731 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

No, I have a right to call you a liar when you lie. Do I need to quote the number of times you've posted on this forum that Decimus believes Hawke is a templar after I posted youtube evidence that this is false? Do I need to quote the number of times you've tried to say that Hawke is forced to be an Andrastian, based on your choice to pick a line that explictly endorses the belief in an afterlife?

Yes, with the other two lines just being kind of an ass. You're forced to be religiously Andrastian if you don't also want to be a jerk to Merrill. That's the non-abbreviated version of what Lobselvith has been saying.

[In Exile]

Xilizhra wrote...
Oh, I'm quite willing to investigate the claims of the Chantry by piercing the Black City too, if I ever get the capability and am somehow able to protect myself from its taint. And I was equally willing to chase down the mythical Andraste's Ashes.

That's not about the standard of evidence, or about assumptions. Investigate a claim is different from assuming it's true. As I've said: any post of yours on the question of elven immortality starts from the assumption that not only was it true, but that it was true in the way that elves described and that it went away for the race-based reasons that they give. 

Perhaps not. But we should learn whether or not this is true, and not just give up.

Learning whether or not it's true is very different from assuming on faith it's true and using it as a reason to support a racist beliefs. 

[Xilizhra]

That's not about the standard of evidence, or about assumptions. Investigate a claim is different from assuming it's true. As I've said: any post of yours on the question of elven immortality starts from the assumption that not only was it true, but that it was true in the way that elves described and that it went away for the race-based reasons that they give.

If you wish.

Learning whether or not it's true is very different from assuming on faith it's true and using it as a reason to support a racist beliefs.

Then we'll go with learning about it and make us both happy. That said, it's not racist to acknowledge physiological differences between DA races; for instance, I would not call it racist to say that elves are shorter than humans, or that dwarves are more resistant to magic than either. Similarly, I don't believe it's racist to acknowledge that human blood obliterates all characteristics of elven when they mix (and if Sandal is half-elf as well, dwarf blood has the same effect).

[In Exile]

Xilizhra wrote...
Yes, with the other two lines just being kind of an ass. You're forced to be religiously Andrastian if you don't also want to be a jerk to Merrill. That's the non-abbreviated version of what Lobselvith has been saying.

No, that's a lie. Having a choice of three dialogue options, two of which are not religious, is not the same as being forced to be religious. Let's say that I actually agree that the other two dialogue options are mean - even though they absolutely aren't - and go from there. 

That you're "forced" to be make a religous statement if you don't want to choose two non-religious statements isn't proof that the game "forces" Hawke to be religious. At most, you can argue that the game forces an atheist character who refuses to be mean to Merrill to choose between being mean and being religious. 

[Xilizhra]

In Exile wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Yes, with the other two lines just being kind of an ass. You're forced to be religiously Andrastian if you don't also want to be a jerk to Merrill. That's the non-abbreviated version of what Lobselvith has been saying.

No, that's a lie. Having a choice of three dialogue options, two of which are not religious, is not the same as being forced to be religious. Let's say that I actually agree that the other two dialogue options are mean - even though they absolutely aren't - and go from there. 

That you're "forced" to be make a religous statement if you don't want to choose two non-religious statements isn't proof that the game "forces" Hawke to be religious. At most, you can argue that the game forces an atheist character who refuses to be mean to Merrill to choose between being mean and being religious. 

I don't see it as a lie, as Lobselvith has stated repeatedly that it's this dichotomy that's the problem and not strictly autodialogue.

[In Exile]

Xilizhra wrote...
Then we'll go with learning about it and make us both happy. That said, it's not racist to acknowledge physiological differences between DA races; for instance, I would not call it racist to say that elves are shorter than humans, or that dwarves are more resistant to magic than either. Similarly, I don't believe it's racist to acknowledge that human blood obliterates all characteristics of elven when they mix (and if Sandal is half-elf as well, dwarf blood has the same effect).

It's racist to say that, when there's absolutely no evidence that (a) elves were ever or could ever be immortal; ( even if elves were, that they could regain that immortality; and © that interaction with humans is the cause to (d) suppor the creation of an all-even state and support an institutional policy of excluding humans not just from participation in the political life of that state, but from physically living within its borders.

