656 réponses à ce sujet

[Vit246]

Dave of Canada wrote...

ibbikiookami wrote...

Mages are slaves.

Under that definition, pretty much everyone is a slave.

Since mages have virtually no real control over how they can live and die, that pretty much makes them slaves. Is it so hard to see it? In practice, all it pretty much takes is a Templar deciding that a mage will either be killed or Tranquiled, and that mage is automatically condemned. No trial. No other legal recourse. Nothing. In the worst Circles like Kirkwall, a mage can be Tranquiled for having a relationship or complaining about conditions in a letter or for resisting rapes. Or they'll tranquil you into a mindless sex slave anyway.

And the governing body the Chantry, pretty much sanctions it in practice.

That is the reality of DA.

Modifié par Vit246, 19 avril 2013 - 01:28 .

[Dave of Canada]

Vit246 wrote...

SInce mages have virtually no real control over how they can live and die, that pretty much makes them slaves.

Same with everyone else aside from Chantry officials and nobility.

All it pretty much takes is a Templar deciding that a mage will either be killed or Tranquiled, and that mage is automatically condemned. No trial. No other legal recourse. Nothing.

The Templar doesn't go "I want that guy tranquiled", the Templar asks the First Enchanter and has to provide evidence to show the mage in quesiton deserves said punishment. The Chantry punishes Templar who go too far because they're trying to keep mages as assets.

Even then, Thedosian society has no legal recourse or trial. Guards and nobility rape, murder and steal without anything lifting a finger to stop them. Commoners are put down by nobility if they complain. No-one cares about them, though. They're not uber-powered demigods.

In the worst Circles like Kirkwall, a mage can be Tranquiled for having a relationship or complaining about conditions in a letter or for resisting rapes. Or they'll tranquil you into a mindless sex slave anyway.

Did you play Dragon Age 2? I think you haven't because it's firmly explained all those people were made tranquil despite the objections of the Meredith and Elthina, least until Meredith goes insane which isn't the Circle under normal circumstance.

Meredith allows Blood Mages back into the Circle when the laws clearly dictate every blood mage should be made Tranquil, she's far more leniant pre-insanity than most people give her credit for.

And the governing body the Chantry, pretty much sanctions it in practice.

It doesn't. The Chantry is perhaps the only organization which actually regulates and punishes it's own people under normal circumstance. Had Meredith not been killed, she'd be forced to answer to the Divine for everything she had done.

That is the reality of DA.

The reality of Thedas is that mages are entitled whiners who've been given an education, a warm place to stay, food, clothing and are treated for any afflictions they might suffer. Until someone can prove to me that mages have it worse than normal people, I don't really care about the mage's plight.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 19 avril 2013 - 01:35 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Mages have 100% control of how tehy live and die within the Circle system. And no harrowed mage can be Tranquilized, so no, it doesn't just take a Templar to have a bad day for a mage to (legally) have a worse one. Furthermore every claim of illegal use of magic is investigated, keyword here being "investigated", by the Templars before judgment on the matter.
And Kirkwall is a very bad example of both mage and Templar behavior. So bad actually that it can hardly be used as any sort of empirical evidence. Templars weren't following the rules, nor were the mages. It was basically one big show of worst case scenario.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 19 avril 2013 - 01:34 .

[Palidane]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Mages have 100% control of how tehy live and die within the Circle system. And no harrowed mage can be Tranquilized, so no, it doesn't just take a Templar to have a bad day for a mage to (legally) have a worse one. Furthermore every claim of illegal use of magic is investigated, keyword here being "investigated", by the Templars before judgment on the matter.
And Kirkwall is a very bad example of both mage and Templar behavior. So bad actually that it can hardly be used as any sort of empirical evidence. Templars weren't following the rules, nor were the mages. It was basically one big show of worst case scenario.

Yes. Just...yes to all of this.

[Bleachrude]

One of the things replacing the Chantry would do is actually forcing the mages to be at the beck and call of nobles from the local bann equivalent and up.

