4643 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Well in that case we won't have to disqualify a single Templar, since annulments aren't genocide.

Obliteration of a biological grouping within a nation, in whole or in part? I rather think it is.

I'm not surprised that you would try to pin such a loaded term, for the hope of trying to bring even more buzz to your cause. Still doesn't chagne anything. Annulments aren't genocide, no matter how much of a simplification you try to pin on it.

Well, since I made my argument for how it fits the definition, I'll get back to you after you try to actually disprove that.

[MisterJB]

ianvillan wrote...
What Cullen said was he views tranquillity as a mercy and that their is an argument to apply it more widely, but because the mages have made it clear they view the ritual as no better than death that the mages want no controls on them at all.

So because the mages don't want the be killed it means that they don't want controls on them, Cullen views using a right which he admits the mages view as a death sentence as a form of control of the mages. 

Ok, let me try again:

"The Tranquil ritual was created as a mercy so that mages need not be killed out of hand for a threat they might pose. There is an argument to be made for applying it more widely. But the mages have made it clear they view the ritual as no better than death. They want no controls on them at all."

Nowhere in this quote does Cullen ever state his opinion; all he is doing is stating facts. "The Tranquil ritual was created as a mercy" is an historical fact, it does not mean Cullen believes it is a mercy; HINT: it is.
And mages have given evidence that they don't want controls over them at all through actions like Uldred and Fiona's rebellion.

[EmperorSahlertz]

You have taken a single part of the defininition and tried to hamfist it in. Once you actually take the entire definition and try to apply it, with context, you can have a meaningful discussion. Until you actually comprehend what genocide is, then we can discus it. Otherwise it is pointless. If you can't even see that the Circle system itself is actually closer to genocide than the Annulments, then any attempt at educating you on genocide is hopeless, and ultimately pointless.

[Xilizhra]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

You have taken a single part of the defininition and tried to hamfist it in. Once you actually take the entire definition and try to apply it, with context, you can have a meaningful discussion. Until you actually comprehend what genocide is, then we can discus it. Otherwise it is pointless. If you can't even see that the Circle system itself is actually closer to genocide than the Annulments, then any attempt at educating you on genocide is hopeless, and ultimately pointless.

"The deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, caste, religious, or national group." I rather think that's the whole definition.

[ianvillan]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

LOLandStuff wrote...

You can blame that on Anders. In act III it was visible Meredith was losing it, with or without the idol (idol just accelerated it), and you didn't need to be a genius to see Meredith was just waiting for a reason to declare RoA and he gave her just that.
I could say that after the Chantry was destroyed, everyone was in shock and wanted to take it out on mages since it was a mage's fault. I don't agree with what they did but I understand people will want blood and someone to blame. And the more the better.
And Tranquility should be used on willing mages or dangerous cases, if they don't turn into abominations first.

In DAO Greagoir was willing to kill Wynne some mage apprentices and mage children in his right of annulment just because of the actions of Uldred and a few mages how is that different from Anders willing to kill the reverend mother and some innocent Chantry people and citizens because of the actions of Meredith.

Now I don't agree with what Anders did but you cant say that Anders was wrong while accepting it from the Templars.

It is different because Greagoir actually had a reason to believe that all of them were already compromised. He had no way to be sure, other than kill them all. A single Abomination can be catastrophic, and as such leaving someone alive, can bring disaster down the road.

I don't agree with what Anders did but he felt that the chantry were murdering mages and lots of other abuses, he waited years in Kirkwall for it to change for the Chantry or Templars to do something about it he had no reason to expect anything to change concerning the treatment of mages so he did the only course of action he could think of, just like Greagoir and other knight commanders who will kill all mages in a tower for the actions of a few.

To support Greagoir and other knight commanders who do the right of annulment which is the wrong thing and is against what being a Templar is meant to be is the same as supporting Anders who did the wrong thing and against justice.

[EmperorSahlertz]

It is wrong to kill abominations running amok through a tower?

[EmperorSahlertz]

Xilizhra wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

You have taken a single part of the defininition and tried to hamfist it in. Once you actually take the entire definition and try to apply it, with context, you can have a meaningful discussion. Until you actually comprehend what genocide is, then we can discus it. Otherwise it is pointless. If you can't even see that the Circle system itself is actually closer to genocide than the Annulments, then any attempt at educating you on genocide is hopeless, and ultimately pointless.

"The deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, caste, religious, or national group." I rather think that's the whole definition.

It is the wikipedia definition yes. Come again when you have actually done some proper research.

