1420 réponses à ce sujet

[Silfren]

Joy Divison wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

Silfren wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Newsflash: We are not wrong simply because you declare it so.

No. You are wrong because you aren't right. You try to stick a term to a situation, where it simply doesn't fit. that makes you wrong.

Except it does fit, and rather well.  The Circle system can and does fit into real world models of slavery. 

As a black man...I REALLY, REALLY hate when people try to equate the circle system with SLAVERY.

House arrest..sure. I have no problem with.

Actual slavery though? I honestly think you're trivalizing the word. 

I don't think I am, though, for the primary reason being, again, that I am NOT referencing the U.S. model of slavery in order to reach my conclusion.  I don't think I'm trivializing it at all, I think I'm acknowledging that there's more to slavery than forced labor alone.  Slavery isn't about forced labor so much as ownership, and since the Chantry for all intents and purposes has divine right over mages' lives, well there you go.

What you fail to understand is that some words are highly symbolic and mean different things to different people.  Just because you don't think or don't intend to use a word in a certain matter does not mean how that word will be interpreted.

Is it really hard to understand that for a black American, the equation of the comfy lives the Mages live at the Circle makes a mockery of their perspective of what the word slavery entails?  It absolutely does.  Some historical experiences are more than dates and facts to certain groups/ethnicities/nationalities.  They just are.  Recognize it, accept it, and respect it.

...

That is why I am uncomfortable with calling what the Circle Mages go through slavery.  I don't care if it is analgous to what happened in a specific period of Rome (and even then people fail to mention these "slaves" were in the minority and forunate to be domestic servants or skilled) or some Polynesian paradise before grubby British explorers ruined it.  Most slaves in human history endured *FAR* more misery, suffering, humiliation, and depravities than what happens at the Circle of Magi.  Applying the same term is ridiculous.

I already DO recognize, accept and respect it, thank you very much.  I am well aware of the limitations of my ability to understand, being white, minority perspectives.  However, the fact remains that there is more than one model of slavery from which to draw comparisons, and I will not be held responsible for another person's refusal to believe this, especially when I have spelled out my frame of reference and left no possibility for confusion as to what I am discussing.  That one model of slavery was more brutal and inhumane than other forms does in no way invalidate those other forms as qualifying under the damned label, which is exactly what you are trying to claim here, and which I personally find offensive, because you are not too far removed from making the argument that any real-world model of slavery which was less brutal than that of the antebellum version of the Deep South, cannot therefore have been accurately called slavery.

If you want to say it's a different type of slavery, fine.  But you don't get to say that the term is invalid merely because it does not precisely match the specific level of brutality as another. The degree of suffering should not have any bearing on whether a definition accurately applies; using a scoreboard to legitimize the validity of a concept is inappropriate at the best of times, as far as I'm concerned. 

This is absolutely the last thing I am going to say on this subject, because I do not want to see the thread locked because we can't shut up about a highly contentious real world topic.  Any further posts you make on this, I'm just going to ignore, sorry.

Modifié par Silfren, 24 octobre 2013 - 03:23 .

[Steelcan]

Joy Divison wrote...You might think flying the Stars and Bars confederate flag outside you house is an expression of state pride, or an acknowledgment of your family's past, or maybe you just think it looks really cool. 

*facepalm*

From this I am guessing you mean the iconic "Confederate" flag flown by rednecks, tea parties,a nd other ilk.

Its the Battle flag for the Army of Northern Virginia you are thinking of.  Made famous because it was flown by Lee's army, it was not the actual flag of the Confederacy and never was.

The "Stars and Bars" isn't usually flown outside homes or put on merchandise because it isn't very well known.


/History major rant

[Steelcan]

However some variant of the Official Confederacy flag did later adopt the Battle flag, it was very different than how it is portrayed nowadays with the battle flag occupying a white field, and later the addition of a red stripe.

However neither of these flags were used extensively.