It's also racist to assume that being an "elf" means looking like you have pointy ears and are short (or the DA2 equivalent), because you're reducing what it means to be "elven" to physical features. This is everything horrible about the very idea of "race" in our world, and what we have to fight against when we fight real-world prejudice. It ignores culture, belief, ideology, religion - everything. 

Even if some traits - like magical talent or a longer life - exist only if someone has two elven parents who only had elven parents, it's still racist to say that there's an exclusive normative and cultural demarcation between that and anything else that can be preserved through the use of military force. 

Why is it racist? Because in all these cases you're making a moral judgement about the moral value of people and of their treatment. 

Modifié par In Exile, 12 mai 2013 - 08:20 .

[In Exile]

Xilizhra wrote...
I don't see it as a lie, as Lobselvith has stated repeatedly that it's this dichotomy that's the problem and not strictly autodialogue.

It's a lie the second you use the word "forced", since you're literally going from the position that three options equals "forced". At most, he's justified in saying that for the character he RPd, he was in a situation where no in-character choice was avaiable. But there's nothing in the game that compels any player to pick that option. This garbage logic is like saying that ME3 "forces" me to play a female, because I have to be female to romance Sam Traynor (this is different, note, from saying that ME3 forces you to play female if you want to romance Sam Traynor). 

When you, as a rational agent, make that decision, and when your reasosn can't be generalized to [b]every[b/] player, you're not forced.

Look - we're all forced in DA2 to be human. No one has the choice to pick anything other than human in the vanilla game. 

[LobselVith8]

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I don't see how it's "intellectually dishonest" to address Gaider's comments and the dialogue from the Dalish, but since you dislike the Dalish, I suppose it's a moot point.

It's intellectually dishonest to use the same standard of evidence to support a point you like when you dismiss that same standard of evidence to decry a point you dislike. Beyond that, it's intellectual dishonest to use the preponderance of belief in a particular thing as truth of that when that belief exists only because of faith, not evidence. Moreover, it's intellectually dishonest to insist that one quote is divine truth and that another quote should be dismissed out of hand, when there's no justified reason to distinguish between them.

I pointed out the Chantry fable wasn't indisputable proof. That's it.

Also, one quote is supported by two games, while the other isn't. Since you seem to hate the elves, I don't expect this discussion to go anywhere.

In Exile wrote...

I don't actually dislike the Dalish, moreover, though I do dislike those who happen to be Dalish and racist. But that stems from my general dislike of racism. I also really don't like it when people endorse and promote even fictional racism, or otherwise condone it (or promote and gleefully condone crimes against humanity) which is where you and I run into problems.

It isn't racist for the Dalish to want to regain their immortality, or have their own kingdom.

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I dislike how you turn our disagreements personal and slander me. You don't have the right to call me a liar simply because I refuse to agree with your opinions.

No, I have a right to call you a liar when you lie. Do I need to quote the number of times you've posted on this forum that Decimus believes Hawke is a templar after[/b] I posted youtube evidence that this is false? Do I need to quote the number of times you've tried to say that Hawke is forced to be an Andrastian, based on your choice[/b] to pick a line that explictly[/b]endorses the belief in an afterlife?

First, the evidence isn't false, since Grace retorts that Hawke and his companions aren't templars.

Second, Hawke isn't given the option to express another point of view, as he's limited to a religiously Andrastian point of view. He can't express an atheist point of view, like The Warden could.

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I don't see anything ambiguous about Gaider saying there's a difference between the longevity of the Dalish, and the ordinary lives of the Alienage elves who don't live extraordinary lives.

DG says: "City elves have the same lifespans as humans". 

The then says: "Dalish tend to live longer."

That the Dalish live longer[/b] is not proof that the Dalish have longer lifespans[/i]. A lifespan is the biological "cap" on age. The Japanse live longer than the Romanians, but it's not right to say that the Japanese have a longer lifespan, in the same way that it's right to say that humans have a longer lifespan than flies. 

He also pointed out they seemed to live longer the more generations they lived away from humanity, so some of us are open to the possibility of there being some merit to the elven lore.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 12 mai 2013 - 08:22 .

[BlueMagitek]

Lobs, I'm the one who "hates" the Dalish, In Exile has not made that claim. Stop slinging falsities.

Modifié par BlueMagitek, 12 mai 2013 - 08:24 .

