sense dictates I'm right and you're wrong despite me never bringing up any evidence and any evidence you bring up is absolutely worthless because it doesn't prove me right."

[Lotion Soronarr]

Quite.

You hear that Ethereal?
Quit it.
Submitt to the Qun  Collective Truth.

[smallwhippet]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

* SNIP *

I know you like the sound of your voice 

Oh, the irony.

Modifié par smallwhippet, 16 novembre 2012 - 05:19 .

[MisterJB]

Vit246 wrote...
"Show weakness and that number will increase tenfold"? Ridiculous.

The "bad" mages were already hopelessly bad to begin with. And there is a severe lack of "weakness", as you call it, that is turning the decent mages left into unecessary enemies and monsters.

And there was a Kossith abomination in the Wounded Coast surrounded by his dead Kossith handlers at one point during the game.

If right now, the penal system was dissolved, you don't think there'd be an increase in the number of crimes?
And now you're going to say "Mages would still be punished if they broke the law". But mages are not normal people; they require a different and harsher treatment to ensure they do not become dangerous.

[thibaut72]

MisterJB wrote...
If right now, the penal system was dissolved, you don't think there'd be an increase in the number of crimes?
And now you're going to say "Mages would still be punished if they broke the law". But mages are not normal people; they require a different and harsher treatment to ensure they do not become dangerous.

I hope you don't think what you said ! This is pure radicalism (at least) and in all time in our Earth, this speach are the origin of dictatorship and more dark hours...
Mage are humans, same blood, same skin, same mind ! You can't blame them to be different than you, or only by jalousy ! And you can't compare mages like criminals : talking like this make you criminal too !

You can say that mage can be dangerous, but as Templar or Chantry's follower, you need protect them (as protect people). Don't forget templars use magic and blood magic too even if it's not innate. Magic is magic, and law is law, you cant arrange the law because of the circonstances or the people using it.
You can also say that circles can be a good choice, even if it's not a must ! In Thedas, we need both of them (templars and mages), and for those who think that the world should be safer without mages are just crazy : The Earth don't need mages to make her own atrocities, or if you deny, you can read again your history books.

[MisterJB]

There is nothing radical about "Let's keep nuclear bombs under strict vigilance".

The laws of a land are affected by an unending number of circunstances; it's why we have different laws for times of crysis when harsher measures are required. Just like there are different laws regulating the use of firearms and the use of rocket launchers, so there must be different laws regulating the freedoms of mundanes and mages.
Because, no matter how much one might wish it, they are not equal. They are not born equal, they can never be equal.

The fact that human beings can commit attrocities without the use of magic doesn't mean we should ignore the existence of a power so dangerous and open to abuse that is restricted to only a few.

[Shadow Fox]

This thread hasn't been locked yet?

[sunnydxmen]

Just wow really?

[dragonflight288]

So.....'magic exists to serve man and never to rule over him. Foul are corrupt are he who abuses his gift given by his maker.' or somesuch.

If a mage abuses his gift, he's foul and corrupt. If a bandit has useful skills and abuses those skills to break into people's homes and rob them of everything, then foul and corrupt is he as well (especially if he's using an enchanted item)

Punish people for the crimes they've actually committed, and not for crimes they may potentially commit.

[David Gaider]

Yeah... this thread doesn't really have much to do with DA3, does it? Not even remotely. Just the same people arguing the same points from a topic that has been posted many times on the DA2 forums. Sorry folks, shutting it down.

Modifié par David Gaider, 17 novembre 2012 - 04:09 .