In Ferelden, arguably the most Western styled liberty nation in Thedas, local banns are still able to conscript their freeholders into battle and refusing is grounds for execution...other nations it would be even worse.

(I think a lot of people don't realize just how ****ty serfdom was in the medieval era. Hell, how tough/limited your freedom was for any of the non-ruling noble class in ANY civilization pre 20th century...in media, we usually are watching the activities of nobles who had a LOT more power like in Game of Thrones or Spartacus...but Joe Blow during these eras? Sucks to be him and his family.

For example, many of the serfs in medieval Europe could not legally move away from the lands. They couldn't decide one day "I'm going to move over here")

Modifié par Bleachrude, 19 avril 2013 - 01:41 .

[Dave of Canada]

Bleachrude wrote...

One of the things replacing the Chantry would do is actually forcing the mages to be at the beck and call of nobles from the local bann equivalent and up.

A frequent suggestion by the pro-mages, it would totally be great for everyone involved. Having entire wars being fought and won over who has the most mages, who allows the most blood magic and who summons the most demons would be great for the conscripted common-man who's forced to fight against it. Let's also not forget that most territory won through this extensive use of magic would be unusuable when mages start using scorched earth strategy.

The Chantry is great in that regard, it keeps mages away from everyone.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 19 avril 2013 - 01:46 .

[Silfren]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Mages are NOT property of the Chantry. No matter how all you pro-mages try to spin it. Mages have rights of their own, and are only forced to live inside the Circles. Other than that, it is the Cirlces themselves that set the rules, and these rules vary wildly from Circle to Circle. Furthermore the Chantry cannot force the Mages to labour against the mages' will. Whenver mages are called to war, it is volunteers who joins the war, not forced conscription, nor can the Chantry force a mage into runecrafting, or any other form of work.

So still the same resounding conclusion: Mages are NOT slaves.

Yes, they are.  The fact that the Chantry has absolute law over their lives proves this--and yes, the Chantry DOES have an absolute say over their lives.  Don't waste time moaning about their alleged freedoms.  Historically, slaves usually HAVE had certain rights, but only an idiot would claim that those rights negated the fact of their slavery. 

They're not JUST forced to live in Circles.  You're not blind, you're just being deliberately obtuse.  Like always. 

A few historical facts people need to learn:  there is more than one model of slavery in the world.  Since I suspect this is where many if not most people are getting their definition from: there've been more kinds of slavery in the world than just that of the U.S.  Also, again, most slave cultures HAVE provided certain limited rights to their slaves.  Finally, there's a HELL of a lot more to slavery than forced labor. 

Mages are required by law to live within confined spaces, to the extent that the Templars have legal sanction to forcibly take children from their families.  They have to have permission to leave the premises, and permission depends utterly on the good mood of their masters.  They CAN'T leave without being under armed guard, except in very rare cases.  They are strongly discouraged or even completely disallowed from having romantic/marital relationships, and--this is a big one--THEIR CHILDREN ARE TAKEN AWAY FROM THEM.  

I'd really like someone to explain to me how anything in the above paragraph does NOT equate to slave conditions.  As I wrote earlier, I suspect it's because people see the system as necessary but get a bad taste in their mouth from the idea that it's equatable to a familiar institution that most of us find repulsive, so there's a kneejerk reaction to insist that it's not so. 

I've seen exactly ONE person cop to this fact, saying that they think the Circle system is necessary, but isn't going to pretend that life is peachy for Circle mages or that the Chantry is doing them a favor.  I can respect that, at least.  Call the Circle system necessary if you want.  But don't pretend it isn't both a form of slavery AND a type of genocide. 

[Silfren]

Palidane wrote...

Silfren wrote...
Yes, they are slaves.  Slavery isn't just about forced labor.  When your life is utterly in the hands of an organization and you live or die by the word of its soldiers, you're very much a slave.  Mages are forced into the Circles completely irrespective of their feelings on the matter:  if you're cool with it, great, but cool with it or not you have zero choice in the matter.  How is that NOT a mark of slavery?