[Xilizhra]

It's racist to say that, when there's absolutely no evidence that (a) elves were ever or could ever be immortal; ( even if elves were, that they could regain that immortality; and © that interaction with humans is the cause to (d) suppor the creation of an all-even state and support an institutional policy of excluding humans not just from participation in the political life of that state, but from physically living within its borders.

So it's racist if there's no evidence. What if we find out that the Quickening was indeed caused by exactly that?

It's also racist to assume that being an "elf" means looking like you have pointy ears and are short (or the DA2 equivalent), because you're reducing what it means to be "elven" to physical features. This is everything horrible about the very idea of "race" in our world, and what we have to fight against when we fight real-world prejudice. It ignores culture, belief, ideology, religion - everything.

Perhaps. However, when you have one lone nation with a unique culture, a guppy among sharks who all have more or less the same culture, there will be no real equal give-and-take, but simple cultural imperialism. The powerful cultures will always try to either assimilate and conquer the powerless, or simply annihilate them (of course, in modern times, we can dominate their affairs without ever having to openly admit that they're part of our empires, which lets them at least cling to some aspects of their culture, but Thedas lacks our technology). And as long as Thedas' humans remain racist (and given that far too many of our own world's still are, it'll take a while), elven culture's link with the elven race will mean that the humans will want to absorb it and strip away its differences, or simply crush it.

Even if some traits - like magical talent or a longer life - exist only if someone has two elven parents who only had elven parents, it's still racist to say that there's an exclusive normative and cultural demarcation between that and anything else that can be preserved through the use of military force.

Is it not immoral to weaken one's children if you know there are advantageous traits that are being lost, or debilitating ones being concentrated? Is this not why we look down on incest?

[LobselVith8]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Lobs, I'm the one who "hates" the Dalish, In Exile has not made that claim. Stop slinging falsities.

While Exile condemns them as racist for wanting their own kingdom and having a history that links the loss of their immortality to human contact.

[In Exile]

LobselVith8 wrote...
I pointed out the Chantry fable wasn't indisputable proof. That's it.

No, that would be you being intellectually dishonest again.

Let's define the world Fable:

fa·ble  [fey-buhl]  Show IPA noun, verb, fa·bled, fa·bling.noun1.a short tale to teach a moral lesson, often with animals or inanimate objects as characters;apologue: the fable of the tortoise and the hare; Aesop's fables.2.a story not founded on fact: This biography is largely a self-laudatory fable.3.a story about supernatural or extraordinary persons or incidents; legend: the fables of gods and heroes.4.legends or myths collectively: the heroes of Greek fable.5.an untruth; falsehood: This boast of a cure is a medical fable.
You're obviously using the word to mean either 2 or 5, which are both positive claims that something is false, not a neutral claim that something isn't support by evidence.

Also, one quote is supported by two games, while the other isn't. Since you seem to hate the elves, I don't expect this discussion to go anywhere.

There's no evidence in the games for it. This is what makes your argument so intellectually bankrupt. 

It isn't racist for the Dalish to want to regain their immortality, or have their own kingdom.

It's racist to use an unsubstantiated belief into immortality to create a racially segregated state and to forcefully expel people of a particular racial background out of your borders, as a matter of state policy, becuase of it.

It's also racist to believe you're inherently superior to other groups of people for that reason, and to want to use your racially segregated state to build a race of all-mage immortals. 

First, the evidence isn't false, since Grace retorts that Hawke and his companions aren't templars.

And then what does Decimus say again? Ah, that's right - "what do I care what shield they carry?". Nope, you're still a liar.

Second, Hawke isn't given the option to express another point of view, as he's limited to a religiously Andrastian point of view. He can't express an atheist point of view, like The Warden could.

That doesn't mean you're forced to be an Andrastian. That means you're forced not to express an atheist view. 

He also pointed out they seemed to live longer the more generations they lived away from humanity, so some of us are open to the possibility of there being some merit to the elven lore.

And MK dismisses that. But you're still cherry picking statements, being intellectually dishonest. 

[Xilizhra]

It's a bit unrealistic.

Hardly. MLKJ had the advantage of mass media ensuring that his image would be very widely seen and remembered, and he only died around fifty years ago. It's been centuries since Garahel killed Andoral, and he'd probably be remembered as a Grey Warden more than an elf.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

StreetMagic wrote...

