1656 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

vpacheco1984 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
No.
Becaure that's not what I called them.

Yeah you did.

Nope. Read carefully.

[Lotion Soronarr]

eluvianix wrote...
Fair enough. Your observation rings true. I got a tiny bit heated over it. I apologize Lotion. But my original point, that the two situations are similar, is still what I believe. I agree that we can't really "compare" because magic is real in Thedas, and not in our reality (hopefully someday I would be proven wrong ). But since our realities are so different, then the best way we can understand Thedas is to compare it to situations in our world.

One can make comparisons, but only in specific contexts and even then, those comparisons are usually rather weak.

I didn't say a mage was a virus, I compared the way an abomination spread with the way a virus does.
A Cirlce and a quarantene do have some points in common. Some they don't.
But I'm only making comparisons over very specific points. Any other points that I dont' specificly mention are baggage that the reader brings in.

[vpacheco1984]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

vpacheco1984 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
No.
Becaure that's not what I called them.

Yeah you did.

Nope. Read carefully.

I did. Someone was even nice enough to repost it. You called mages a virus.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Nope.
You know that words have meaning and the structure of a sentance is imortant, right?

Pay attention to what I wrote, not what you think I said.

[vpacheco1984]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Nope.
You know that words have meaning and the structure of a sentance is imortant, right?

Pay attention to what I wrote, not what you think I said.

I did. I read and reread it. You called mages viruses it went unsaid is that they need to be wiped off the face of Thadus. Back peddle all you want and say that's not what you said over and over again that's not what you meant but it is exactly what you said and what you meant.

[dragonflight288]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Nope.
You know that words have meaning and the structure of a sentance is imortant, right?

Pay attention to what I wrote, not what you think I said.

Here's exactly what you wrote, word for word.

He does it because it CAN be comapred to a deadly, virulent virus.

Now as an English major, I shall break down the sentence structure for you, and everyone else here.

"He" is the subject of this particular sentence, followed by the word "does," which is the action of the first part of this sentence, so it's the verb here. "it because" is the conjunction. "it CAN" thereby you are suggesting that magic itself is capable of being seen as such, "be", or the act of simply being, means that within this very sentence, is an adverb, inferring that the very existence, or the state of being, is the cause. "Compared to a deadly, virulent virus."

The act of being, added in with the can, makes the comparison to a virus in and of itself, guilty by act of being. As such, having magic in and of itself, according to your sentence, is comparable to a deadly virus.

It may or may not be what you meant, but by the very sentence itself, you are saying that magic, in and of its very existence, is comparable, or at least, can be, compared to a deadly virus.

[Lotion Soronarr]

vpacheco1984 wrote...

I did. I read and reread it. You called mages viruses it went unsaid is that they need to be wiped off the face of Thadus. Back peddle all you want and say that's not what you said over and over again that's not what you meant but it is exactly what you said and what you meant.

Nope.
You don't get to decide what I mean.
Unless you are a filthy blood mage that is.

Now as an English major, I shall break down the sentence structure for you, and everyone else here.

"He"
is the subject of this particular sentence, followed by the word
"does," which is the action of the first part of this sentence, so it's
the verb here. "it because" is the conjunction. "it CAN" thereby you are
suggesting that magic itself is capable of being seen as such, "be", or
the act of simply being, means that within this very sentence, is an
adverb, inferring that the very existence, or the state of being, is the
cause. "Compared to a deadly, virulent virus."

The act of being,
added in with the can, makes the comparison to a virus in and of
itself, guilty by act of being. As such, having magic in and of itself,
according to your sentence, is comparable to a deadly virus.

It
may or may not be what you meant, but by the very sentence itself, you
are saying that magic, in and of its very existence, is comparable, or
at least, can be, compared to a deadly virus.

Wrong.
I compared the situation of the Circles (since their purpose was quarantene) and the way abominations cause damage to a virus.
All the diplomas in the world can't help you there.


But you know what?
Let's say for the sake of argument that I did say magic is like a virus. So what?