It occurs to me that many people who are pro-Circles object to calling mages slaves possibly because of the negative perceptions of the term, perhaps? 

I'd prefer the people in the pro-Circle camp to just say that the Circle is necessary evil rather than tripping over themselves to come up with reasons why it's not so bad, really, and mages should be happy to go into the Circle system.  You CAN believe that the Circle is an oppressive organization while also believing that however bad it is, it is necessary for the good of the majority.  I don't believe it is necessary, certainly not in its present incarnation, but at least that is a more honest viewpoint than trying to claim that the Circle is somehow this totally awesome place for mages, or denying that the list of restricted or outright prohibited freedoms somehow doesn't equate to slavery.

And I would prefer is people in the pro-mage camp would stop throwing around buzz words like "slavery" and "rape" just to try and get the moral high ground. You CAN oppose the Chantry and the circle system while also not demonizing the Templars to the point of absurdity.

Slavery and rape in the context of mages in DA aren't buzzwords.  You might notice that they are directly referenced IN THE GAME, and I'm not making sh*t up, I can directly compare the situations with real world systems of slavery and see plenty of correlations.

I haven't demonized the templars to absurdity at all, ever.  Whatever.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Clinically insane people also get their children taken away from them. Do you know why? Because they are not fit for parenthood. A parent who can accidently light their child on fire, is not fit for parenthood. That is not slavery, that is warding of the best interrests of the child.

Prisoners are confined to their prisons. Last I checked prisoners weren't slaves either. A case can certainly be made that mages are prisoners within the Circles. I personally however believe the situations is a bit more nuanced than that. Either way, it still doesn't constitute slavery.

Mage children are taken from their parents by force, because untrained mages are an extreme danger to everyone and everything around them. Sadly there simply aren't enough resources to dot the lands with mage trainning schools, so they centralize all of them in the Circles. Still not slavery, but rather damage control and threat assesment. Unchecked mage population is simply too dangerous.

And yet again: No..... The mages are not property of the Chantry.... The Chantry does not have the right to sell and buy mages as if they were objects, nor do they hold the right to execute a Circle Mage "just for the lulz". There are laws that the Chantry and Circles have set in place to exactly prevent the Circles from becomming a case of slavery.

[Palidane]

Silfren wrote...
I'd really like someone to explain to me how anything in the above paragraph does NOT equate to slave conditions.  As I wrote earlier, I suspect it's because people see the system as necessary but get a bad taste in their mouth from the idea that it's equatable to a familiar institution that most of us find repulsive, so there's a kneejerk reaction to insist that it's not so. 

I've seen exactly ONE person cop to this fact, saying that they think the Circle system is necessary, but isn't going to pretend that life is peachy for Circle mages or that the Chantry is doing them a favor.  I can respect that, at least.  Call the Circle system necessary if you want.  But don't pretend it isn't both a form of slavery AND a type of genocide.

Guess what? That sounds exactly like a prison. Exactly. Oh wait, the US makes it's prisoners clean up trash on the side of the road, while Mages don't have to do anything. By your logic, America is closer to having a slave system than the Chantry. As I wrote earlier, I suspect it's because you see the system as horrible, but get a bad taste in your mouth from the idea that it's equatable to a familiar institution that most of us find beneficial, so there's a kneejerk reaction to insist it's not so. (See how annoying it is when you make presumptions about other people's reasoning?)

And genocide? What, are mages a seperate race now? The Templars are not executing all mages (well, they weren't before Anders), and have no interest in all the mages dying out. Say what you will about the mean old Templars being baby kidnappers, but stop trying to see systematic mass-murder where there isn't any.

Modifié par Palidane, 19 avril 2013 - 02:15 .

[Silfren]

Palidane wrote...

