8640 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

The templars are an army, and I'm fairly sure that no one will consider the forcible disarmament of hostile nations--namely, the destruction/dismantling of their armies--to be genocide.

 

If you destroy the polity, yes actually. By the UN definition, genocide doesn't actually need bloodshed.

 

 

http://www.un.org/cy...es/genocide.asp

The UN says

 

The convention defines genocide as any act committed with the idea of destroying in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. This includes such acts as:

• Killing members of the group
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
• Deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to physically destroy the group (the whole group or even part of the group)
• Forcefully transferring children of the group to another group

 

The Templars aren't an army of a nation, and would fall under a religious group.

 

For the first, you've frequently relished in the prospect of destroying them through violence and plenty of death until they are no longer in a position to resist.

For the second, fulfilling the first qualifies the second.

For the third, your open declarations of intent to destroy the Templars and their organization after your victory qualify.

For the fourth, in the past when asked you have said you would not allow surviving Templars sparred by you to raise their children as Templars. That qualifies.

 

 

The polity itself is based on a biological distinction, namely the presence of magic, as an organized group within the nation of Kirkwall, so I'm fairly certain it counts as genocide, yes. And the only reason politicide doesn't count as genocide is because the Soviets made a stink about it when the definition was being drafted, so they could continue their purges if need be. And my own goals have never been to kill all Orlesians or anything of the kind, just depower the nation enough to prevent it from being a major threat later on.

 

Oh, it certainly counts if we use the UN convention on Genocide... but the UN convention on Genocide is incredibly broad (wars that destroy armies could be counted as genocide under that banner), and your points run into some issues. Namely that the Kirkwall Cirlcle is an organized group within the nation of Kirkwall (it isn't: nations claim no jurisdiction or ownership of mages within their borders), and the point of politicide.

 

Politicide is relevant to this because racial units are frequently political units as well. When a political unit is composed of one of the genocide categories (national, ethnic, racial, religious), the destruction of the polity could qualify as genocide by default. Some people find this inability to distinguish polities from categories troubling, though, because it can make it impossible to opposes an intolerable polity without falling moral victim to the crime of  genocide. This is why there is a common, if not based on the convention's laws, distinction people make between organized polities that demonstrate consensus and policy versus unorganized groups that don't, even though both would fit in the category.

 

So, which interpretation will you follow? Does targeting an organized polity of a category constitute genocide? Or does the targeting of an organized polity distinguish it from genocide? As the Circles and Templars can both be considered polities, and falling under the protected categories of race and religion, having it both ways at your preference would be hypocritical.

 

 

Well, I don't think Gaxkang is a very good standard to measure other demons by, especially in the context of justification for mass murder.

 

As a standard for 'demons can remain hidden', the context doesn't really matter. It's a standard- what that standard is used for is something else.

[DKJaigen]

So a demon in the real world could mask a corpse but not a living body? Is that what you're saying?

 

remember gaxkang is one of the most powerful demons out their . its very likely he can do both. simply put i dont think most demons can change back into human form when an abomination is created only the most powerful ones

[Dean_the_Young]

I agree on that. It is like wiping out a village because one villager may be an unidentified serial killer. 

 

Well, more likely one villager may be having a highly contagious and fatal disease.

 

Once a Circle gets to a point of an Annulment, it's working far more on quarantine logic than the normal context. (And the normal context is closer to a counter-proliferation regime than conventional anti-crime in any respect.)

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Well, more likely one villager may be having a highly contagious and fatal disease.

 

Once a Circle gets to a point of an Annulment, it's working far more on quarantine logic than the normal context.

Yeah, your example works better. 

[Xilizhra]

The Templars aren't an army of a nation, and would fall under a religious group.

They don't possess a unique religion, sharing the faith of the Chantry. They're a political splinter group of the Chantry, but don't possess a religious affiliation independent of it. To, for instance, dismantle al Qaeda is not genocide against Muslims.

