Xilizhra wrote...
They are villains. They're evil to the core and will be stopped at any cost. If their society was based wholly on consent, that'd be one thing, but it's based on conscription and war.
Informed consent. To have seen multiple paths, been able to assess them, and then to choose this specific one. For everyone, including the mages.Fast Jimmy wrote...
Xilizhra wrote...
They are villains. They're evil to the core and will be stopped at any cost. If their society was based wholly on consent, that'd be one thing, but it's based on conscription and war.
It IS based on consent. For you to say otherwise ignores the decisions and beliefs of thousdands of individuals. Which is incredibly arrogant.
Seival wrote...
RazorrX wrote...
Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved.
Niccolo Machiavelli - 'The Prince'
Love and fear can hardly exist together? On the contrary, they co-exist quite well... You love someone, and at the same time you constantly fear something bad may happen to the one you love. Quite a tight co-existence, don't you think so? And if you have no fears about your beloved one, then your love exists just in your imagination.
Xilizhra wrote...
My manner of speech is frequently on the more-formal-than-many side; some would say pedantic. It's just how I talk, for whatever reason.In Exile wrote...
Xilizhra wrote...
I wasn't accusing you of being snarky. I understand now.
Apologies. I just can't help but read "very well" in a kind of... grudging acknowledgement? It's totally a failure on my part.
RazorrX wrote...
Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved.
Niccolo Machiavelli - 'The Prince'
TheKomandorShepard wrote...
We need eye of the moon plan
Rigorously adhered to, it's actually quite elegant.In Exile wrote...
Xilizhra wrote...
Yes, but the Qun claims, more or less, to be perfect, so cracks in it more or less immediately show the weakness of its premise.
That's just the No True Scotsman fallacy as a belief system.
To attack each other like beasts.LindsayLohan wrote...
What is the point of this thread?
Fast Jimmy wrote...
Again... not saying the Qunari are perfect. But they are not the villains they are made out to be. They just have an incredibly different outlook on life, the world and purpose. To say that outlook is wrong and its people abused because they believe in it, when there is no more evidence of rebellion or rejection of their role than what we see across every other theology or government across Thedas, is morally arrogant.
Modifié par Seival, 15 septembre 2013 - 02:08 .
Medhia Nox wrote...
@Seival: Your first statement cannot be empirically proven. You would LIKE to believe that, and because you're an ignorant human (don't worry, we all are) incapable of possibly understanding universal ethical rules IF they exist, you proclaim that they do not.
It is fine to say that you do not hold yourself to universal ethics, or that you do not believe that universal ethics exist, but stating as fact that they do not is the most puerile form of modern amorality.
Note: An affirmation that they DO exist is equally unverifiable.
"Arrgh!" Jason growled. "It's impossible to talk to you, much less enjoy any comprehensible exchange of ideas. We aren't even speaking the same language. Aside from who is right and who is wrong, for the moment, we should go back to basics and at least agree on the meaning of the terms that we are using. To begin with—can you define the difference between ethics and ethos?"
"Of course," Mikah snapped, a glint of pleasure in his eyes at the thought of a good rousing round of hair-splitting. "Ethics is the discipline dealing with what it good or bad, or right or wrong—or with moral duty and obligation. Ethos means the guiding beliefs, standards or ideals that characterize a group or community."
"Very good, I can see that you have been spending the long spaceship-nights with your nose buried in the books. Now make sure the difference between those two terms is very clear, because it is the heart of the little communications problem we have here. Ethos is inextricably linked with a single society and cannot be separated from it, or it loses all meaning. Do you agree?"
"Well...."
"Come, come—you have to agree on the terms of your own definition. The ethos of a group is just a catch-all term for the ways in which the members of a group rub against each other. Right?"
Mikah reluctantly produced a nod of acquiescence.
"Now that we agree about that we can push on one step further. Ethics, again by your definition, must deal with any number of societies or groups. If there are any absolute laws of ethics, they must be so inclusive that they can be applied to any society. A law of ethics must be as universal of application as is the law of gravity."
"I don't follow you...?"