Silfren wrote...
I'd really like someone to explain to me how anything in the above paragraph does NOT equate to slave conditions.  As I wrote earlier, I suspect it's because people see the system as necessary but get a bad taste in their mouth from the idea that it's equatable to a familiar institution that most of us find repulsive, so there's a kneejerk reaction to insist that it's not so. 

I've seen exactly ONE person cop to this fact, saying that they think the Circle system is necessary, but isn't going to pretend that life is peachy for Circle mages or that the Chantry is doing them a favor.  I can respect that, at least.  Call the Circle system necessary if you want.  But don't pretend it isn't both a form of slavery AND a type of genocide.

Guess what? That sounds exactly like a prison. Exactly. Oh wait, the US makes it's prisoners clean up trash on the side of the road, while Mages don't have to do anything. By your logic, America is closer to having a slave system than the Chantry. As I wrote earlier, I suspect it's because you see the system as horrible, but get a bad taste in your mouth from the idea that it's equatable to a familiar institution that most of us find beneficial, so there's a kneejerk reaction to insist it's not so. (See how annoying it is when you make presumptions about other people's reasoning?)

And genocide? What, are mages a seperate race now? The Templars are not executing all mages (well, they weren't before Anders), and have no interest in all the mages dying out. Say what you will about the mean old Templars being baby kidnappers, but stop trying to see systematic mass-murder where there isn't any.

Mages don't have to be a separate race to be subjected to genocide.  That's just bloody stupid.  You are aware I hope that in a certain WWII regime, homosexuals, mentally ill persons, and people of certain religious backgrounds were all targeted, and yet NONE of those things equate to race?  Anyway, look up the U.N.'s statements about genocidal conditions.  Guess what?  Several aspects of the Chantry's system fit exactly. 

ETA:  Actually I'll do it for you.  http://www.genocidew...e/whatisit.html

(a) Killing members of the group;

( Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

© Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
      bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.


Bringing up the prison system fails because of two things:  it assumes I don't have problems with the prison system and therefore wouldn't compare the two, and also it ignores that at people in prison are put there for havign COMMITTED CRIMES.  

Modifié par Silfren, 19 avril 2013 - 02:31 .

[MisterJB]

If our world had had to deal with the reality of some people being born with the innate ability to melt others or control their minds with a flick of the wrist while also serving as beacons for demonic forces who whish to do nothing but bring harm, we would have a very different set of ethics.

[Palidane]

Silfren wrote...
Mages don't have to be a separate race to be subjected to genocide.  That's just bloody stupid.  You are aware I hope that in a certain WWII regime, homosexuals, mentally ill persons, and people of certain religious backgrounds were all targeted, and yet NONE of those things equate to race?  Anyway, look up the U.N.'s statements about genocidal conditions.  Guses what?  Several aspects of the Chantry's system fit exactly.  

Bringing up the prison system fails because of two things:  it assumes I don't have problems with the prison system and therefore wouldn't compare the two, and also it ignores that at people in prison are put there for havign COMMITTED CRIMES.

You missed my point on the Genocide accusation, but your right, that comment was foolish and I apologize for making it.

I wouldn't presume to know your opinions on the US prison system, but logic dictates that if you call the Circle system slavery, then our prisons count as well. And I very much agree that forcing mages into a prison for the crime of being born is bad. It's wrong and injust and should stop and be rebelled against and so on. I just don't think that qualifies as slavery, and disagree with your assertion that it does.

EDIT: And I will add that the genocides commited by Germans of a National and Socialist persuasion had no reason to it besides irrational hatred. They killed Jews because they thought Jews were scumbags. Templars seperate mages because they are legitimately and terrifyingly powerful.

Modifié par Palidane, 19 avril 2013 - 02:38 .

[Palidane]

Accidental Double Post, please ignore.

Modifié par Palidane, 19 avril 2013 - 02:37 .

[Silfren]

Palidane wrote...

Palidane wrote...

Silfren wrote...
Mages don't have to be a separate race to be subjected to genocide.  That's just bloody stupid.  You are aware I hope that in a certain WWII regime, homosexuals, mentally ill persons, and people of certain religious backgrounds were all targeted, and yet NONE of those things equate to race?  Anyway, look up the U.N.'s statements about genocidal conditions.  Guses what?  Several aspects of the Chantry's system fit exactly.  