In the Elves' defense, I find it curious that none of their iconic figures have made much of a dent in human society. I don't know if it's that just neglect by the writers, or intentional. You'd think with a hero like Garahel (or if the Warden in DAO was elvish), it'd improve their lot more. Like how Martin Luther King has inspired people of all walks of life. Instead, Garahel slays an archdemon, and the world carries on. It's a bit unrealistic.

Not really. There were impressive black people irl (and they are the best irl parallel I can draw), and racially demarcated slavery and apartheid were still things. The latter, in fact, was a thing until within living memory. I think I remember MLK saying that the whites felt sorry for them for being alone in their accomplishments, and responded by making sure nobody else was alone by stopping black people from accomplishing things. (He was probably being sarcastic, but the point remains.)

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 12 mai 2013 - 08:53 .

[In Exile]

Xilizhra wrote...
So it's racist if there's no evidence. What if we find out that the Quickening was indeed caused by exactly that?

The Dales would still be racist, because they didn't have evidence. 

Beyond that, it would matter a great deal what the actual evidence was. A lot of what is justified turns on the mechanism.

We might imagine three different situations. 

(1) So long as a single human lives, no elf can be immortal.
(2) So long as a single human lives on the same continent, no elf can be immortal.
(3) So long as a single human lives within 50 feet, no elf can be immortal. 

In the case of (1), the moral answer is that no one gets to be immortal, unless you're about to start advocating for the genocide of all humans in existence. In the case of (2), then the answer is that elves don't get to be immortal unless they can find a land where there are no humans, or if they can negotiate a small piece of isolated land for themselves. 

In the case of (3), then yes, for those who want to be immortal, then their attempted isolation someplace far-away is justified.But plopping a kingdom in the centre of human lands and insisting that military force should be used to keep all persons out of it would still not, in my view, be a justified use of force. 

To the extent that the elves find somewhere isolated and use force to keep humans out, in the case of (3), I would argue that they are justified. 

Perhaps. However, when you have one lone nation with a unique culture, a guppy among sharks who all have more or less the same culture, there will be no real equal give-and-take, but simple cultural imperialism.

Absolutely, which is why I think the elves are justified in using force to protect their culture. But notice that none of this requires any kind of racist justification. 

The powerful cultures will always try to either assimilate and conquer the powerless, or simply annihilate them (of course, in modern times, we can dominate their affairs without ever having to openly admit that they're part of our empires, which lets them at least cling to some aspects of their culture, but Thedas lacks our technology). And as long as Thedas' humans remain racist (and given that far too many of our own world's still are, it'll take a while), elven culture's link with the elven race will mean that the humans will want to absorb it and strip away its differences, or simply crush it.

Given that the Orlesians crushed and almost eradicated elven culture without needing some disturbing breeding program to do it, I'm not following your link to race. 

Is it not immoral to weaken one's children if you know there are advantageous traits that are being lost, or debilitating ones being concentrated? Is this not why we look down on incest?

No, it's not immoral. Do you think it's immoral for parents to have children if they're aware that there is a risk of a hereditary disorder? Becuase I have news for you - as an Ashke**** Jew my children would be at much higher risk for a lot of genetic conditions. Do you think I have a moral obligation not to have kids? 

Not to mention that, again, there's no evidence that any advantegous traits are being lost. And certainly children of incest won't say that their existence is unwanted because they might have developed some disability. You're getting very close to saying that the life of someone who's living with a disability is somehow worth less. 

There are lots of cultural and social reasons that we look down on incest, and only some of them have to do with the risk of passing on particular genetic conditions. 

[In Exile]

StreetMagic wrote...

Weird, they censored Ashke**** Jew. How terrible is that.

Well... that just weirds me out, because I never realized that word is part of it. It just makes me feel dirty. 

Modifié par In Exile, 12 mai 2013 - 09:03 .

[Heimdall]

StreetMagic wrote...

In the Elves' defense, I find it curious that none of their iconic figures have made much of a dent in human society. I don't know if it's that just neglect by the writers, or intentional. You'd think with a hero like Garahel (or if the Warden in DAO was elvish), it'd improve their lot more. Like how Martin Luther King has inspired people of all walks of life. Instead, Garahel slays an archdemon, and the world carries on. It's a bit unrealistic.