[dragonflight288]

I take a day off because my modem sucks and I couldn't get on, and I'm a few pages behind on the debate. I need to catch up.

[addiction21]

Steelcan wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...You might think flying the Stars and Bars confederate flag outside you house is an expression of state pride, or an acknowledgment of your family's past, or maybe you just think it looks really cool. 

*facepalm*

From this I am guessing you mean the iconic "Confederate" flag flown by rednecks, tea parties,a nd other ilk.

Its the Battle flag for the Army of Northern Virginia you are thinking of.  Made famous because it was flown by Lee's army, it was not the actual flag of the Confederacy and never was.

The "Stars and Bars" isn't usually flown outside homes or put on merchandise because it isn't very well known.


/History major rant

No, it was not just flown by Lee's army. It was the accepted 2nd and 3rd flag of the Confederated States and was used long before that by multiple divisions and battalions before that.

lol at history major rant

[dragonflight288]

addiction21 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...You might think flying the Stars and Bars confederate flag outside you house is an expression of state pride, or an acknowledgment of your family's past, or maybe you just think it looks really cool. 

*facepalm*

From this I am guessing you mean the iconic "Confederate" flag flown by rednecks, tea parties,a nd other ilk.

Its the Battle flag for the Army of Northern Virginia you are thinking of.  Made famous because it was flown by Lee's army, it was not the actual flag of the Confederacy and never was.

The "Stars and Bars" isn't usually flown outside homes or put on merchandise because it isn't very well known.


/History major rant

No, it was not just flown by Lee's army. It was the accepted 2nd and 3rd flag of the Confederated States and was used long before that by multiple divisions and battalions before that.

lol at history major rant

On a completely side note, I'm now in the mood to watch Gettysburg starring Martin Sheen and Jeff Daniels.

[Silfren]

It was off-topic, so never mind.

Modifié par Silfren, 24 octobre 2013 - 04:53 .

[cjones91]

To bring this topic back on track.....does anyone wonder if the Inquisitor will find something the Chantry does'nt want the world to know?Like maybe the real story of Andraste or the creation of the Darkspawn?Considering how many people are faithful to the Chantry that sort of thing would be very damning to them.

[Joy Divison]

Silfren wrote...

I already DO recognize, accept and respect it, thank you very much.  I am well aware of the limitations of my ability to understand, being white, minority perspectives.  However, the fact remains that there is more than one model of slavery from which to draw comparisons, and I will not be held responsible for another person's refusal to believe this, especially when I have spelled out my frame of reference and left no possibility for confusion as to what I am discussing.  That one model of slavery was more brutal and inhumane than other forms does in no way invalidate those other forms as qualifying under the damned label, which is exactly what you are trying to claim here, and which I personally find offensive, because you are not too far removed from making the argument that any real-world model of slavery which was less brutal than that of the antebellum version of the Deep South, cannot therefore have been accurately called slavery.

If you want to say it's a different type of slavery, fine.  But you don't get to say that the term is invalid merely because it does not precisely match the specific level of brutality as another. The degree of suffering should not have any bearing on whether a definition accurately applies; using a scoreboard to legitimize the validity of a concept is inappropriate at the best of times, as far as I'm concerned. 

This is absolutely the last thing I am going to say on this subject, because I do not want to see the thread locked because we can't shut up about a highly contentious real world topic.  Any further posts you make on this, I'm just going to ignore, sorry.

I think you should consider that as you admitted this is a highly contentious real world topic, then the word carries imagery and various associations that are not easily discarded.  It has nothing to do with being white or limitations of understanding minority perspectives.  It has everything to do with recognizing some words conjure important - and common - imagery, symbolism, and powerful meanings, some of which may not be strictly historically accurate. 