Bringing up the prison system fails because of two things:  it assumes I don't have problems with the prison system and therefore wouldn't compare the two, and also it ignores that at people in prison are put there for havign COMMITTED CRIMES.

You missed my point on the Genocide accusation, but your right, that comment was foolish and I apologize for making it.

I wouldn't presume to know your opinions on the US prison system, but logic dictates that if you call the Circle system slavery, then our prisons count as well. And I very much agree that forcing mages into a prison for the crime of being born is bad. It's wrong and injust and should stop and be rebelled against and so on. I just don't think that qualifies as slavery, and disagree with your assertion that it does.

EDIT: And I will add that the genocides commited by Germans of a National and Socialist persuasion had no reason to it besides irrational hatred. They killed Jews because they thought Jews were scumbags. Templars seperate mages because they are legitamately and terrifyingly powerful.

Yet we have evidence that it is possible for mages to live freely without causing societal destruction.  I see no compelling evidence for the Chantry and Templars not to at the very least TRY things another way.

[MisterJB]

Silfren wrote...
(a) Killing members of the group;

( Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

Too broad. Not every murder commited can be seen as an attempt at genocide.

© Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
      bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

Free housing, schooling, clothing, food. Luxurious accomodations.
If anything, the Chantry has given the mages conditions of life far above the average Thedosian.

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The second doesn't fit given the fact that mages children born to Circle mages are simply delivered to a different Circle, therefore, they are not transferring them to another group unless they are non-mages in which case they don't belong to the group of the Circle mage father or mother anyway.

As for the first, while that is undeniably true, it doesn't really matter given the fact mage children can be born to perfectly normal non-mages parents so, there is no risk whatsoever of mages ceasing to exist.

[Ianamus]

MisterJB wrote...

If our world had had to deal with the reality of some people being born with the innate ability to melt others or control their minds with a flick of the wrist while also serving as beacons for demonic forces who whish to do nothing but bring harm, we would have a very different set of ethics.

I think people are all too quick to forget this. It's easy to say that you think mages should have complete freedom, but if children in real life could develop powers that let them kill people with the wave of a hand or accidentally turn themselves into abominations with the ability to destory whole towns It would be a different matter entirely. We just need to look at the news to see what kinds of awful people there are in the world, now imagine if they had the powers of a mage. 

Also, I don't think the mages in Thedas are slaves. Qunari  mages, yes I believe they could be considered slaves. But other mages, not really. Prisoners? maybe, they are definitely imprisoned. Although one could argue that quarantined is a much more appropriate word given the context. 

Modifié par EJ107, 19 avril 2013 - 02:44 .

[MisterJB]

Silfren wrote...
Yet we have evidence that it is possible for mages to live freely without causing societal destruction.  I see no compelling evidence for the Chantry and Templars not to at the very least TRY things another way.

But we have no evidence that it is possible for mages to live freely without taking over society.

[Palidane]

Silfren wrote...
Yet we have evidence that it is possible for mages to live freely without causing societal destruction.  I see no compelling evidence for the Chantry and Templars not to at the very least TRY things another way.

While I agree the current system of affairs is atrocious and must be re-worked, what evidence do you have of societies where mages live freely without blowing up a bunch of people?

Modifié par Palidane, 19 avril 2013 - 02:41 .

[Silfren]

MisterJB wrote...

Silfren wrote...
(a) Killing members of the group;

( Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

Too broad. Not every murder commited can be seen as an attempt at genocide.

© Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
      bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

Free housing, schooling, clothing, food. Luxurious accomodations.
If anything, the Chantry has given the mages conditions of life far above the average Thedosian.

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The second doesn't fit given the fact that mages children born to Circle mages are simply delivered to a different Circle, therefore, they are not transferring them to another group unless they are non-mages in which case they don't belong to the group of the Circle mage father or mother anyway.