[vpacheco1984]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

vpacheco1984 wrote...

I did. I read and reread it. You called mages viruses it went unsaid is that they need to be wiped off the face of Thadus. Back peddle all you want and say that's not what you said over and over again that's not what you meant but it is exactly what you said and what you meant.

Nope.
You don't get to decide what I mean.
Unless you are a filthy blood mage that is.

Now as an English major, I shall break down the sentence structure for you, and everyone else here.

"He"
is the subject of this particular sentence, followed by the word
"does," which is the action of the first part of this sentence, so it's
the verb here. "it because" is the conjunction. "it CAN" thereby you are
suggesting that magic itself is capable of being seen as such, "be", or
the act of simply being, means that within this very sentence, is an
adverb, inferring that the very existence, or the state of being, is the
cause. "Compared to a deadly, virulent virus."

The act of being,
added in with the can, makes the comparison to a virus in and of
itself, guilty by act of being. As such, having magic in and of itself,
according to your sentence, is comparable to a deadly virus.

It
may or may not be what you meant, but by the very sentence itself, you
are saying that magic, in and of its very existence, is comparable, or
at least, can be, compared to a deadly virus.

Wrong.
I compared the situation of the Circles (since their purpose was quarantene) and the way abominations cause damage to a virus.
All the diplomas in the world can't help you there.


But you know what?
Let's say for the sake of argument that I did say magic is like a virus. So what?

About time you finally admited. As for deciding what you meant I was just going by what wrote and understood what you were saying that magic and mages are viruses. Oh the whole situation of the Circles and comparing them to quarantenes is just furthering that you are calling magic and mages are a virus.

As for "So what" it means you are a very close minded person and I am actually starting to feel sorry for you. What a sad sad life you must have.

[Dave of Canada]

vpacheco1984 wrote...

Oh the whole situation of the Circles and comparing them to quarantenes is just furthering that you are calling magic and mages are a virus.

I'd like to see you do a 1:1 analogy regarding mages.

Go on.

[Medhia Nox]

@dragonflight288: And if that were true of the Dragon Age universe. If someone confirmed that as a valid comparison - how would you feel?

People projecting their own pet minority in place of mages is equally as invalid.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 29 juin 2013 - 08:04 .

[vpacheco1984]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@dragonflight288: And if that were true of the Dragon Age universe. If someone confirmed that as a valid comparison - how would you feel?

People projecting their own pet minority in place of mages is equally as invalid.

And what if it is proved completely invalid comparion? How would you feel?

[Medhia Nox]

@vpacheco1984: Absolutely fine - only untrustworthy fanatics pick a side in the mage/templar war.

They all need to be stopped.

That being said - I've only been shown that magic is inherently MORE dangerous than it is benign.  (This goes even into the misuses of lyrium - the creation of golems - the presence of demons).

Whether or not mages want to dream themselves into a happy utopia is not supported by the world material provided (at least so far).

If I ever saw a mage (beside Wynne) not blame everyone else for his/her problems - I might give them a second thought.  As it is - not even their supporters do that.

===

Note: I'll be playing a mage in Inquisition and happily crushing the revolution if it's an option.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 29 juin 2013 - 08:17 .

[Ieldra]

I looked over the posts regarding the topic "Virus comparisons".

Certain pro-templars compared not mages to a virus, but magic. However, this amounts to the same, since the implied goal is eradication, and you can't eradicate magic without either killing all mages or making them all tranquil. Thus, my accusation of genocide appears surprisingly apt.

Note that the reseach in "Asunder" does not allow cutting a mage off from the Fade without making them tranquil or killing them, it just allows to reverse Tranquility. Which means, methods of eliminating magic which don't amount to genocide do not exist. Also, if we have to do research into these things, the goal should be to make magic safer, since this does not involve mutilating mages by cutting away gifts they were born with.

[Medhia Nox]

@Ieldra2: If it helps - I'd equate mages more to the mentally unstable before I compared them to a virus.

They are constantly in danger of becoming "something else".