You claim to recognize, accept and respect that.  Perhaps you do.  But have you done so in this thread?  When you were explicitly told by someone who identified themselves strongly with the experience of slavery that they felt you were trivializing the word, you insisted that your line of argument had historical validity because it matched with other forms of slavery and were primarily concerned with ownership.  (To be fair, you were hardly the only one who did this and were noticably more polite about it).  Is being "right" so important that we ought to disregard the powerful imagery and symbolism of something we know to be a highly contentious real world topic?  You're right in that the Circle Mages are analogous to some institutional models of slavery.  But being right has a price.  If the Cricle Mages are slaves, then the imagery and the associated symbolism of what slavery means to many people must be discounted.

This isn't a pedantic detail like not knowing the precise name of the Confederate flag.  The meanings connomly imputed into slavery may be overly limited from a historical perspective, but they are nevertheless accurate and they are deeply rooted into how many people identify themsleves.  If you are "well aware of the limitations of my ability to understand, being white, minority perspectives," then perhaps when told by someone who is not white a minority perspective, it might have been taken as an opportunity to alter your understanding of the term slavery rather than adhere to your previous stance, one based on your own admission that is brought about by limitations.

I'm not saying you have to, or that it is easy, and no matter what I personally think, doing so is *not* automatically the right thing.  I am saying is it worth it to use a word that we know is highly contentious, that we know will conjure meanings that we don't want, that we know (and if not been explicitly told) will offend people, all for the sake of being "right"?  No doubt to some - perhaps many - people it is because historical accuracy ought to be respected or I am making a mountain out of a mole hill.  They aren't breaking any forum rules or breaking any social norms.  They are within their right to think as such.  But some people will feel as if they are trivilaizing the concept.  I'd just assume to use another word.

Edited: Incorrect remark removed.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 24 octobre 2013 - 06:41 .

[Silfren]

cjones91 wrote...

To bring this topic back on track.....does anyone wonder if the Inquisitor will find something the Chantry does'nt want the world to know?Like maybe the real story of Andraste or the creation of the Darkspawn?Considering how many people are faithful to the Chantry that sort of thing would be very damning to them.

I would certainly hope so.  It would be marvelous to get more historical information on Andraste, rather than the legend.  And I've thought that the games were leading up to some kind of reveal about the origins of the darkspawn anyway.  I'd expect at some point for that particular storyline to be revealed, if nothing else.  But the myths of Andraste feed into my general interests in the historical origins of Christianity, so that is what I'm most interested in learning more about.

I wonder how that would work, actually.  If somehow mending the Veil would require explorations into something ancient that leads to a kind of reveal about who Andraste actually was.  It's already a belief among many that there's likely truth to the claims that she was an exceptionally powerful mage, and some that even think she could have been a blood mage.  I think that last one would be stretching narrative irony a little too far, but I do think she was a mage, and I think it's also possible she was one of the powerful Somniari versions. 

Given that the Divine herself seems to be willing to embrace reform, the Chantry wouldn't necessarily be opposed to new information about Andraste that challenged its doctrines...though it's true that the Chantry is more than just the Divine and her immediate allies.  If Bioware were to go this route and have the Inquisitor find information that turned the entire foundation of the Chantry on its head, of course there's tons of potential there for an even greater internal schism, whether it pertained directly to Andraste or the origins of the darkspawn. 

I wonder where all the Inquisitor will be traveling to.  I'm still holding out hope for a visit to Tevinter, because I think there's a lot of secrets to be found there more than anywhere else.

Modifié par Silfren, 24 octobre 2013 - 06:04 .

[Silfren]

Joy Division, I didn't even bother reading past that first line.  What part of "if we keep talking about this, thread will be locked" is not getting through to you? While you're trying to spin it as my ignoring you because I disagree, what I SAID was I'm ignoring it in order to drop the f*cking subject so this thread wont' get locked.  G*ddamn, move on already!

Modifié par Silfren, 24 octobre 2013 - 05:31 .

[Joy Divison]

Mostly because you do not get to decide who gets to post, who gets the last word, and what topics people must post about. If you feel I am off-topic, have made offensive remarks that break forum rules, or have otherwise violated forum policy, then it is your right to inform a moderator to get my post removed/edited.