[Xilizhra]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

It is wrong to kill abominations running amok through a tower?

It's wrong to go in with the express intent of killing all mages. If you go in and kill proven abominations alone, that's a different matter, but it was not what Greagoir was proposing.

It is the wikipedia definition yes. Come again when you have actually done some proper research.

If you actually look, it's from Victims' Rights and Advocacy at the International Criminal Court.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 30 octobre 2013 - 01:15 .

[ianvillan]

MisterJB wrote...

ianvillan wrote...
What Cullen said was he views tranquillity as a mercy and that their is an argument to apply it more widely, but because the mages have made it clear they view the ritual as no better than death that the mages want no controls on them at all.

So because the mages don't want the be killed it means that they don't want controls on them, Cullen views using a right which he admits the mages view as a death sentence as a form of control of the mages. 

Ok, let me try again:

"The Tranquil ritual was created as a mercy so that mages need not be killed out of hand for a threat they might pose. There is an argument to be made for applying it more widely. But the mages have made it clear they view the ritual as no better than death. They want no controls on them at all."

Nowhere in this quote does Cullen ever state his opinion; all he is doing is stating facts. "The Tranquil ritual was created as a mercy" is an historical fact, it does not mean Cullen believes it is a mercy; HINT: it is.
And mages have given evidence that they don't want controls over them at all through actions like Uldred and Fiona's rebellion.

Where is the historical fact that the right was created as a mercy for mages, (which it is not). Cullen is stating a personal opinion that the right is a mercy and that he views it as such, which implies that he agrees with it.

He states that it is used for a threat a mage might pose not a threat that they do pose there saying that all mages pose a threat and should be made tranquil. He says there is an argument for it to be applied more widely and says nothing about arguments against it being applied more widely, so he is inserting his opinion that it should be used more widely.

Cullen said that the mages don't want to be controlled because they are against a right which would kill them.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Xilizhra wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

It is wrong to kill abominations running amok through a tower?

It's wrong to go in with the express intent of killing all mages. If you go in and kill proven abominations alone, that's a different matter, but it was not what Greagoir was proposing.

They don't intent to kill any mages. They intent to prevent the Abominations from spreading. Sadly there have been no scientifically proven way of discerning wether or not someone is possessed yet, so the Templars can't take any chances and they will have to purge the tower in its entirety. As you probably don't think, the Templars would PROBABLY also have killed all caught Templars within the tower, simply because they wouldn't be able to discern wether or not they were possessed.

Xilizhra wrote...

It is the wikipedia definition yes. Come again when you have actually done some proper research.

If you actually look, it's from Victims' Rights and Advocacy at the International Criminal Court.

Which continues to further define and discuss the term for the following 50 pages. Happy reading, come back when you are done and actually know something about what you are talking.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 30 octobre 2013 - 01:25 .

[Xilizhra]

They don't intent to kill any mages. They intent to prevent the Abominations from spreading. Sadly there have been no scientifically proven way of discerning wether or not someone is possessed yet, so the Templars can't take any chances and they will have to purge the tower in its entirety. As you probably don't think, the Templars would PROBABLY also have killed all caught Templars within the tower, simply because they wouldn't be able to discern wether or not they were possessed.

They have the intent to kill all mages, regardless of their reason why. Killing all templars as well does not make the mages any less dead.

Which continues to further define and discuss the term for the following 50 pages. Happy reading, come back when you are done and actually know something about what you are talking.

I already read it, I just didn't want to quote the whole article. For instance, the first six stages are already constantly in place in the Stanton model, and the International Criminal Court convention has condition A. as used by the Annulment, in addition to condition E. already being in effect. Do you have anything substantial to say at all, or are you just obfuscating?

Modifié par Xilizhra, 30 octobre 2013 - 01:30 .

[ianvillan]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

It is wrong to kill abominations running amok through a tower?

No it is what Templars are meant to do, Greagoir was not doing it.

What is wrong is to leave the mages you took an oath to protect in there to die while you hide.

It is wrong to murder the surviving mages or the tranquilise the surviving mages including the children because there might be a slight chance they might be possessed and you never bothered to check.

It is wrong to hide while a mage and two apprentices fight a rage demon to protect mage children.

Templar supporters support Greagoir in hiding and doing nothing to help the mages he had vowed to protect, they support him in wanting to kill innocent mages with no proof of possession or collaboration with the blood-mages.

