1799 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

MisterJB wrote...

The exception that proves the rule, nothing else.
And it's hardly a society. Just a really large family. No society in Thedas has ever given the same value to both groups or argued that mages and non-mages are equal and should be treated in the same manner. All that differs is who dominates. Sometimes mages, sometimes non-mages.

Proof would be nice.  As things are, if you have a theory, and I can show a counter-example, then I've disproven the theory.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Dobbysaurus wrote...

I'm Pro Nug. Those fuzzies are all I care about.

A veteran of the Battle of the Squealing Plains I see.......

-Polaris

[Tootles FTW]

Mungolian_ wrote...

I hope there's a middle of the road option. I support additional freedoms for mages. Phylacteries for instance and the whole taken away almost at birth situation, I don't agree with. However, at the same time, I also don't believe they should be completely without some sort of oversight. They'd probably able to supervise themselves, but I'd like a slow transition to that.

^My thoughts, pretty much.  My character, when allowed, will always be the peacemaker.  I find it difficult (which is a good thing, story-wise) to find personal reasoning for why I would throw myself into 100% either camp - both have their serious issues and legitimate grievances.
The Circle should be less of a jail and more of a school with an open door policy to families and (trained) mages who care to travel.

[Beerfish]

Dobbysaurus wrote...

I'm Pro Nug. Those fuzzies are all I care about.

You mean a cute Nug named Bessie?

[MisterJB]

IanPolaris wrote...
Proof would be nice.  As things are, if you have a theory, and I can show a counter-example, then I've disproven the theory.

Not a counter-example, an exception. It is a rule of nature that human beings have a survival instict. That hasn't stopped some from commiting suicide but the rule is still that human beings possess a survival instinct.

I've provided plenty of proof such as every thedosian society ever where mages were free ending up with mages dominating non-mages by simple "virtue" of possessing magic. And it makes perfect sense since it's only natural for human beings to use superior skils to assert dominance over those who lack these skills like we have done since the dawn of mankind to extablish ourselves as the dominant species on planet Earth.
You are the one who has failed to provide evidence against this other than the mention of a single group which was more akin to a large family than an actual society and where mages were present solely for gameplay purposes.

Modifié par MisterJB, 10 juin 2013 - 04:41 .

[IanPolaris]

MisterJB wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Proof would be nice.  As things are, if you have a theory, and I can show a counter-example, then I've disproven the theory.

Not a counter-example, an exception. It is a rule of nature that human beings have a survival instict. That hasn't stopped some from commiting suicide but the rule is still that human beings possess a survival instinct.

I've provided plenty of proof such as every thedosian society ever where mages were free ending up with mages dominating non-mages by simple "virtue" of possessing magic. And it makes perfect sense since it's only natural for human beings to use superior skils to assert dominance over those who lack these skills like we have done since the dawn of mankind to extablish ourselves as the dominant species on planet Earth.
You are the one who has failed to provide evidence against this other than the mention of a single group which was more akin to a large family than an actual society and where mages were present solely for gameplay purposes.

Again you are committing a logical fallacy.  Correlation does not imply causation.  It never has.  You have to PROVE this and you haven't.

-Polaris

Edit PS;  Failing a proof, at best you are submitting an empirical theory.  The problem with an empirical thoery delivered in the scientific sense is that a single counter-example makes the theory wrong.  I have provided at least one counter-example.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 10 juin 2013 - 04:46 .

[VampireSoap]

I think the main issue here is that no matter which side wins, Right after the conflict's ended, the qunari are definitely going to invade the weakened southern kingdoms again. And this time, without the circle of magi and the chantry's ability to summon an Exalted March cuz their whole organization's in chaos, the qunaris are most likely going to win...And then everyone's individual identity will be taken away forever after they get assimilated into the Qun.

[MisterJB]

VampireSoap wrote...

I think the main issue here is that no matter which side wins, Right after the conflict's ended, the qunari are definitely going to invade the weakened southern kingdoms again. And this time, without the circle of magi and the chantry's ability to summon an Exalted March cuz their whole organization's in chaos, the qunaris are most likely going to win...And then everyone's individual identity will be taken away forever after they get assimilated into the Qun.