 

For the first, you've frequently relished in the prospect of destroying them through violence and plenty of death until they are no longer in a position to resist.

For the third, your open declarations of intent to destroy the Templars and their organization after your victory qualify.

For the fourth, in the past when asked you have said you would not allow surviving Templars sparred by you to raise their children as Templars. That qualifies.

If need be, but only in combat (which is defensive, given that the templars initiated the war).

See above about al Qaeda.

I would qualify that as an abusive upbringing, since you'd be trying to get them to addict themselves to lyrium if nothing else. That sort of entry requirement should involve a decision made as an adult, not parents trying to push it onto their children.

 

Oh, it certainly counts if we use the UN convention on Genocide... but the UN convention on Genocide is incredibly broad (wars that destroy armies could be counted as genocide under that banner), and your points run into some issues. Namely that the Kirkwall Cirlcle is an organized group within the nation of Kirkwall (it isn't: nations claim no jurisdiction or ownership of mages within their borders), and the point of politicide.

Then the equivalent would be the Chantry wiping out the population of one of its states or provinces, which I'm fairly sure still counts.

 

So, which interpretation will you follow? Does targeting an organized polity of a category constitute genocide? Or does the targeting of an organized polity distinguish it from genocide? As the Circles and Templars can both be considered polities, and falling under the protected categories of race and religion, having it both ways at your preference would be hypocritical.

For reasons mentioned prior, I don't see templars falling under the protection of religion, as their religion doesn't differ from that of the Chantry and the war is between, primarily, those who follow the same religion (whereas the Annulment is committed on grounds of suspicion based on biology, so is committed for race-equivalent reasons). I also don't know if it entirely counts when you have a polity defined solely by the aggression and probable genocidal intent it shows against another polity, especially as the templars weren't their own until very recently.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

While overall I support the mages wanting to not be oppressed, I'll admit that in both starting points it was the mage side that did. In Kirkwall, Anders launched the first strike by destroying the Chantry and in Asunder the Mages abolished the Circles.

[The Elder King]

While overall I support the mages wanting to not be oppressed, I'll admit that in both starting points it was the mage side that did. In Kirkwall, Anders launched the first strike by destroying the Chantry and in Asunder the Mages abolished the Circles.

I'd say in Asunder it's more appropriate to give Adrian credits for the events. I'm on the Pro-Compromise side, but at the point of the separation I don't think maged had much choice (considering their knowledge. With Lambert's supposed death things could've been different).

[Xilizhra]

While overall I support the mages wanting to not be oppressed, I'll admit that in both starting points it was the mage side that did. In Kirkwall, Anders launched the first strike by destroying the Chantry and in Asunder the Mages abolished the Circles.

The curse-moderating-happy mods will block the response I wanted to actually say, so use your imagination. This is wrong on both counts. Anders was not part of the Circle and the templars made the first strike against the Circle in Kirkwall, and in Asunder, the mages did not declare war against the Chantry: they seceded from the Chantry, and the Chantry let them go. Then the templars also left the Chantry and declared their own separate war against the mages.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I'd say in Asunder it's more appropriate to give Adrian credits for the events. I'm on the Pro-Compromise side, but at the point of the separation I don't think maged had much choice (considering their knowledge. With Lambert's supposed death things could've been different).

Oh, I agree on them having no choice but to play with the hand they were dealt. I just meant that Adrian was the one to start that chain of events, not a Templar. I'm Pro-Compromise as well. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

The curse-moderating-happy mods will block the response I wanted to actually say, so use your imagination. This is wrong on both counts. Anders was not part of the Circle and the templars made the first strike against the Circle in Kirkwall, and in Asunder, the mages did not declare war against the Chantry: they seceded from the Chantry, and the Chantry let them go. Then the templars also left the Chantry and declared their own separate war against the mages.