Yet they hate Anders who started out healing people against Templar orders, who witnessed his lover be made tranquil illegally, who knew about the abuses the Templars were committing with no punishment, who produced a manifesto to try to get the message out peacefully. Anders witnessed all this for years until he decided he had to force the issue. Anders knew what he had done was wrong as was willing to die because of it.

[MisterJB]

ianvillan wrote...
Where is the historical fact that the right was created as a mercy for mages, (which it is not). Cullen is stating a personal opinion that the right is a mercy and that he views it as such, which implies that he agrees with it.

He states that it is used for a threat a mage might pose not a threat that they do pose there saying that all mages pose a threat and should be made tranquil. He says there is an argument for it to be applied more widely and says nothing about arguments against it being applied more widely, so he is inserting his opinion that it should be used more widely..

Ok, do you know the difference between stating an opinion and stating a fact?

If I say: "A great number of middle-easterners view Osama Bin Laden as a hero." does that I view Osama Bin Laden in the same light? No, I'm just saying that many people do which is a fact.
Applying it to here, what Cullen says is: "There are argument for applying the Rite more widely." He is not saying that he is for or against these argument, he is just saying they exist.
Do you understand now?

As for the historical fact, Cullen is telling you one right then and there "The Rite of Tranquility was created as a mercy."

Cullen said that the mages don't want to be controlled because they are against a right which would kill them.

Cullen said that mages don't want restrictions on them which is true given the great number of mages we have seen that don't want restrictions over them.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...
Well, he's accommodating the idea of the Tranquil Solution and being incredibly disingenuous about how mages reasonably see it. Not all he says is truthful in any case.

Yes it is. All of it.
Mages cannot be threated the same as everyone else.
It's is a hard truth that mages don't want to hear.

Murdering mages only trying to defend themselves in the Annulment... unless he was just hanging back and letting everyone else do it, which is really no better.

Do you know what an Annulment is? A desperate last measure to protect the mundanes fro ma circle goone corrupt.
And there wee blood mages planety in Kirkwall.

Mages were protecting themselves? Yes there were. So do the soldiers on the other side who shoot at you.
So does everyone else too.

[Lotion Soronarr]

ianvillan wrote...
I have never said he was abusive to mages but he is like Meredith and would like all mages to be made tranquil or be killed which is not what a Templar is supposed to be about.

If Cullen did replace Meredith in act 2 the same events would of occurred with Cullen in charge, and an argument could be made that the reason he turned against Meredith was not for the mages but because he knew it could make the Templars look bad and give more sympathy to the mages. 

Pft. You got nothing to support you but your fantasies.

An argument could be made? Well, and argument could be made for anything.

Maybe the reason you saved that kitten from the tree isn't compassion, but rather you wanted to bring her home so you could torture it!
You are a terrible monster ian. Hell, even your name spells villan.
What more proof do we need?
GUILTY!

[Xilizhra]

Yes it is. All of it.
Mages cannot be threated the same as everyone else.
It's is a hard truth that mages don't want to hear.

Then what should have been said was "mages have to be treated as different people."

Do you know what an Annulment is? A desperate last measure to protect the mundanes fro ma circle goone corrupt.
And there wee blood mages planety in Kirkwall.

And the concept is fiendish, corrupt, and not used correctly unless there are no innocent mages left at all.

Mages were protecting themselves? Yes there were. So do the soldiers on the other side who shoot at you.

The templars were committing murder, not protecting themselves.

[ianvillan]

MisterJB wrote...

ianvillan wrote...
Where is the historical fact that the right was created as a mercy for mages, (which it is not). Cullen is stating a personal opinion that the right is a mercy and that he views it as such, which implies that he agrees with it.

He states that it is used for a threat a mage might pose not a threat that they do pose there saying that all mages pose a threat and should be made tranquil. He says there is an argument for it to be applied more widely and says nothing about arguments against it being applied more widely, so he is inserting his opinion that it should be used more widely..

Ok, do you know the difference between stating an opinion and stating a fact?

If I say: "A great number of middle-easterners view Osama Bin Laden as a hero." does that I view Osama Bin Laden in the same light? No, I'm just saying that many people do which is a fact.
Applying it to here, what Cullen says is: "There are argument for applying the Rite more widely." He is not saying that he is for or against these argument, he is just saying they exist.
Do you understand now?

As for the historical fact, Cullen is telling you one right then and there "The Rite of Tranquility was created as a mercy."

Cullen said that the mages don't want to be controlled because they are against a right which would kill them.

Cullen said that mages don't want restrictions on them which is true given the great number of mages we have seen that don't want restrictions over them.

