8640 réponses à ce sujet

[Hellion Rex]

I'm bored. Blow up the Chantry to free the mages from Templar enslavement!!!

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I'm bored. Blow up the Chantry to free the mages from Templar enslavement!!!

 

Here you go.

 

[The Elder King]

I'm bored. Blow up the Chantry to free the mages from Templar enslavement!!!

You should be careful with your words, or I'll put back in your cage, saarebas. Be grateful that I'll let you talk.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Each Circle would be independent of other Circles, and would be vassals of the crown. The Circles would have an establishing charter and their members, mage and templar alike, would have to take an oath. Violations of that oath, including any attempt to rule beyond the bounds of the charter, would be cause for other members of the circle to stop the transgressor, including trial and punishment. If the Circle itself were trying to establish a magocracy, then other Circles would be obliged to defend the kingdom from the threat.

 

I wouldn't handle someone like Anders. A Circle I created would be entirely voluntary, so Anders would either join of his own free will or not be in it. Not hunted. No Templars trying to lure him into a stupid, stupid trap. Of course, if Anders chose not to be part of the Circle, he would not have the Circle's protection, so whatever he did would be subject to the common law. If he were determined to be a danger to the kingdom, the Circles would be obligated to defend the kingdom from that threat.

 

An Epic Fail of a system.

 

Reactive, ineffective, resulting in Circles becoming either puppets of the crown or de-facto the real power behind the crown.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

To get back on topic, here's a funny gif.

 

[renfrees]

I bet Hawke is the one watching in the back.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I bet Hawke is the one watching in the back.

You mean Patsy(the guy with the giant backpack)?

[renfrees]

You mean Patsy(the guy with the giant backpack)?

The one beside the flag.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

The one beside the flag.

Yep. That's Patsy.

 

The flag is actually part of the backpack.

[Dean_the_Young]

Which would be a perfectly reasonable thing to say, if there were indeed no evidence suggesting incompetence. Where there's smoke, there's fire (or of course, The Last Straw which is pretty much a confirmation, but, you know, hindsight).

 

 

Besides all the different ways to make smoke without fire, there's also the issue of how a fire starts. You are taking the mere existence as fire as proof for how it was started, which is wrong.

 

The Last Straw really doesn't confirm anything about how Meredith was acting seven years earlier. Meredith wasn't acting the same throughout the course of the story.

 

Let's not pretend that it's ever that simple, especially in this context. You have mages disappearing and Tranquil appearing without sanction from either Orsino or Meredith. And it continues until Hawke just happens to solve it him/herself.

 

 

And mages are disappearing for a variety of reasons: some are victims of Templar 'disappearance', presumably, but some are escapees, some are transfers, some just die for non-malevolent reasons, and some are simply unsubstantiated rumors. Given how unsubstantiated the claims are, we have virtually nothing to go on: they're about as developed as the Templar's own rumors that the surrounded the abducted Templar recruits.

 

I've never denied Meredith should do more against illegal tranquilization- but I do object that internal corruption (such as Sir Alrek) is conviction of incompetence, as there are other reasons why it might not be resolved.

 

And again, by allowing a potentially mage Hawke and the known apostate(s) connected to him/her to operate outside Chantry law is no less of an obstruction by the very mandate of her station.

 

Er, right. I've said that. Meredith is obstructed. She faces costs and challenges to enforcing the Circle system, and as a result has to select the order and nature of her battles less she be even more obstructed. If she didn't face political obstruction and challenges she couldn't overcome by fiat alone we never would have gone to Kirkwall in the first place, betting on exploiting nobility corruption obstructing theTemplars.

 

 

Additionally, there is a reason why many of the nobility and common folk in Kirkwall resent the Templars. Yes, the source of this resentment is beyond Meredith's control, but do you think bringing the city under control of the Chantry will actually do anything to fix this animosity, which is what allows resistance and corruption to thrive? Would it not, in fact, encourage them to resort to more extreme forms of resistance, such as straight-up killing Templars (which is exactly what happens in A Noble Agenda) or continue to provide shelter to potentially dangerous mages (On the Loose, the Last Holdouts)?

 

Yes. And the next question is... so what? Any counter-insurgency operation understands that challenging insurgent support zones prompts heightened opposition.

 

From the perspective of any non-voluntary enforcement agency, especially military-style organizations like the Templars, making your mission accomplishment dependent on the absence of opposition is idiocy. It is an expected and accepted cost, and the approval of the opposition is not the goal: their marginalization and inability to stop you is. Simply because opponents will fight more directly when they have more to lose doesn't mean they weren't opponents in the first place.

 

'Fixing the animosity' is a long-term desirable, not a short-term priority to stop your mission unless your mission depends on that animosity being fixed... which for Meredith it doesn't.