 

I said the mage side did, not the circle. Anders decided that he knew what was best for the Circle so did what he did on what he thought was for their behalf. As for the second, I'll give you that but what do you think they thought would happen when they left? That the Templars would just wave goodbye and wish them well? They knew, even if only subconciously, that such an act would result only in war with the Templars.

[Dean_the_Young]

They don't possess a unique religion, sharing the faith of the Chantry. They're a political splinter group of the Chantry, but don't possess a religious affiliation independent of it. To, for instance, dismantle al Qaeda is not genocide against Muslims.

 

 

You don't need a unique religion- in fact, the Genocide Conventions are very specific about that even targeting a part of a group qualifies. This is the basis that appeals to the Kirkwall Annulment as genocide are actually clinging to, since Meredith and the Templars targeted a sub-group of a category (the Kirkwall Circle) rather than the broader category (the Circle and Mages as a whole). As the Kirkwall Circle is not a unique population group, but rather a unique polity, appealing to its destruction as genocide is affirming that you don't need to be a unique category.

 

Which is one of those broad parts that I mentioned, since... yes, dismantling AQ would constitute genocide. If we go with the idea that targeting a polity composed of a group counts as genocide.

 

 

If need be, but only in combat (which is defensive, given that the templars initiated the war).

 

Genocide makes no distinction for combat or perpetrators.

 

 

I would qualify that as an abusive upbringing, since you'd be trying to get them to addict themselves to lyrium if nothing else. That sort of entry requirement should involve a decision made as an adult, not parents trying to push it onto their children.

 

Who said Templars addict their Children to lyrium? That's a blatant strawman even for you. You don't need to addict children to raise them to encourage them to join in adulthood.

 

But it's also irrelevant: whether you consider it abusive or not is irrelevant: preventing a group from raising and educating its next generations and preserving itself is a form of genocide.

 

Then the equivalent would be the Chantry wiping out the population of one of its states or provinces, which I'm fairly sure still counts.

 

 

Indeed it would. As I said, genocide is broad- and the broader your rely on it to justify your accusations of horrendous moral guilt, the easier you fall into it as well.

 

 

For reasons mentioned prior, I don't see templars falling under the protection of religion, as their religion doesn't differ from that of the Chantry and the war is between, primarily, those who follow the same religion (whereas the Annulment is committed on grounds of suspicion based on biology, so is committed for race-equivalent reasons). I also don't know if it entirely counts when you have a polity defined solely by the aggression and probable genocidal intent it shows against another polity, especially as the templars weren't their own until very recently.

 

 

Whether you deem them falling under a protected category is irrelevant, Xil. In fact, removing it from your discretion is rather the point of having such unnuanced categories in the first place: otherwise most groups could be removed by selectively defining and applying the categories. Like you are here, to justify your own supported eradication by inventing rules that don't exist and making moral appeals to justify why yours is alright.

[The Elder King]

The curse-moderating-happy mods will block the response I wanted to actually say, so use your imagination. This is wrong on both counts. Anders was not part of the Circle and the templars made the first strike against the Circle in Kirkwall, and in Asunder, the mages did not declare war against the Chantry: they seceded from the Chantry, and the Chantry let them go. Then the templars also left the Chantry and declared their own separate war against the mages.

Hanako talked about mages, not Circle. While I agree that Cirlce is completely innocent of Anders' actions, and it doesn't deserves an Annulment, Anders (a mage) still destroyed the Chantry with the purpose of instigating Meredith on the Annulment. He wanted war. The same goes for Adrian in Asunder. I'm on the opinion that without her actions the war won't have started.
That doesn't mean that I hold mages more responsible of templars for what happened, but they have their responsibility.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Hanako talked about mages, not Circle. While I agree that Cirlce is completely innocent of Anders' actions, and it doesn't deserves an Annulment, Anders (a mage) still destroyed the Chantry with the purpose of instigating Meredith on the Annulment. He wanted war. The same goes for Adrian in Asunder. I'm on the opinion that without her actions the war won't have started.
That doesn't mean that I hold mages more responsible of templars for what happened, but they have their responsibility.