You are right that my first line is disingenuous. I apologize and will edit it. It was written because I have done my best to stay within forum etiquette and you nevertheless declared the discussion over after granting yourself the last word. I do not think that is fair. How is anything I said on this topic in danger of getting the thread locked? This is not a taboo topic. I have not attacked you. The language I have used is appropriate (and with no need to circumvented the filters). I have not denigrated your position. I even acknowledged from a strictly historical persepctive, your position is valid. Morever, I have not even claimed that my position was the Truth. I have not changed my tone to be aggressive or combative. What exactly have I done to endanger the thread being locked? If I have adhered to forum conventions, why should you get to declare the discussion over after replying to something I said?

It's fine to disagree. That is how we progress as a society and grow as people. Personally I find value in reading and engaging with people who do not agree with me far more useful than with people who agree with my position. I also feel that this discussion is a very useful one. Not everybody knows or appreciates the notion that certain words, dates, historical events, etc., have meanings beyond that is literal or factual. But seeing how a discussion only really works with multiple participants I will accede to your wishes and not engage the topic further.

[Fredward]

I really didn't want this thread to devolve into ANOTHER argument about semantics since I was really having fun arguing in circles. But since it seems doomed to its fate let me throw my hat in.

First lets look at things the circle isn't:

1. A prison - A prison implies guilt. Mages don't have to be guilty of anything, 'cept existing. While prisoners often do work in a prison it's usually used as a form of punishment and the prison recieves very little economic gain from the labour. All but the most heinous of criminals also eventually get to leave. There's no such distinction in Circles. Prison wardens also don't use the threat of their charges running loose in the world to advance their agenda in the world.

2. House arrest - I actually didn't have an awfully clear picture of this. I imagined someone sitting in a reasonably well appointed place and not allowed to leave. It's not that. They get a monitoring device latched to their ankle but they rarely are confined to their homes 24 hours a day. They're still allowed to go to work for instance. They're allowed to maintain familial connections. There are some restrictions, especially with the harsher types, like a curfew. Do I really need to point out how the Circle is not like this? Take into considerations for all of the above criteria as well since it's just as valid here.

3. Quarantine - Magic is not a disease. It can't be sequestered in a certain population and burn itself out. There will always be more mages. A mage does not die of magic. He might die BECAUSE of magic but he does not die of it. Also magic is obviously not contagious.

4. Segregation/Apartheid - Even the harshest examples of these still had more freedom of movement than the majority of mages. Except the ones in concentration camps I suppose. But I don't think I've heard someone compare the Circle system to concentration camps, twould undermine the fluffly image they're trying to represent I guess.

5. Boarding schools - Yes I've actually heard this. I've never actually been to a boarding school but I was under the impression that you got to leave after your education was done. Was I wrong? If the Circle WAS actually like a boarding school it would be great, that's almost ideal, with some harsher restrictions and penalties for failure (ie death) of course but still.

There's probably more but I forget. Now lets look at our working definition of slavery shall we?

The one thing all kinds of slavery across all of time (surprisingly there are more examples of slavery than the one in America, imagine that) have always given the slave owners is power. Economic power usually, but not always. The Mamluks in Egypt where a military slave caste for instance, they also wound up ruling Egypt for a long while and some men actually sold themselves into slavery so they could join their ranks but that's beside the point. In both ancient Greece and ancient Rome (WHAT!?! There was slavery more than couple of hundred years ago and NOT in 'Murica [**** yeah]?!?! There was indeed, my little angel mice, there was indeed) there were slaves who had better living conditions than some free people and DEFINITELY better conditions than the mages have now. Still slaves though, still owned by someone else.

