2497 réponses à ce sujet

[Plaintiff]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@eluvianix: What I find interesting - is how hateful and terrified people are on the BSN of anyone who would even entertain the notion that following orders is a viable way to live.

Even in the West we have military academies and boarding schools - and, of course the actual military - that stress the group over the self. And they're not all - "but only if you think it's a good idea."

I've never heard of a single boarding school that does any such thing. And as for military academies and the army, you opt in to both of those, except in countries where service is mandatory (which is wrong), but even then they don't force you to inhale mind-altering substances that make you subservient to their whim, or steal your children.

But you keep ignoring that so you can paint people as bigots for not wanting to be enslaved.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 09 octobre 2013 - 09:50 .

[Medhia Nox]

@Plaintiff: Okay.

[Plaintiff]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@eluvianix: But, instead of saying: "Well, even after being released that saarebas still believed in the Qun." people turn it into "Because "I" believe it's wrong - that saarebas was just mindwashed and couldn't think for itself!"

That's not using imagination at all... that's imposing a personal calcified world view onto something.

That scarebas has lived his life in chains, been told he's a thing, and been led around by his handler. Unless I have clear evidence that the Qunari have minds totally unlike humans, I'm comfortable saying that he's the victim of a lifetime of abuse. That he kills himself the second he's free tells me nothing but that the Qun says to kill yourself if you're a free mage.

This is no different than Oreana happily becoming your slave because slavery is all she knows.

Isn't all happiness intangible? If the Saarebas' actions was what he found fulfillment and happiness in, who are you to tell him wrong? You might not like it, but his actions harms no one but himself.

Except all the people he willfully murdered in service to the Qun.

[Hellion Rex]

Plaintiff wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@eluvianix: What I find interesting - is how hateful and terrified people are on the BSN of anyone who would even entertain the notion that following orders is a viable way to live.

Even in the West we have military academies and boarding schools - and, of course the actual military - that stress the group over the self. And they're not all - "but only if you think it's a good idea."

I've never heard of a single boarding school that does any such thing. And as for military academies and the army, you opt in to both of those, except in countries where service is mandatory (which is wrong), but even then they don't force you to inhale mind-altering substances that make you subservient to their whim, or steal your children.

But you keep ignoring that so you can paint people as bigots for not wanting to be enslaved.

Plaintiff, I think he was just making a comparison, not actuall saying that they were similar situations in every way.

[Rhiens VI]

I find this fascination with totalitarian ideology highly amusing. It is also interesting, that every Qun fanboy admits, at some point, that they'd rather avoid subjecting themselves to the Qun-like "enlightement". Let it be someone else, while we cheer at the sidelines.

Modifié par Rhiens VI, 09 octobre 2013 - 09:55 .

[Plaintiff]

eluvianix wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@eluvianix: What I find interesting - is how hateful and terrified people are on the BSN of anyone who would even entertain the notion that following orders is a viable way to live.

Even in the West we have military academies and boarding schools - and, of course the actual military - that stress the group over the self. And they're not all - "but only if you think it's a good idea."

I've never heard of a single boarding school that does any such thing. And as for military academies and the army, you opt in to both of those, except in countries where service is mandatory (which is wrong), but even then they don't force you to inhale mind-altering substances that make you subservient to their whim, or steal your children.

But you keep ignoring that so you can paint people as bigots for not wanting to be enslaved.

Plaintiff, I think he was just making a comparison, not actuall saying that they were similar situations in every way.

It's a stupid, awful, terrible, terrible, terrible comparison.

[Plaintiff]

Rhiens VI wrote...

I find this fascination with totalitarian ideology highly amusing. It is also interesting, that every Qun fanboy admits, at some point, that they'd rather avoid subjecting themselves to its "enlightement". Let it be someone else, while we cheer at the sidelines.

No kidding.

"The Qun is a perfect utopia, and the only way you could ever think it's bad is if you're a bigot. Join? I don't want to join."

[Medhia Nox]

@Rheins VI: I'm not cheering on the Qun, or the Qunari.

I'm going to explain again. I find them interesting in a work of fiction. While you may not, you can surely understand why someone who does might "like" them as fictional beings and try to explore how they came to the conclusions they did... without instantly jumping to: "Horribad! Kill kill kill!"

If a writer could not explore - and find some appreciation for - the things he's writing about, his work will show it. That's when you watch something with a heavy handed message - and not a nuanced and interesting story that carries a message.

I hope you can at least try to see another viewpoint. If not, there's nothing I can do to make you.

[Wulfram]

Well the way I'd like to explore the concept in an RPG is by opposing it.

And I'd rather see the inherent problems looked at rather than glossed over.