To that end - assistance must be provided - and countermeasures must be ensured in case proper "therapy" (education) of mages proves unsuccessful.

I also equate Tranquility to be very similar to our (America's) drug obsession. Instead of dealing with a problem - we (America) Tranquilize.

Demon possession I'd equate to a virus - because it does seem to seek to spread (if Uldred's folly is any indication).

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 29 juin 2013 - 08:22 .

[dragonflight288]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@dragonflight288: And if that were true of the Dragon Age universe. If someone confirmed that as a valid comparison - how would you feel?

People projecting their own pet minority in place of mages is equally as invalid.

I'm not commenting either for or against. I was simply commenting on the simple act of being within Lotion's statements, and how he earlier tried backpedaling and say he didn't say what he actually said.

My own views are pretty well-established, and I have slowed down debating as of late because it almost feels like I'm talking to a wall at times, but I am all for intelligent discussion.

As for me personally, I have always tried to keep my arguments within the the world of thedas itself, and I try not to bring real world history or politics into it, and only do so on the rare occasion when I feel it is simply the best way to create an allegory. I personally think the mages ought to be free of the Chantry itself, and not under the rule of the templars, but that does not mean in any way that I want mages in charge of anything, nor does it mean I want the templars and chantry wiped out.

Elves are an oppressed minority, and when a pro-templars tries using city-elves suffering and oppression as  way of saying the mages don't have it as bad, I feel is also equally invalid as the real-life minority argument by comparing one group's misfortune to another group's misfortune.

Simply let elves live their lives outside an alienage if they choose, the dalish have a land to call their own, and mages the right to have families and to pratice their magic in peace (but still be held accountable for individual crimes) and I'll be happy.

There's a lot of details missing, but that's the crux of the whole thing for me.

[Medhia Nox]

@dragonflight288: I was just curious on more of a thematic storytelling level.

Magic = bad is a far more controversial and, I dare say interesting, standpoint than: "Magical wonderful magic-ness!"

[vpacheco1984]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@vpacheco1984: Absolutely fine - only untrustworthy fanatics pick a side in the mage/templar war.

They all need to be stopped.

That being said - I've only been shown that magic is inherently MORE dangerous than it is benign.  (This goes even into the misuses of lyrium - the creation of golems - the presence of demons).

Whether or not mages want to dream themselves into a happy utopia is not supported by the world material provided (at least so far).

If I ever saw a mage (beside Wynne) not blame everyone else for his/her problems - I might give them a second thought.  As it is - not even their supporters do that.

===

Note: I'll be playing a mage in Inquisition and happily crushing the revolution if it's an option.

Oh you'll be another belly scraper like Wynne who askes the nice templar beating you to hit you a little harder because you can't feel it. 

Yes magic is dangerous but as long as the mages is properly trained and not tortured into insanity then they would be a lot less dangous. Most mages just want a life not a utopia, they want what other want you know family, friends that won't be used against you. So you take a few mages who were insane. They also don't blame other for their problems after all they did rape and torture themselves right. Not the templars no not the templars. But the way I seen it most mages did what most victims of abuse do they blamed themselves for the things that were done to them not anyone else. Beside the templars are to blame for the majority of the problems mages face.

The creation of Golems was purily the dwarves, so should they be locked up? The templars and the Chantry are the ones who really misuse lyrium so they should be locked up. Also the dwarves found away to open the fade without mages to pull spirits and demons over into the Golmes they made after reconstrcting the Anvil of the void. 

[Medhia Nox]

@vpacheco1984: Where are you getting this stuff?

Yes, some terrible templars did some horrible things they should be punished for.

If you're basing it off Kirkwall - don't. It was an epicenter of madness for all sides.

And your one-sided myopic view is exactly why I cannot side with my "fellow" mages. Way too full of hate - and a cesspool for demon activity.

[Ieldra]

Medhia Nox wrote...
@dragonflight288: I was just curious on more of a thematic storytelling level.

Magic = bad is a far more controversial and, I dare say interesting, standpoint than: "Magical wonderful magic-ness!"