As for the first, while that is undeniably true, it doesn't really matter given the fact mage children can be born to perfectly normal non-mages parents so, there is no risk whatsoever of mages ceasing to exist.

Argue with the U.N. if you think its definitions are too broad.  But you're not meant to look at each condition on its own, but in tandem with the others.  It is NOT too broad when it is one of three or more other conditions that all meet the requirements for genocide.

What the hell are you on about with the children thing?  You don't even know if the children will be mages until they are at least five or so years old, sometimes not for several more years.  It isn't as though you know if a child is a mage at birth.  It isn't even vaguely relevant; the point is that ALL the children of Circle mages ARE. TAKEN. AWAY. 

No risk of mages ceasing to exist?  Seriously?  I doubt that.  Especially when you also consider the larger culture, wherein people tend to avoid marrying into families with known mage lines because of the stigma attached.  How successful it is likely to be is a different matter from whether it is the goal of the people involved.  You're also forgetting that it is NOT necessary for total eradication to be the goal for genocidal conditions to be at play. 

[Silfren]

Palidane wrote...

Silfren wrote...
Yet we have evidence that it is possible for mages to live freely without causing societal destruction.  I see no compelling evidence for the Chantry and Templars not to at the very least TRY things another way.

While I agree the current system of affairs is atrocious and must be re-worked, what evidence do you have of societies where mages live freely without blowing up a bunch of people?

The Dalish for one.  The Rivaini for another.  We don't know a lot about those societies, but in the case of the latter, especially, we have a book codex, authored by a Chantry brother no less, that talks about the Rivaini mages wilingly allowing themselves to be possessed.  We also hear that the Rivaini people don't let the Chantry get a real foothold in its society specifically because the Rivaini hold their seers in high regard and won't see them locked into Circles. 

We don't have as much information as I'd like, I'll grant you.  But if Rivaini had a serious problem with magic or possession, we'd certainly have heard about it, if only because the Chantry would be all over it as evidence of why Circles are necessary and free mages are dangerous. 

[Silfren]

MisterJB wrote...

Silfren wrote...
Yet we have evidence that it is possible for mages to live freely without causing societal destruction.  I see no compelling evidence for the Chantry and Templars not to at the very least TRY things another way.

But we have no evidence that it is possible for mages to live freely without taking over society.

Nor do we have evidence that if mages live free, their takeover is inevitable.  Don't bring up Tevinter, because one society is NOT evidence of such.

Bear in mind that I have NEVER advocated that mages should live totally free of any oversight.  I simply reject entirely the idea that they MUST be forced into Circles and required to live in their present condition of forced servitude, since you hate the other s word so much.

Modifié par Silfren, 19 avril 2013 - 02:54 .

[Palidane]

Silfren wrote...
The Dalish for one.  The Rivaini for another.  We don't know a lot about those societies, but in the case of the latter, especially, we have a book codex, authored by a Chantry brother no less, that talks about the Rivaini mages wilingly allowing themselves to be possessed.  We also hear that the Rivaini people don't let the Chantry get a real foothold in its society specifically because the Rivaini hold their seers in high regard and won't see them locked into Circles.  

We don't have as much information as I'd like, I'll grant you.  But if Rivaini had a serious problem with magic or possession, we'd certainly have heard about it, if only because the Chantry would be all over it as evidence of why Circles are necessary and free mages are dangerous. 

Sorry, but that just doesn't hold water. Rivain has a Chantry, complete with Templars and a Circle. The Chantry isn't completely accepted, but they have authority there. Besides, the people that don't support the Chantry are most likely Qunari, and we all know how they feel about mages. The Rivaini mages that let themselves be possesed are apostates, like Morrigan and Flemeth.