[Medhia Nox]

@Wulfram: And you're free to do so of course, but you wouldn't want to dictate how I conduct myself with sideways insults would you?

[In Exile]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@In Exile: For myself - it's actually opposite. Purpose has never been something I've struggled with - so it's less of a topic I feel the desire to explore in fiction.

However, as I equate collectivism with harmony (in the most idealistic state) - and I equate individuality with disharmony - I am interested in what Bioware has to say about the concept of a race that strives for true Utilitarianism.

The needs of the Qun - outweigh the needs of the individual.

So far, Bioware has presented it as successful - but not without problems. Whereas the individual nations of Thedas are currently unsuccessful - but not without merit.

Even as an ideal, I don't (personally) don't see the argument in favour of the view that society is harmony. It seems that subverting the individual is inherently disharmony, in that there is a kind of beating down involved. Of course you might say it's quite different if you start by building someone up to be a cog I'm the greater machine ... but I think that introduces other issues about choice. 

That said, obviously everyone has their own philosophy. 

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Rhiens VI wrote...

I find this fascination with totalitarian ideology highly amusing. It is also interesting, that every Qun fanboy admits, at some point, that they'd rather avoid subjecting themselves to the Qun-like "enlightement". Let it be someone else, while we cheer at the sidelines.

They are an interesting thought-experiment. So's Thedas as a whole. But that doesn't mean I'd want to live there.

Edit: What's really interesting is how off-topic this got.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 09 octobre 2013 - 11:01 .

[Silfren]

Gwydden wrote...

Silfren wrote...
No, but we do know that he struggled with the concept of freedom and being able to refuse his master's bidding.  So there was indeed some level of internalized indoctrination.

Yes, but moral obligation (you have to remain chained for the greater good) still outweighs social obligation (that's your place in society because shut up).

Aside from the fact that people who insist on these tend to blur the lines.  What, you've never heard of someone defending social mores by equating them with proper morality? Or insisting that changing those social mores would be the end of society as we know it, so it's for the greater good to maintain them?

[Gwydden]

Silfren wrote...

Aside from the fact that people who insist on these tend to blur the lines.  What, you've never heard of someone defending social mores by equating them with proper morality? Or insisting that changing those social mores would be the end of society as we know it, so it's for the greater good to maintain them?

I admit it wasn't a brilliant wording, exactly, but the fact remains that the case of Fenris doesn't equal that of a saarebas. We've already seen that the qunari excel at indoctrination (another thing they have in common with the Seanchan in WoT, curiously).

[leaguer of one]

Gwydden wrote...

Silfren wrote...
No, but we do know that he struggled with the concept of freedom and being able to refuse his master's bidding.  So there was indeed some level of internalized indoctrination.

Yes, but moral obligation (you have to remain chained for the greater good) still outweighs social obligation (that's your place in society because shut up).

But that does not defer that fact that he was raised with a mentality of a slave and later surpassed that by his own choices. Morality and obligation have nothing to do with it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I find this discussion very interesting, largely because of the unspoken assumptions people must be making in the background in order to reach their conclusions. For example, there have been references to moral obligation without any discussion of whether morality is even a thing.

Very interesting indeed. It's like you've skipped the metaphysics entirely (to say nothing of the epistemology) and gone straight to applied ethics.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 10 octobre 2013 - 03:46 .

[Fredward]

Medhia Nox wrote...
@eluvianix: What I find interesting - is how hateful and terrified people are on the BSN of anyone who would even entertain the notion that following orders is a viable way to live.

The only problem (problem as in something I would actually do something about) I have with people who choose to live that way is if they also want to expand. Which the Qunari do. I'm not gonna lie I find it rather puzzling and sad that anyone would want to live in a society where their entire lives get dictated and I will always sport a slight sneer for someone who genuinely chooses to live that way but that's just my opinion, my preference. And in a non-Qunari society I'm allowed to have that.

The problem I think I have with the idea with any kind of collectivist state, which the Qunari definitely are, is that, by definition, they rob the individual of, well - the individual. The Qunari take this to the extreme AND they're expansionist as well.

[dragonflight288]

leaguer of one wrote...

Gwydden wrote...

Silfren wrote...
No, but we do know that he struggled with the concept of freedom and being able to refuse his master's bidding.  So there was indeed some level of internalized indoctrination.

Yes, but moral obligation (you have to remain chained for the greater good) still outweighs social obligation (that's your place in society because shut up).

But that does not defer that fact that he was raised with a mentality of a slave and later surpassed that by his own choices. Morality and obligation have nothing to do with it.

but it is a contributor that cannot be ignored either.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Silfren wrote...

The hell it isn't. You damn well know that I referred to the practice of taking mages from their families and communities and locking them in a tower for the rest of their life, not for crimes committed but the misfortune of being born a mage.  If you think that's not inherently immoral then just say so, but you don't get to take my statement out of context.