MLK specifically fought for civil rights.  Garahel's achievments were of a different sort and his being an elf was probably considered secondary to being a grey warden.  Its not really a great analogy.

[Xilizhra]

The Dales would still be racist, because they didn't have evidence.

Beyond that, it would matter a great deal what the actual evidence was. A lot of what is justified turns on the mechanism.

We might imagine three different situations.

(1) So long as a single human lives, no elf can be immortal.
(2) So long as a single human lives on the same continent, no elf can be immortal.
(3) So long as a single human lives within 50 feet, no elf can be immortal.

In the case of (1), the moral answer is that no one gets to be immortal, unless you're about to start advocating for the genocide of all humans in existence. In the case of (2), then the answer is that elves don't get to be immortal unless they can find a land where there are no humans, or if they can negotiate a small piece of isolated land for themselves.

In the case of (3), then yes, for those who want to be immortal, then their attempted isolation someplace far-away is justified.But plopping a kingdom in the centre of human lands and insisting that military force should be used to keep all persons out of it would still not, in my view, be a justified use of force.

To the extent that the elves find somewhere isolated and use force to keep humans out, in the case of (3), I would argue that they are justified.

Fortunately, 3 seems to be the only one consistent with the Quickening as the elves have described it. 1 is very obviously not true, unless the period between humans evolving and gaining oceangoing ships was so tiny that the elves didn't notice their immortality loss in the interim.

Given that the Orlesians crushed and almost eradicated elven culture without needing some disturbing breeding program to do it, I'm not following your link to race.

Let me put it like this: do you think that any humans who weren't raised by elves to begin with would join the Dalish? Assimilate into their own society? Would the humans treat the elves as equals in general?
Ultimately, the elves, either race or culture, will not be treated as equal until either human society becomes enlightened enough to extend it, or until they have enough power to demand it. I can hardly blame them for pursuing the latter course.

No, it's not immoral. Do you think it's immoral for parents to have children if they're aware that there is a risk of a hereditary disorder? Becuase I have news for you - as an Ashke**** Jew my children would be at much higher risk for a lot of genetic conditions. Do you think I have a moral obligation not to have kids?

It would definitely be immoral if you didn't make special preparations to handle said genetic conditions beforehand. It would also be immoral if the condition was severe and probable enough.

Not to mention that, again, there's no evidence that any advantegous traits are being lost. And certainly children of incest won't say that their existence is unwanted because they might have developed some disability. You're getting very close to saying that the life of someone who's living with a disability is somehow worth less.

Not at all. Once they're here already, they of course have the same rights as anyone else. But why encourage the creation of more, given the plethora of unwanted children up for adoption?

[Sir JK]

StreetMagic: The reason the situation of the elves have not improved is equally much that the elves were prevented from doing so, but also because they never ceased the opportunity to do so when they could. Had the elves taken his example and enough of them would have dedicated themselves to a life of selfless service, then they could certainly have turned their lot around.
It would have been incredibly difficult, yes. It would have required sacrefices. And a great deal of pride would have had to been swallowed. But eventually, humanity would have started to look upon the elves in a different light.

But they didn't. Not that they should be faulted for that mind. It would have been extremely daunting a task.

And, in an attempt to bring this topic back to the mages which it is about (we're discussing elves over in the other topic): The same really applies to the mages. They really do have everything they need to improve their standing in the eyes of everyone around them. Even despite Chantry and Templars. And if they work hard enough, eventually the Chantry will shift it's focus in it's sermons to deemphasize mage responsibility for what happen.
It's an uphill struggle, and finding a way to deal with possession, blood magic and the inherent power they possess in a manner acceptable to the people around them is as much on their heads as it is on the non-mages. The important bit is the work done in peace however... the only thing violence can really achieve in the long run is making the various factions so spent and tired that they can't bother to kill one another anymore.

Inspiring people are all well and good. But people as a group only change when lots of people start to actively work for a change. Peacefully.

[MisterJB]

LobselVith8 wrote...
While Exile condemns them as racist for wanting their own kingdom and having a history that links the loss of their immortality to human contact.

You don't think there is something racist with wanting a state where only your race is allowed entry and believing that
your race used to have a superior lifespan until contact with that other race with their inferior lifespans shortened your own?
Really? I mean, really?