Meh, if I have to choose between the Qun and Tevinter, I'll pick the Qun 100% of the time. At least, they believe in equality and elevation of the common man.
It has happened before in Seheron and Par-Vollen. Many humans and elves have preferred the Qun over the tyranny of a magocracy.

[IanPolaris]

VampireSoap wrote...

I think the main issue here is that no matter which side wins, Right after the conflict's ended, the qunari are definitely going to invade the weakened southern kingdoms again. And this time, without the circle of magi and the chantry's ability to summon an Exalted March cuz their whole organization's in chaos, the qunaris are most likely going to win...And then everyone's individual identity will be taken away forever after they get assimilated into the Qun.

That's certainly a strong possibility, but I'd say it depends strongly on how the conflict is resolved.  If the conflict is somehow resolved more-or-less peacefully (probably with both sides equally disastisfied), there may be quite a bit of mage support for the Andrastian armies (and possibly more than the Qunari had been led to believe).  This would be especially true if the terms of whatever agreement/peace permitted the full integration of magic into the Andrastian armies.

-Polaris

[MisterJB]

IanPolaris wrote...
Again you are committing a logical fallacy.  Correlation does not imply causation.  It never has.  You have to PROVE this and you haven't.

-Polaris

Edit PS;  Failing a proof, at best you are submitting an empirical theory.  The problem with an empirical thoery delivered in the scientific sense is that a single counter-example makes the theory wrong.  I have provided at least one counter-example.

Again you are ignoring the fact I've already proved that in at least two of these societies; the two mosty well known ones; that the reason mages are leaders is purely and solely because of their magic; both because their cultures elevate them above non-mages and also, logically, because they can throw a fireball at anyone who disagrees. It's in the last page, go see it if you wish.

There is a difference between healthy skepticism and ignoring evidence because it contradicts your belief. I accept Haven exists but I believe it was an unrepeatable anomaly. You are seeing multiple evidence of magical domination and claiming it's not there.

[IanPolaris]

MisterJB wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Again you are committing a logical fallacy.  Correlation does not imply causation.  It never has.  You have to PROVE this and you haven't.

-Polaris

Edit PS;  Failing a proof, at best you are submitting an empirical theory.  The problem with an empirical thoery delivered in the scientific sense is that a single counter-example makes the theory wrong.  I have provided at least one counter-example.

Again you are ignoring the fact I've already proved that in at least two of these societies; the two mosty well known ones; that the reason mages are leaders is purely and solely because of their magic; both because their cultures elevate them above non-mages and also, logically, because they can throw a fireball at anyone who disagrees. It's in the last page, go see it if you wish.

There is a difference between healthy skepticism and ignoring evidence because it contradicts your belief. I accept Haven exists but I believe it was an unrepeatable anomaly. You are seeing multiple evidence of magical domination and claiming it's not there.

No, you've given a biased interpretation.  What you need to show is that if I mix a group of mages and mundanes, that the mages will always come out on top socially.

You haven't come close to proving that, and I have provided a counter-example.

-Polaris

[Renmiri1]

:wizard::wizard::wizard:

Any questions ? 

[Dave of Canada]

Renmiri1 wrote...

:wizard::wizard::wizard:

Any questions ? 

This seems fitting.

[MisterJB]

We've mixed groups and mages have come out on top 100% of the time. We've analyzed their culture and we see that the reason this ocurred was because of magic.
But, apparently, this is "biased interpretation". See what pro-templars must contend with?

Tell you what, why don't you try to present some evidence that the reason mages dominate whenever they are free is not because of magic?
Let me guess, you're just going to say "Haven" again, right?

[Renmiri1]

Mages rule Templars drool ?

[dragonflight288]

I stand with the mages as the templars and the chantry have proven over the last thousand years that they cannot be trusted with their authority and power, unles the mages on an institutional level show they also cannot be trusted.

[glosoli]

I'm with the mages, too. Templars are way too corrupt.

[IanPolaris]

MisterJB wrote...

We've mixed groups and mages have come out on top 100% of the time.

They don't though.  I have shown a counter-example.  Therefore your model is false or incomplete or both.
 

We've analyzed their culture and we see that the reason this ocurred was because of magic.
But, apparently, this is "biased interpretation". See what pro-templars must contend with?

Have you honestly analyzed all factors.  Do you weigh in being a mage as opposed to other factors?  Do you look at the control groups honestly and with the same emphasis?