The Dalish? Please. We've met three clans so far, and everyone of them has horribly abused their magic.
1. Zathrian's children were killed so he summoned a freaking demon from the fade, tied his life force to it, then sicced it on the humans, causing hundreds of innocent people over hundreds of years to be turned into mindless beasts by pure chance and no wrong of their own.
2. Velanna was tricked by the Awakened and wrongfully massacred a bunch of human merchants. True, this may have happened regardless, but I don't think a Dalish archer or swordsmans' body count would be quite so high. Mages have a lot of power, and every mistake they make has dire consequences.
3. Merril was a full on Maleficar who regularly communes with demons and is so easily decieved she will betray you and try to kill you at the mere suggestion of a demon.  In the end, she gets her keeper killed and maybe her whole clan because she relentlessly pursued blood magic even when everyone in the entire world knew that that was a freakin stupid thing to do.

And the Chantry doesn't have to harp on about the dangers of Dalish and Rivaini mages. They already have a perfect example of a terrible, god-awful hellhole of a society dominated by mages. You might have heard of it. It's called Tevinter.

Modifié par Palidane, 19 avril 2013 - 03:02 .

[MisterJB]

Silfren wrote...
Argue with the U.N. if you think its definitions are too broad.  But you're not meant to look at each condition on its own, but in tandem with the others.  It is NOT too broad when it is one of three or more other conditions that all meet the requirements for genocide.

Since I can't argue with the U.N, I'll argue with you. A mage murdering a non-mage or vice-versa can't be be seen, by itself and without context, as an attempt at genocide.
I see one conditions meeting the criteria and that's alinea (d).

What the hell are you on about with the children thing?  You don't even know if the children will be mages until they are at least five or so years old, sometimes not for several more years.  It isn't as though you know if a child is a mage at birth.  It isn't even vaguely relevant; the point is that ALL the children of Circle mages ARE. TAKEN. AWAY. 

Hun-hun, what you quoted clearly stated that the U.N considers an attempt at genocide to forcibly transfer the children of one group to other. In this case, that group is the Circle mages.
If the child taken from Circle mages reveal himself or herself to be a mage as well, that child is taken to a Circle therefore, s/he is returned to the group in question, Circle mages.
If s/he was not a mage, then she, by definition, does not belong to the group of "Circle mages" and therefore, taking the child from the parents can't be considered a transfer from one group to the other given the fact the child doesn't belong in the same group as the parents.
It's cruel, sure, but it can't be considered an attempt at genocide by the U.N criteria.

No risk of mages ceasing to exist?  Seriously?  I doubt that.  Especially when you also consider the larger culture, wherein people tend to avoid marrying into families with known mage lines because of the stigma attached.  How successful it is likely to be is a different matter from whether it is the goal of the people involved.

The social stigma against magics is not the product of Circle laws and therefore, it can't be considered the goal of the Circle System.
It's just the natural cultural reaction of a people who fought to free themselves from the tyranny of magic.

You're also forgetting that it is NOT necessary for total eradication to be the goal for genocidal conditions to be at play. 

Yes, that is true but the simple meeting of criterias doesn't mean that it's the attempt of the Templars and Chantry to commit mage genocide. If so, there were better ways of going at it such as killing these teenagers when discovered.
The templars do forbid Circle mages from having children but they do so because of the difficulty of mantaining the Circles if their numbers simply continue to rise.
The "one child policy" also meets the alinea (d) but it's not an attempt at genocide.

[MisterJB]

Silfren wrote...
Nor do we have evidence that if mages live free, their takeover is inevitable.  Don't bring up Tevinter, because one society is NOT evidence of such.

There's also the Dalish. And I will probrably think of another one later and wish I had posted it here.
While it's true that two examples would be considered rather scarce, there are no examples at all of societies where mages lived free and did not take over society.
How manye xamples do we need for it to become evident? 3? 5?

Bear in mind that I have NEVER advocated that mages should live totally free of any oversight.  I simply reject entirely the idea that they MUST be forced into Circles and required to live in their present condition of forced servitude, since you hate the other s word so much.

I disagree. I believe the Circle System is the only feasible way.
And they're not servants either. They're prisioners, if you must call them such.