I do not agree. Making magic unambiguously bad would be boring - and invalidate a lot of character concepts. I like that it presents both opportunities and risks.

[Inprea]

On the notion of magic being more harmful then it is helpful. How often do mages get the chance to prove how beneficial magic can be? The mages that try to play nice and follow the rules are locked up in a tower or prison with very little chance to make use of their abilities typically. It's the ones that escape and are probably well within flight or fight mode that people are most likely to encounter.

I remember reading some of the books in the circle tower that noted mages who learned restoration magic being in the high demand. There is also a mentioning in Dragon Age 2 that spirit healers are some of the mages that are most likely to be possessed yet their abilities are so beneficial that it's considered worth the risk. So why don't we ever see any templars letting circle mages trained in the healing out where their abilities can be made use of?

Personally I think it's a control issue. The templars know that if they let these mages roam around healing people and saving lives it would inspire sympathy for the mages. Sympathy for the mages would only weaken the templars position that mages are dangerous. Just think of the danger the refugees were willing to put themselves in for Anders's sake because he was healing their wounds.

[Lotion Soronarr]

vpacheco1984 wrote...
About time you finally admited.

I don't admit to anything.
Another proof that you only see what you want to see.

As for deciding what you meant I was just going by what wrote and understood what you were saying that magic and mages are viruses.

That is not what I said. That is what you INFERED. That is what you THOUGHT. Because that is what you've been expecting or what yo uwanted me to say.

As for "So what" it means you are a very close minded person and I am actually starting to feel sorry for you. What a sad sad life you must have.

My life is quite happy, thank you very much.

Excuse me if I don't cry over the emoing of immaginary poeple in a immaginary land, or that I'm not offended by someone insulting me for not agreeing with his view on a fictional group.

[Medhia Nox]

@Ieldra2: See, I see a conflict of Man Vs. Nature (also vs. Other and vs. Self) in the idea.

If magic - which provides every reason to succumb to it - also tries to coerce us toward the negative. Only a man's better nature could use it and overcome - but the struggle would be endless.

These people are born with it - they can't deny it (except through Tranquility or Death).  It's compelling to me.

It doesn't change the debate on how such a person should be treated. Templar oppression is still just that.

Happy magic land where magic is "just a tool" - I've got plenty of those worlds and even Harry Potter comes to some very condemning realizations about magic in his world (and he doesn't have demons clawing at his soul).

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 29 juin 2013 - 08:47 .

[vpacheco1984]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@vpacheco1984: Where are you getting this stuff?

Yes, some terrible templars did some horrible things they should be punished for.

If you're basing it off Kirkwall - don't. It was an epicenter of madness for all sides.

And your one-sided myopic view is exactly why I cannot side with my "fellow" mages. Way too full of hate - and a cesspool for demon activity.

WTF are you talking about? Cesspool of demon acticity.

I'm not basing this off only Kirkwall but also the White Spire. After all it was normal for mages to show up to meetings or what ever with burise given to them by templars. The there is Rhys who was locked up in a pitch black room for four day with no food or water. He could have died. Not that the templars could care. Then there is the fact that a Knight-Captain ordered the First-Enchanter around like a slave and he had no choice but to do as she said. Then there was the fact that the Lord Seeker wanted to hide the fact they possibly found the cure for Tranquility. Ordering the same Evenaling to kill all the mages he even sent reinforcements to make sure they were killed.

One-sided myopic view? Aren't you guilty of the same thing only you are siding with the templars over the mages. Blaming all mages for the actions of a few but stating in the same breath that it was only a few templars who did the bad things so it shouldn't reflect on all of the templars. Hypocrite.

[Medhia Nox]

vpacheco1984: I'm done with you. I stated very clearly in a post to you that I don't side with either group.

[vpacheco1984]

Medhia Nox: Again hypocrite. You stated that in inquisition you were going to be a mage and happily crush the rebellion if it's an options. That sure in the hell doesn't sound like not siding with either group. It sounds like you are siding with the templars.

Modifié par vpacheco1984, 29 juin 2013 - 09:01 .