Now lets go back to the profiting off oppresion part. In dem ancient days (and yes even in the American example) slaves were often bought because they were an amazing investment. You paid once and you got a worker for the rest of his/her life, clean profit after about what? Five years? Ten? Minus the cost of maintenance (food, shelter etc) of course. In the above examples that templar supporters like to chuck around none of those places profit quite like slavery, (maybe the boarding school would if it was a REALLY fancy boarding school but the Circles's aren't like boarding schools anyway so there) entire EMPIRES have been built on the back of slaves, Rome anyone?

This is exactly what the Chantry is doing. It is not the Spartan, base-necessity, guardian organization it claims to be. It profits off mage slavery A LOT. I'm not writing out again why (basically: mage oppression -> templars -> lyrium monopoly -> PROFIT! Think about all the side arrows and implications of this little diagram too) but if the Chantry were to let mages go it would lose its power base. It would fade into obscurity, slowly but surely.

And yet in every single instance of slavery, and oppression in general, there have been uprisings, rebellions, revolts. Always, without fail. There has never been a population that willingly submitted itself to being owned by another indefinitely. The only surprising thing about the mage rebellion is that it took so long. I think Justinia saw just how precarious their hold of power was, if she had been elected earlier and her changes implemented sooner this might all not have happened. But it has. The slaves have risen up and they have a whole lot more power than slaves usually have. Now instead of compromising the Chantry is gonna lose its power violently and be in a much worse bargaining position. I'd be lying if I said I didn't hope for this.

ANYWAY. Point is it's slavery. The Chantry is built on the backs of mages. It might be a relatively cushy slavery but that doesn't make it a prison, or segregation or a quarantine. It's slavery.

Modifié par Foopydoopydoo, 24 octobre 2013 - 07:08 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...
2. House arrest - I actually didn't have an awfully clear picture of this. I imagined someone sitting in a reasonably well appointed place and not allowed to leave. It's not that. They get a monitoring device latched to their ankle but they rarely are confined to their homes 24 hours a day. They're still allowed to go to work for instance. They're allowed to maintain familial connections. There are some restrictions, especially with the harsher types, like a curfew. Do I really need to point out how the Circle is not like this? Take into considerations for all of the above criteria as well since it's just as valid here.

Given that senior mages have free reign to go outside...it has many similarities wiht house arrest.

3. Quarantine - Magic is not a disease. It can't be sequestered in a certain population and burn itself out. There will always be more mages. A mage does not die of magic. He might die BECAUSE of magic but he does not die of it. Also magic is obviously not contagious.

Not exactly.
An abomination will seek to make more of it's kind and bring more demons into this world. That is kinda like a desease.
Also, quarantine has two purposes - to stop the spread of infection and to have the desease burn out. Obviously the second one doesn't apply to magic, but the first one does. By keeping the mages quarantened, you prevent abominations and possesions for "going out".

5. Boarding schools - Yes I've actually heard this. I've never actually been to a boarding school but I was under the impression that you got to leave after your education was done. Was I wrong? If the Circle WAS actually like a boarding school it would be great, that's almost ideal, with some harsher restrictions and penalties for failure (ie death) of course but still.

A boarding school for life?

This is exactly what the Chantry is doing. It is not the Spartan, base-necessity, guardian organization it claims to be. It profits off mage slavery A LOT. I'm not writing out again why (basically: mage oppression -> templars -> lyrium monopoly -> PROFIT! Think about all the side arrows and implications of this little diagram too) but if the Chantry were to let mages go it would lose its power base. It would fade into obscurity, slowly but surely.

Bovine droppings!
Chantry would fade into obscurity? As if. Lyrium monopoly does not equal PROFIT, because the Chantry doesn't re-sell it. It uses it.

And yet in every single instance of slavery, and oppression in general, there have been uprisings, rebellions, revolts. Always, without fail. There has never been a population that willingly submitted itself to being owned by another indefinitely.

And every single system, every singel nation, also eventually falls.
ALL things come to an end.
Riots and rebellions happen in all systems where someone is dissatisfied.