 

 

The trap had nothing to do with Meredith, who was content to let him do as he please, even if/when it is known that he is an associate of Hawke.

 

This assumes Anders was on Meredith's radar in a significant way in Act 1, when he was new to the city. By the time of Act 2, association with Hawke is enough to get him involved under the political umbrella that the Kirkwall corruption allows nobles to offer. The same in Act 3, when Hawke's status as the Champion has made them virtually untouchable.

 

 

And that he is able to foil these checks and balances for such a long time, even after such an incident, is a problem that clearly wasn't addressed.

 

'Addressed' isn't a synonym for 'solved,' you know. As for foiling internal checks for a few years being a long time- I won't quibble on your perception. I also won't quibble that more should have been done, but I've never denied Meredith's priorities differ from mine.

 

Of course, we know virtually nothing about the internal workings of the Templars and Circles within the seven years to claim what was and was not attempted, but who cares.

 

Leliana, who never actually suggests Tevinter could be involved in the uprising (she states that the Divine sent her to Kirkwall out of fear of the city becoming another Tevinter)?

 

And a codex that doesn't actually exist?

 

If you read further in the thread, you'll find that I was referring to the conversation contribution of Fenris, and already backed from that claim: Tevinter's involvement is unproven hear-say.

 

 

[Dean_the_Young]

I don't know where you're from, but I can assure you that the law in the USA disproves your statement, above. Regardless of "negative effects," your actions will not be a crime unless you possess the required culpable mental state. That required mental state varies from simple negligence to willful intent, but in almost every situation the mens rea of the defendant is at least as important as the effects of his actions.

 

Nope- even in the USA intent doesn't replace consequence. It might distinguish between murder and manslaughter, or what degree, but a well-intentioned mistake or even a sob story doesn't change the premise of a crime.

 

It might convince the jury to let you off, but that's a different thing.

[Lulupab]

The point, in any event, is that violent, murderous revolutionaries play JUST as much a role in bringing about positive changes to injustice as anyone else. Whether you like it or not, that's a fact of history. Every good leader that brought positive change had the opportunity to rise up because revolutionaries granted them that opportunity. And one of the biggest ways they do it is exactly as did Anders: by giving reasonable people cause to step back and say "Hey, templars, you can't rise up and slaughter all the mages of every Circle in Thedas for the actions of one mage who is not even from the circle," which can quickly lead to "Hey, maybe part of the problem is that mages are being forced into desperate situations. We should rectify this."

 

Every successful rebellion and revolution had murderers and violent people who played a critical role in their success. You are delusional if you think otherwise as change never comes peacefully.

 

Some even call them Martyrs. Someone who does something for his belief knowing it will cost him his life is a martyr by definition. If you share the belief then you will see them as a martyr if not then you will see them as murderers or violent in general. Like dead soldiers in a war between 2 counties. They are martyrs to one side while being murderers to the other. Ironically Anders has a talent in game which is named "Martyr". 

[Dean_the_Young]

It's interesting to go through and replace the word "mage" in your posts with the word "mundane," and vice versa. Thus, "...the mundanes would still be gathering power over mages which they can increasingly use to defy and ignore the wishes of mages." That's a fairly accurate, if inartful, description of the Templar agenda, actually.

 

Sure. You could also replace it with 'majority' and 'minority,' which is an even more accurate description of the Templar agenda.

 

 

 

Your analysis makes an altogether false assumption, upon which all of your arguments are based: that the mages and the mundanes belong to different groups on some fundamental level. Thus, you suggest that "the mundanes don't want the benefits of magic" as if they get to make that choice. They don't, because the mages and the mundanes are the same people, which is to say people of the same race, culture, creed, and geographical location. It may be the case that the Chantry preaches fear and superstition to a great enough degree that the "risk averse" common folk demand that anyone with magical ability be locked away, but it will never be a demand that can be satisfied. Not only will there always be new mages manifesting ability, but you'll always have mages who, like Malcolm Hawke, are able to hide in plain sight for the simple reason that they belong there, were born there, and fit into the communities like the natives they, in fact, are.

 

 

This ignores two points: the first is that mages haven't been identifying as the same people as the mundanes, which is a requirement of their perspective, and the second being the existence (and nature) of magic, which is a distinction category as relevant as race, culture, creed, and location. Magic is a dominant distinguishing factor in how people interact with and are viewed by their societies, and that's a truism that holds true across Thedas.