Them beign born a mage = them being dangerous for everyone.
"Deserving" is irreelvant. It is a human concept with little practical application.

Tell me, would it be moral to let mages roam free, knowing full well that hunderds will die because of it?
Is it more moral then locking up mages? Less moral?
Who gets to decide? By what metric?

It cannot be said that any system that tries a different method is doubly flawed when no other system has been tried.

I've yet to see a better one. Either in-game or proposed (one that would actually work mind you).

The problem to me seems to be the pro-templar fixation that any solution MUST be totally foolproof, an absolute watertight guarantee against abominations and the use of blood magic, or else it's just not worth bothering with, and this is unreasonable in the extreme.  No method will ever yield those results: even the most oppressively draconian measures in place will STILL mean that sometimes, an abomination is created, or someone, somewhere, uses blood magic for unapproved reasons.

The Circle isn't 100% foolproof (look Uldred and Rivian), but it does minimize casualites and the danger.
It could use reforms, but exactly what reforms is debatable.
I don't think the various restrictions and rules exist for kicks and giggles, and each has to be carefully reviewed.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 10 octobre 2013 - 08:59 .

[Rylor Tormtor]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I find this discussion very interesting, largely because of the unspoken assumptions people must be making in the background in order to reach their conclusions. For example, there have been references to moral obligation without any discussion of whether morality is even a thing.

Very interesting indeed. It's like you've skipped the metaphysics entirely (to say nothing of the epistemology) and gone straight to applied ethics.

And the discussion on applied ethics is a mish-mash of platitudes and "common sense" approaches.

Its kind of like watching Kant and Mills having sex under a plain white sheet. 

[Hellion Rex]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Silfren wrote...

The hell it isn't. You damn well know that I referred to the practice of taking mages from their families and communities and locking them in a tower for the rest of their life, not for crimes committed but the misfortune of being born a mage.  If you think that's not inherently immoral then just say so, but you don't get to take my statement out of context.

Them beign born a mage = them being dangerous for everyone.
"Deserving" is irreelvant. It is a human concept with little practical application.

Tell me, would it be moral to let mages roam free, knowing full well that hunderds will die because of it?
Is it more moral then locking up mages? Less moral?
Who gets to decide? By what metric?

It cannot be said that any system that tries a different method is doubly flawed when no other system has been tried.

I've yet to see a better one. Either in-game or proposed (one that would actually work mind you).

The problem to me seems to be the pro-templar fixation that any solution MUST be totally foolproof, an absolute watertight guarantee against abominations and the use of blood magic, or else it's just not worth bothering with, and this is unreasonable in the extreme.  No method will ever yield those results: even the most oppressively draconian measures in place will STILL mean that sometimes, an abomination is created, or someone, somewhere, uses blood magic for unapproved reasons.

The Circle isn't 100% foolproof (look Uldred and Rivian), but it does minimize casualites and the danger.
It could use reforms, but exactly what reforms is debatable.
I don't think the various restrictions and rules exist for kicks and giggles, and each has to be carefully reviewed.

As long as the mages have equal input into revising these "restrictions" I would be willing to listen. We are definitely NOT going back to the Circle we just rebelled from. 

Modifié par eluvianix, 10 octobre 2013 - 04:58 .

[MisterJB]

eluvianix wrote...
As long as the mages have equal input into revising these "restrictions" I would be willing to listen. We are definitely going back to the Circle we just rebelled from. 

Ok, this could be interesting. Let's roleplay, you're the representative of the full mage faction and I am the representative of the full templar faction that is independent from the Chantry. Let's assume that we both have the influence to make what is decided here happen and that we have already agreed that while mages will not be killed or Tranquilized en-mass for this rebellion, they will also not do away with the templars or their authority.

My first demand is the continuation of the forced segregation of mages both due to the fact that, at the moment, we will not have knowledge of the capabilities or level of training of the mages after months without supervision and that, if mages are simply granted leave to live amongst the normal population, they might see this as vindication of their war and look towards the non-magical population as spoils of war.
I am, of course, willing to extend the same rights that existed before this rebellion that allowed Harrowed mages will leave with and without supervision after a certain period of time that will be used let tempers cool down both for the safety of the people and that of the mages.

In return, I am willing to do away with the Right of Annulment. Your turn.

[Medhia Nox]

@MisterJB: That's actually an interesting exercise - but you should create a new thread and let everyone pick a side and commit to the discussion.

I would just be clear that you should be responding as your character (or at least concentrate entirely on the topic at hand).

[Hellion Rex]

Never mind. I meant to say we are most definitely NOT going back to the Circle we just rebelled from.