ANYWAY. Point is it's slavery. The Chantry is built on the backs of mages. It might be a relatively cushy slavery but that doesn't make it a prison, or segregation or a quarantine. It's slavery.

So you say. I disagree.
Or should I say, if you can define and pick defintitions as you like, so can I.
The Circles are whatever I feel they are.

And I say everything is slavery (and jsut lookign at the defintion, you can make a case for it), making the mages concerns pointless. Or nothing is, making the mages wrong.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 24 octobre 2013 - 07:59 .

[Welsh Inferno]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

A boarding school for life?

Pretty sure s/he means like a regular boarding school. Where mages could come & learn what they need to know to best safeguard themselves & others, then be allowed to leave if they wish once they have been deemed fit for society. Mages would get a real education on why they are considered dangerous & be a lot happier in the process & Templars would still have a purpose in the world. Seeing as there is no perfect solution to this whole conundrum, this has to be the most ideal solution for me. 

Not that this will actually happen anytime soon mind you. There's too much bad blood at the moment.

Modifié par Welsh Inferno, 24 octobre 2013 - 08:11 .

[Reznore57]

Mages are not slaves.
They are not treated as product , not sold for profit and not forced into labour either.
The Chantry do take their freedom away and decide their fate .

I don't know but where I live if someone is seen as dangerous to himself or others , he/she can get locked up in a hospital .
People with very severe mental illness for example are not guilty of anything and yet sometimes society will take their freedom away.
Of course the fact that the Chantry dictates that every mage is unfit to live among non mages is extreme.Since most mages won't turn into abominations and such...


Besides I'm not sure I understand how the Chantry can get profit from lyrium ?
They buy it from the dwarves , and as far as I can tell they do not sell it to their templars.

The main income they have from mages , is from the Formari , they create magical items.
And chances are that's just how the Chantry fund the Circles .
It must be quite expensive , they have to pay the templars , food , clothes , lyrium potions and used for ritual such as the Harrowing etc...

[dragonflight288]

Welsh Inferno wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

A boarding school for life?

Pretty sure s/he means like a regular boarding school. Where mages could come & learn what they need to know to best safeguard themselves & others, then be allowed to leave if they wish once they have been deemed fit for society. Mages would get a real education on why they are considered dangerous & be a lot happier in the process & Templars would still have a purpose in the world. Seeing as there is no perfect solution to this whole conundrum, this has to be the most ideal solution for me. 

Not that this will actually happen anytime soon mind you. There's too much bad blood at the moment.

A real education where they can also be forced into tranquility, stripped of all emotions if they're considered weak. A lovely campus they can live on but cannot leave without special permission for life, and where their "guardians" can rape them without much fear of reprisal, and abuse them horrendously without consequence.

It's also a charming little hamlet where marriage requires special permission and all children they do have are taken away from them immediately at birth as the dominant religions property.

[Lotion Soronarr]

dragonflight288 wrote...

A real education where they can also be forced into tranquility, stripped of all emotions if they're considered weak. A lovely campus they can live on but cannot leave without special permission for life, and where their "guardians" can rape them without much fear of reprisal, and abuse them horrendously without consequence.

It's also a charming little hamlet where marriage requires special permission and all children they do have are taken away from them immediately at birth as the dominant religions property.

1. I guess all the Circle mages we see outside of the Cricles are just my imagination.

2. False. There is reprisal and consequences. Some templars getting away with it doesn't mean there isn't. It just means the same thing as it does it real life - there are bad apples in every system and there are holesi n every oversight system.

3. Yeah...no. The Children are not property of the Chantry. Also stances of marriage varries from Circle to Circle. In some no special permission is required.

So, keep up the good fight!

[dragonflight288]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

A real education where they can also be forced into tranquility, stripped of all emotions if they're considered weak. A lovely campus they can live on but cannot leave without special permission for life, and where their "guardians" can rape them without much fear of reprisal, and abuse them horrendously without consequence.