"I didn't think you would when I got to this point. You people who prattle about your Universal Laws never really consider the exact meaning of the term. My knowledge of the history of science is very vague, but I'm willing to bet that the first Law of Gravity ever dreamed up stated that things fell at such and such a speed, and accelerated at such and such a rate. That's not a law, but an observation that isn't even complete until you add 'on this planet.' On a planet with a different mass there will be a different observation. The law of gravity is the formula F=m1*m2/d**2, and this can be used to compute the force of gravity between any two bodies anywhere. This is a way of expressing fundamental and unalterable principles that apply in all circumstances. If you are going to have any real ethical laws they will have to have this same universality. They will have to work on Cassylia or Pyrrus, or on any planet or in any society you can find. Which brings us back to you. What you so grandly call—with capital letters and a flourish of trumpets—'Laws of Ethics' aren't laws at all, but are simple little chunks of tribal ethos, aboriginal observations made by a gang of desert sheepherders to keep order in the house—or tent. These rules aren't capable of any universal application, even you must see that. Just think of the different planets that you have been on and the number of weird and wonderful ways people have of reacting to each other—then try and visualize ten rules of conduct that would be applicable in all these societies. An impossible task. Yet I'll bet that you have ten rules you want me to obey, and if one of them is wasted on an injunction against saying prayers to carved idols I can imagine just how universal the other nine are. You aren't being ethical if you try to apply them wherever you go—you're just finding a particularly fancy way to commit suicide!"
--- Harry Harrison, "Ethical Engineer", 1963.
Modifié par Seival, 15 septembre 2013 - 02:43 .
Silfren wrote...
Xilizhra wrote...
My manner of speech is frequently on the more-formal-than-many side; some would say pedantic. It's just how I talk, for whatever reason.In Exile wrote...
Xilizhra wrote...
I wasn't accusing you of being snarky. I understand now.
Apologies. I just can't help but read "very well" in a kind of... grudging acknowledgement? It's totally a failure on my part.
Totally irrelevant and off-topic, but I can totally sympathize with this, being the same way.
I too, can sympathize with this. Although I do not believe that anyone has misinterpreted my tone before, people just tend to point out that I use "big words". A recent example I can think of is that I described something in a movie as a "glyph" and was told that most people would have just said "weird writing". I blame my High School English classes and their emphasis on "SAT words" and "proper" essay writing, which carried over to my normal writing.Silfren wrote...
Xilizhra wrote...
My manner of speech is frequently on the more-formal-than-many side; some would say pedantic. It's just how I talk, for whatever reason.In Exile wrote...
Xilizhra wrote...
I wasn't accusing you of being snarky. I understand now.
Apologies. I just can't help but read "very well" in a kind of... grudging acknowledgement? It's totally a failure on my part.
Totally irrelevant and off-topic, but I can totally sympathize with this, being the same way.
Oh, yes.Same here. At least half my internet arguments start out with someone misinterpreting my tone because of my word choice. I'm curious; did either of you read a lot growing up? That's where I seem to have gotten my speech patterns from.
iOnlySignIn wrote...
Problem is Magic in Thedas doesn't seem all that powerful.
We hear of Magisters of old sinking whole cities or carving harbors into cliffs but no Magic we've seen so far is anywhere near that magnitude. Even Corypheus wasn't all that impressive.
Flemeth is supposed to be some ultimate Mage in Thedas and yet the best we've seen from her is she turning into a high dragon. A high dragon can be slain by a group consisting of a few people, so meh.
You need a lot more power to rule over anything or anyone, just saying.
Eveangaline wrote...
Just make everyone mages. That will solve everything.
Myrkale wrote...
Eveangaline wrote...
Just make everyone mages. That will solve everything.
Except the people who hate mages will continously complain on this forum about how it doens't fit the lore.
Oh...wait...
That happens anyways, carry on.
iOnlySignIn wrote...
Problem is Magic in Thedas doesn't seem all that powerful.
We hear of Magisters of old sinking whole cities or carving harbors into cliffs but no Magic we've seen so far is anywhere near that magnitude. Even Corypheus wasn't all that impressive.
Flemeth is supposed to be some ultimate Mage in Thedas and yet the best we've seen from her is she turning into a high dragon. A high dragon can be slain by a group consisting of a few people, so meh.
You need a lot more power to rule over anything or anyone, just saying.
No to the post that you quoted. And no to you.Seival wrote...
iOnlySignIn wrote...
Problem is Magic in Thedas doesn't seem all that powerful.
We hear of Magisters of old sinking whole cities or carving harbors into cliffs but no Magic we've seen so far is anywhere near that magnitude. Even Corypheus wasn't all that impressive.
Flemeth is supposed to be some ultimate Mage in Thedas and yet the best we've seen from her is she turning into a high dragon. A high dragon can be slain by a group consisting of a few people, so meh.
You need a lot more power to rule over anything or anyone, just saying.
That's why the secrets of ancient Tevinter have to be discovered, and that's why Tevinter Empire has to reborn. I really hope the inquisitor will be capable of performing that task.
Modifié par Br3ad, 16 septembre 2013 - 09:03 .
Retour en haut