I don't think so.

Tell you what, why don't you try to present some evidence that the reason mages dominate whenever they are free is not because of magic?
Let me guess, you're just going to say "Haven" again, right?

All I have to do is provide a counter-example.  I have.  You have to PROVE that mages automatically dominate mundanes.  Remember kiddos, correlation (even if we accepted all the examples) still doesn't show causation.

-Polaris

[Sir JK]

I'm in favour of peace personally and given that I am very much a pragmatist and a bit of a "better three years in tyranny than three days in anarchy"-kind of person this means I'm inclined towards status quo more than reaching for lofty goals. I'm also concerned that normal people have very little to put against mages as a whole, which also pushes me towards a moderate pro-templar stance.

But given how much many mages suffer, it's not a stance I'm entirely confident with. That the current system does not work is obvious and returning back to it is a complete no-go. Reform is needed. Badly.

I just don't think war is the right way. Not that I fault any mage for reaching for it.

[MisterJB]

IanPolaris wrote...
They don't though.  I have shown a counter-example.  Therefore your model is false or incomplete or both.

No, you have shown an anomaly that is not applicable to Thedas because Haven is not even a society.
But fine, let's say I accept Haven is an utopia of equality, do tell us exactly what in Tevinter or the Dalish makes mages the dominant social group if not magic.

 

Have you honestly analyzed all factors.  Do you weigh in being a mage as opposed to other factors?  Do you look at the control groups honestly and with the same emphasis?

Yes.

All I have to do is provide a counter-example.  I have.  You have to PROVE that mages automatically dominate mundanes.  Remember kiddos, correlation (even if we accepted all the examples) still doesn't show causation.

Yeah, I'm starting to believe you don't know the meaning of those words considering I've proven the cause for mages to dominate in those societies is only and exclusively their magic.

[luna1124]

Beerfish wrote...


You mean a cute Nug named Bessie?

HA! Poor little Nug

[Peer of the Empire]

with the Inquisition

[IanPolaris]

MisterJB wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
They don't though.  I have shown a counter-example.  Therefore your model is false or incomplete or both.

No, you have shown an anomaly that is not applicable to Thedas because Haven is not even a society.
But fine, let's say I accept Haven is an utopia of equality, do tell us exactly what in Tevinter or the Dalish makes mages the dominant social group if not magic.

I dispute your characterisation of the Dalish society both Modern and the Kingdom of the Dales.  There are multiple ways to interpret it.  One thing I can tell you for certain is that the Dalish are emphatically not a mageocracy.  The other thing I can say is that the Dalish willingly choose this system (something that can't really be said of Tevinter given it's slavery).  Here's a hint:  Magic isn't necessarily the most important thing when it comes to Dalish soceity and the evidence shows that it's actually not all that important overall.

The point about Haven is that I have shown at least one society where mages and mundanes live alongside each other peacefully and it isn't run by mages (no matter how you stretch it).  That proves that it's not an invariable rule that all societies that allow for mage participation in society must be ruled by mages.  Thus your claim has been DISPROVEN.

 

Have you honestly analyzed all factors.  Do you weigh in being a mage as opposed to other factors?  Do you look at the control groups honestly and with the same emphasis?

Yes.

Hardly.  There are many ways to view each of the non-Andrastaian societies.  You choose to look at them entirely with the mage-Tevinter premise.  That isn't an honeset or unbiased analysis.

All I have to do is provide a counter-example.  I have.  You have to PROVE that mages automatically dominate mundanes.  Remember kiddos, correlation (even if we accepted all the examples) still doesn't show causation.

Yeah, I'm starting to believe you don't know the meaning of those words considering I've proven the cause for mages to dominate in those societies is only and exclusively their magic.

You have yet to prove that, and the italicized part of your statment is demonstrably UNTRUE for the Dalish.  We see many Dalish mages (esp in Zathrien's clan) that are mages but are relatively unimportant.  Likewise we see many mundanes in the Dalish clans that hold very important leadership positions.  That means that at least for the Dalish the italized part of your statement is FALSE.  The only thing that you can cling to is that the keepers are mages (but per Felcia Day, even that may not be entirely so, there may be non-mage Dalish Keepers).

-Polaris