Thank you for the defense, Elder King. I appreciate it.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Hanako talked about mages, not Circle. While I agree that Cirlce is completely innocent of Anders' actions, and it doesn't deserves an Annulment, Anders (a mage) still destroyed the Chantry with the purpose of instigating Meredith on the Annulment. He wanted war. The same goes for Adrian in Asunder. I'm on the opinion that without her actions the war won't have started.
That doesn't mean that I hold mages more responsible of templars for what happened, but they have their responsibility.

 

What circle was corrupted from top to bottom so anders actions were only excuse for crazy meredith she tried annul circle before because mages were corrupted but no one belived her that even orsino is corrupted and she was right in the end so well...

[The Elder King]

What circle was corrupted from top to bottom so anders actions were only excuse for crazy meredith she tried annul circle before because mages were corrupted but no one belived her that even orsino is corrupted and she was right in the end so well...

I disagree on the Cirlce being completely corrupted, but it's not relevant to my point. Meredith declared the Annulment for a single reason: the destruction of the Chantry. Of this, the Cirlce is completely innocent.

[The Elder King]

Thank you for the defense, Elder King. I appreciate it.

No problem .

[TheKomandorShepard]

I disagree on the Cirlce being completely corrupted, but it's not relevant to my point. Meredith declared the Annulment for a single reason: the destruction of the Chantry. Of this, the Cirlce is completely innocent.

 

lol that was her reason or i would say excuse but roa was pulled in right situation for wrong reason... complete (100 %) corruption i doubt that very high corruption yes so circle was doomed few "innocent" would die but that roa spares no one thats point...

[EmperorSahlertz]

Why do people cling so tightly to that buzzword when it isn't applicable? Are they really that despararetly horrible at rhetorics that they can't make an arguement without?

[The Elder King]

lol that was her reason or i would say excuse but roa was pulled in right situation for wrong reason... complete (100 %) corruption i doubt that very high corruption yes so circle was doomed few "innocent" would die but that roa spares no one thats point...

I woudn't say excuse. She genuinely believed (well, maybe not completely genuine, due to the red lyrium) that an Annulment was appropriate for what Anders did.

[Xilizhra]

I said the mage side did, not the circle. Anders decided that he knew what was best for the Circle so did what he did on what he thought was for their behalf. As for the second, I'll give you that but what do you think they thought would happen when they left? That the Templars would just wave goodbye and wish them well? They knew, even if only subconciously, that such an act would result only in war with the Templars.

"The mages" were not, by that point, a unified side; to be honest, I'm not completely sure if they still are, but that's beside the point. Anders was on his own side, and the rebellion is a continuation of the members of the Circles; its prior body did not throw the first strike in Kirkwall. And with the second, regardless of whether they knew it or not, they still did not declare war, nor did they make an attack against the templars, so the templar declaration of war was unjustified (they didn't even secede from the templars, as the templars weren't an independent group at the time).

 

You don't need a unique religion- in fact, the Genocide Conventions are very specific about that even targeting a part of a group qualifies. This is the basis that appeals to the Kirkwall Annulment as genocide are actually clinging to, since Meredith and the Templars targeted a sub-group of a category (the Kirkwall Circle) rather than the broader category (the Circle and Mages as a whole). As the Kirkwall Circle is not a unique population group, but rather a unique polity, appealing to its destruction as genocide is affirming that you don't need to be a unique category.

 

Which is one of those broad parts that I mentioned, since... yes, dismantling AQ would constitute genocide. If we go with the idea that targeting a polity composed of a group counts as genocide.

Well, the Templar Order has declared war on the mages in an initiation of their own genocide, so I'm fairly sure that defending oneself from that and defeating the templars in war is legally fine. After that... if you want to argue that dismantling them thereafter would be genocide... well, perhaps something could be found for them. Certainly they'll never be allowed to have any more power over the mages, but if they still want to fight for the Maker, there's still the qunari to deal with. Those members of the Order who didn't commit crimes against humanity/sapience themselves, should we find any, I would let go.