It's also a charming little hamlet where marriage requires special permission and all children they do have are taken away from them immediately at birth as the dominant religions property.

1. I guess all the Circle mages we see outside of the Cricles are just my imagination.

Not many. Wynne gets more rights than others because of her status as High Enchanter, Ines was researching a plant that can grow in blighted soil months after a blight, Wilhelm was given special diespensation by the crown because of his service in the war against Orlais, and Finn would stay in the Tower if he could help it, if it wasn't for the fact that his answers lie outside of it, and he still had to get permission from the templars.

There aren't any cases of mages leaving the circle freely without special permission.

2. False. There is reprisal and consequences. Some templars getting away with it doesn't mean there isn't. It just means the same thing as it does it real life - there are bad apples in every system and there are holesi n every oversight system.

I'm sure Lambert agrees with that....especially since he planned his attack from his meeting with the Divine, and the fact that he also tried pinning all the blame on Rhys for every single murder to try and keep the circle's from falling apart. And that he'll do his job and hold templars accountable for their treatment of mages....

I'm also sure Meredith held her templars to such a high standard that they feared the consequences of their actions.

Or the templars in general give mages privacy to use their toiletries and baths.....

wait....that last two parts simply aren't true at all.

3. Yeah...no. The Children are not property of the Chantry. Also stances of marriage varries from Circle to Circle. In some no special permission is required.

So, keep up the good fight!

Rhys was taken from Wynne's arms immediately after his birth. Cullen specifically says Templars have authority over mages by Divine Right.

Also, Wynne says specifically in dialogue in Origins that "all children of mages belong to the chantry," as if mages are the possession of the Chantry.

Modifié par dragonflight288, 24 octobre 2013 - 11:27 .

[Bleachrude]

Joy Divison wrote...

Silfren wrote...

The people equating the Circles to slavery are not the ones restricting the definition thereof to the antebellum South, though.  That tactic is being employed exclusively by people trying to discredit the idea.  You yourself say that you don't find it useful to use the same term to describe chattel slavery as used in America, for the Circles...but you're the one doing it, not us (us being those who agree with the slavery application).  We are not saying that we're equating it to antebellum slavery, we are saying it is slavery, period.  It is not our problem that other people continue to insist on that form of slavery, and that alone, for comparison, even after the rest of us point out that it is NOT the form we were referencing.

You keep saying this as if you repeat yourself enough times eventually people are going to change the imagery and symbolism associated with the word slavery.  I know you are not restricting the definition to the antebellum South.  I am trying to tell you the reason you are encountering resistance is because it is not useful to use the word slavery in the dictionary since because in 21st century discourse, the word has come to mean so much more to many people.  You might think flying the Stars and Bars confederate flag outside you house is an expression of state pride, or an acknowledgment of your family's past, or maybe you just think it looks really cool.  And you would be right.  But some folks might have a more restrictive definition though, no?  I'd imagine that even though they would be technically wrong, you'd still abide by their wishes, yes?

The other problem I have is that Thedas itself HAS slavery. If you ask a Ferelden what is slavery, their idea of it is going to be what Fenris went through...

[Welsh Inferno]

dragonflight288 wrote...

A real education where they can also be forced into tranquility, stripped of all emotions if they're considered weak. A lovely campus they can live on but cannot leave without special permission for life, and where their "guardians" can rape them without much fear of reprisal, and abuse them horrendously without consequence.

It's also a charming little hamlet where marriage requires special permission and all children they do have are taken away from them immediately at birth as the dominant religions property.

Yes my post was totally advocating all of those things..

[dragonflight288]

Welsh Inferno wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

A real education where they can also be forced into tranquility, stripped of all emotions if they're considered weak. A lovely campus they can live on but cannot leave without special permission for life, and where their "guardians" can rape them without much fear of reprisal, and abuse them horrendously without consequence.

It's also a charming little hamlet where marriage requires special permission and all children they do have are taken away from them immediately at birth as the dominant religions property.