If Anders said the right of tranquillity was created because the Templars feared mages and wished to punish them would that be a historical fact.

Cullen never said that mages don't want restrictions on them about Uldred or Fiona or even Anders manifesto, he states that the mages view the right of tranquillity as death and because they view it as death it should not be used so it means mages don't want to be controlled.

Cullen says mages are not human are you saying he does not agree with that statement just because some other Templars might also say it.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Star fury wrote...
(To Hawke, Enemies Among Us, Act I) "Mages cannot be treated like people. They are not like you and me. They are weapons. They have the power to light a city on fire in a fit of pique." 

This line is actually terrifying and disgusting. It is on par with the "Tranquil solution". 

There is nothing disgusting about that line.

Mages cannot be treated like everyone else.
It is a fact that they are not like regular people.

Do you handle an egg the same way you handle a coconut? You don't.

[ianvillan]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

ianvillan wrote...
I have never said he was abusive to mages but he is like Meredith and would like all mages to be made tranquil or be killed which is not what a Templar is supposed to be about.

If Cullen did replace Meredith in act 2 the same events would of occurred with Cullen in charge, and an argument could be made that the reason he turned against Meredith was not for the mages but because he knew it could make the Templars look bad and give more sympathy to the mages. 

Pft. You got nothing to support you but your fantasies.

An argument could be made? Well, and argument could be made for anything.

Maybe the reason you saved that kitten from the tree isn't compassion, but rather you wanted to bring her home so you could torture it!
You are a terrible monster ian. Hell, even your name spells villan.
What more proof do we need?
GUILTY!

What arguments is there that if Cullen replaced Meredith in act 2 he would be any different. I have provided his quotes where he views mages as not human and how he was unstable and even Greagoir thought he would be a danger to mages, he supported Meredith so much he was rapidly promoted to her second in command.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...

All that Cullen says is that if the Rite of Tranquility begins being more commonly used, it will be the mages who will have pushed the Templars into it which is not so different from the common pro-mage argument that if mages do something bad, it's the Templar's fault.

Not so different, except for it being wrong. Given that the templars still hold nigh-total power in this scenario and have far more freedom of choice.

Wrong. And irrelevant.

[Star fury]

MisterJB wrote...

All Cullen is saying is that mages are not people like non-mages and that, thus, they shouldn't be treated as if they are. They require segregations, observations, etc.
There is nothing wrong with that line.

Wow, I'm speechless.

[Star fury]

It's a strange feeling when you're attacked by both mage and templar supporters.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...

Well in that case we won't have to disqualify a single Templar, since annulments aren't genocide.

Obliteration of a biological grouping within a nation, in whole or in part? I rather think it is.

Nope.
An Annulment is "catastrophy prevention". It is done because the Circle is deemed beyond saving and when itpresents a grave danger for everyone else.
Hance, mages aren't killed as an act of hate or intolerance because they are a racial group. They are killed becasue they present a danger to everyone else.

If you nuked a town of Redwood filled with people infected with deadly, uncurable virus, it's not genocide. You didn't kill them because they are redwoodians. You killed them because they were dangerous. And as horrible an action is it is, one cannot really argue against the necessity.

[Xilizhra]

An Annulment is "catastrophy prevention". It is done because the Circle is deemed beyond saving and when itpresents a grave danger for everyone else.

A justification that's been used elsewhere. It didn't work there either.

Hance, mages aren't killed as an act of hate or intolerance because they are a racial group. They are killed becasue they present a danger to everyone else.

And because the ones who are still alive aren't considered worth saving.

If you nuked a town of Redwood filled with people infected with deadly, uncurable virus, it's not genocide. You didn't kill them because they are redwoodians. You killed them because they were dangerous. And as horrible an action is it is, one cannot really argue against the necessity.

How strange, I thought you advocated for quarantines.

[Lotion Soronarr]

ianvillan wrote...

What Cullen said was he views tranquillity as a mercy and that their is an argument to apply it more widely, but because the mages have made it clear they view the ritual as no better than death that the mages want no controls on them at all.

So because the mages don't want the be killed it means that they don't want controls on them, Cullen views using a right which he admits the mages view as a death sentence as a form of control of the mages. 

Nope. You lack reading comprehension. It is 4 separate statements you combined into 1.

1) Tranquility was designed as a mercy
2) There are argument for more wide-spread use, but Harrowing has worked well, so more tranquility won't be used unless the amges push the tempalrs.
3) Mages don't view tranquility as a mercy
4) mages don't want any restriction.