[The Elder King]

Why do people cling so tightly to that buzzword when it isn't applicable? Are they really that despararetly horrible at rhetorics that they can't make an arguement without?

Which buzzword?

[TheKomandorShepard]

I woudn't say excuse. She genuinely believed (well, maybe not completely genuine, due to the red lyrium) that an Annulment was appropriate for what Anders did.

 

She tried do that before actions but yes i think that was in case which doesn't chage situation when insane leader command attack bandit base because they stolen pancakes attacking bandit base is still proper thing to do despite leader does that for rather insane reasons...same was with circle only meredith did that for wrong reason...

[EmperorSahlertz]

Which buzzword?

Genocide.

[Dean_the_Young]

"The mages" were not, by that point, a unified side; to be honest, I'm not completely sure if they still are, but that's beside the point. Anders was on his own side, and the rebellion is a continuation of the members of the Circles; its prior body did not throw the first strike in Kirkwall. And with the second, regardless of whether they knew it or not, they still did not declare war, nor did they make an attack against the templars, so the templar declaration of war was unjustified (they didn't even secede from the templars, as the templars weren't an independent group at the time).

 

 

Xil, you misread and misfired. Apologize for your mistake and move on, don't wallow in it.

 

 

Well, the Templar Order has declared war on the mages in an initiation of their own genocide, so I'm fairly sure that defending oneself from that and defeating the templars in war is legally fine. After that... if you want to argue that dismantling them thereafter would be genocide... well, perhaps something could be found for them. Certainly they'll never be allowed to have any more power over the mages, but if they still want to fight for the Maker, there's still the qunari to deal with. Those members of the Order who didn't commit crimes against humanity/sapience themselves, should we find any, I would let go.

 

 

 

The Templar Order isn't planing to destroy the Circles- the opposite, in fact, as the Templar endstate is the Circles being preserved with mages back in them. A group destruction isn't being performed, unless you determine the independent Circles compose such a group. In which case, genocide already occurred when the mages declared independence, in which they ringleaders genocided their own group and transferred everyone into another.

 

Your, and I use 'you' because it reflects your personal claims and position, desire to destroy the Templars as an organization, however, would constitute... or at least would if you likewise claim the Annulment of a Circle qualifies.

 

Which you don't have to, really. There are plenty of other words and categories you could throw around at the Templars. Genocide just may be one that's trickier and more self-condemning than you likely intend- the curse of loaded terms, alas. They're remarkably imprecise.

 

Of course... there is a third option here. You could accept that what you are doing qualifies as genocide, and claim it's justified anyway. That genocide isn't the ultimate evil, but can be justified in context against a sufficiently threatening group. A 'good' genocide, if you will, based on the ethics of consequence after the genocide rather than intrinsic morality.

[Xilizhra]

Xil, you misread and misfired. Apologize for your mistake and move on, don't wallow in it.

I'm clarifying a point by the other poster I believe to be incorrect, because he or she was referring to a side that I don't believe existed at the time.

 

The Templar Order isn't planing to destroy the Circles- the opposite, in fact, as the Templar endstate is the Circles being preserved with mages back in them. A group destruction isn't being performed, unless you determine the independent Circles compose such a group. In which case, genocide already occurred when the mages declared independence, in which they ringleaders genocided their own group and transferred everyone into another.

I'm fairly sure that mass imprisonment was mentioned somewhere in the UN definition too.

 

Your, and I use 'you' because it reflects your personal claims and position, desire to destroy the Templars as an organization, however, would constitute... or at least would if you likewise claim the Annulment of a Circle qualifies.

Well, you pointed out an internal inconsistency, and I've revised my goal based on that. It might actually be more helpful than I initially realized for possible compromise purposes, so thank you for that.