Yes my post was totally advocating all of those things..

I know it wasn't, and I wasn't trying to paint you as an advocate of those things. But the Circle system itself is rife with those things as well, and there's next to no evidence that the seekers, the templar order as a whole, or even the Chantry cared enough to change it.

[Welsh Inferno]

dragonflight288 wrote...

I know it wasn't, and I wasn't trying to paint you as an advocate of those things. But the Circle system itself is rife with those things as well, and there's next to no evidence that the seekers, the templar order as a whole, or even the Chantry cared enough to change it.

That was then. The old Circle system is gone. What I suggested isnt the same. A new sytsem needs to be created, total mage freedom aint the answer just as the old Circle system isn't. 

Modifié par Welsh Inferno, 24 octobre 2013 - 11:50 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

A real education where they can also be forced into tranquility, stripped of all emotions if they're considered weak. A lovely campus they can live on but cannot leave without special permission for life, and where their "guardians" can rape them without much fear of reprisal, and abuse them horrendously without consequence.

It's also a charming little hamlet where marriage requires special permission and all children they do have are taken away from them immediately at birth as the dominant religions property.

1. I guess all the Circle mages we see outside of the Cricles are just my imagination.

Not many. Wynne gets more rights than others because of her status as High Enchanter, Ines was researching a plant that can grow in blighted soil months after a blight, Wilhelm was given special diespensation by the crown because of his service in the war against Orlais, and Finn would stay in the Tower if he could help it, if it wasn't for the fact that his answers lie outside of it, and he still had to get permission from the templars.

There aren't any cases of mages leaving the circle freely without special permission.

Purty sure that the last time I played Witch Hunt, I jsut left straight up with Finn in tow, without him ever asking permission. He can state to the Templar in command that he is leaving, but itsn't mandatory as I remember it.

dragonflight288 wrote...

2. False. There is reprisal and consequences. Some templars getting away with it doesn't mean there isn't. It just means the same thing as it does it real life - there are bad apples in every system and there are holesi n every oversight system.

I'm sure Lambert agrees with that....especially since he planned his attack from his meeting with the Divine, and the fact that he also tried pinning all the blame on Rhys for every single murder to try and keep the circle's from falling apart. And that he'll do his job and hold templars accountable for their treatment of mages....

I'm also sure Meredith held her templars to such a high standard that they feared the consequences of their actions.

Or the templars in general give mages privacy to use their toiletries and baths.....

wait....that last two parts simply aren't true at all. 

You realize that this is a medieval setting right? Do you know where people often sat down and took a **** in medieval time? Right out on the street. In front of everyone. The mages should be happy that they at least have someone to catch them, if they fall in that big nice toilet they got themselves......

dragonflight288 wrote...

3. Yeah...no. The Children are not property of the Chantry. Also stances of marriage varries from Circle to Circle. In some no special permission is required.

So, keep up the good fight!

Rhys was taken from Wynne's arms immediately after his birth. Cullen specifically says Templars have authority over mages by Divine Right.

Also, Wynne says specifically in dialogue in Origins that "all children of mages belong to the chantry," as if mages are the possession of the Chantry.

Probably a figure of speech. Just like Alistair "belonged" to the Chantry duing his Templar trainning. Again it is a medieval setting, and since mages can't be allwoed to raise their own children, what would you then ahve the Chantry do? Leave the newborn to die? Shoudln't they instead raise them in some capicity? They can't very well send the child away, since an adoption clinic probably doesn't exist yet (no one would want an extra mouth to feed). So the Chantry does what it can, and raises the child within the Chantry.

[LobselVith8]

Reznore57 wrote...

Mages are not slaves.
They are not treated as product , not sold for profit and not forced into labour either.
The Chantry do take their freedom away and decide their fate .

Prior pages have gone into great length regarding how some argue that the Chantry controlled Circles are slavery, and it's a view held by some characters in Thedas as well.