 

 

These "incurred costs" you reference--you seem very willing to set their weight upon the shoulders of any mage as if somehow anyone born with magical ability should also carry the blame for any transgression, real or mythologised, on the part of anyone else who might also have magical ability. It's like you want to apply a concept of original sin, but with an account that may be added to any time a mage does anything you don't particularly approve of. If that rationale were to be applied to the Chantry and the Templars, the weight of their institutional guilt would be titanic. It is not incumbent upon Bethany to atone for the actions of Corypheus, nor in fact to prevent the actions of Anders. 

 

 

If I seem that way, I'll apologize. I don't blame mages for the past any more than I blame a carrier of a potentially contagious and deadly disease.

 

 

I view them through the lens of what they can do in the future through general risk assessment, a cynical view of human nature, and the effects of magic that they can and, just as importantly, can not control. They have superior powers, but not superior character to handle those powers, and through no fault of their own they also carry an inherent risk of extremely violent and destructive insanity tied to their mental fortitude. They are not the same as mundanes in these matters.

 

Systems and societies work on a macro scale. When people like Bethany can not be expected or relied upon to prevent the actions of people like Anders or Corpheus, preventing the effects of Anders and Corpheus on any enduring scale will require a macro solution. Systemic solutions do not do case-by-case solutions very well, and will involve individuals whether they want their interests raised above the collective interests or not.

 

 

You seem to be fond of the idea that might makes right, that individual rights are meaningless in Thedas and that the Circle of Magi, being "the law," should be adhered to, preserved, respected. It's interesting to watch you try to reconcile that with an apparently equally strong view that mages shouldn't rule. I mean, in Tevinter, magocracy is the law, right? I'm wondering if your scorn of the mage rebellion in Eastern Thedas would be matched by equal scorn of a muggle flintbanger uprising in Tevinter. Somehow, I doubt it.

 

 

And why would I be? It doesn't reflect my personal views or position.

 

I don't believe might makes right. I believe power makes facts on the ground, and that facts and political realities are more important than idealistic desires. Some of those realities include the factors that would propel mages to the top of a society and ignorring the interests of mundanes.

 

I believe that western liberalism's perspectives are meaningless in Thedas because Thedas has no concept or adherance to western liberalism. The enlightened western liberalism pro-mage view of imposing human rights in Thedas is going to run into more minefields than American efforts in Afghanistan.

 

I do not believe in status quo law above all else. I do believe the Andrastian laws of the Circle have a legitimate basis in the reflecting the views and desires of the population majority, which does not want a mage class above them. The laws of Tevinter supported by a minority to suppress a majority have no such legitimacy to me.

 

 

Feel free to find hypocrisy where you want, but do try and actually use my views to do so.

[durasteel]

I personally find TKS and Xil are very much alike, but i doubt they will convince many in their extremist beliefs.

 

And no, don't even start with precious - "We are nothing alike, don't even begin to think that we are"

 

I really cannot stress enough how much I disagree with this. Both might have positions that represent the extremes of their respective camps, but that similarity is grossly outweighed by their differences.

 

Xil uses basically good grammar, and makes points using a logical structure deriving conclusions from premises. You might not agree with Xil, but you at least have a coherent position with which to differ. 

 

TKS seems to produce nothing but incoherent, violent screeds that make your brain hurt if you try to make sense of them.

 

From the perspective of a reader of their posts, no... they are nothing alike.

[durasteel]

An Epic Fail of a system.

 

Reactive, ineffective, resulting in Circles becoming either puppets of the crown or de-facto the real power behind the crown.

 

It's charming in a pejorative sort of way that you think being puppets of the crown is somehow worse than being puppets of the Chantry. As for being "the power behind the crown," the Circles would not be in any greater position to assume that role than the Chantry is now, or would very likely remain under my construction.

 

Clearly you think that anything short of total isolation of mages from politics is an "epic fail," but you might as well wish upon a star for a unicorn to come take you over the rainbow. 

[Rusty Sandusky]

How did this get to 200 pages? GG BSN TBF BF or whatever the **** it is now.

[renfrees]

I really cannot stress enough how much I disagree with this. Both might have positions that represent the extremes of their respective camps, but that similarity is grossly outweighed by their differences.

 

Xil uses basically good grammar, and makes points using a logical structure deriving conclusions from premises. You might not agree with Xil, but you at least have a coherent position with which to differ. 

 

TKS seems to produce nothing but incoherent, violent screeds that make your brain hurt if you try to make sense of them.

 

From the perspective of a reader of their posts, no... they are nothing alike.

*smirk* You don't have to form coherent sentences to be alike, you don't have to talk alot or don't talk much to be alike. I thought we saw the example of it in DAII, no?

 

And before you take my words literally - they were metaphoric.

[durasteel]

Nope- even in the USA intent doesn't replace consequence. It might distinguish between murder and manslaughter, or what degree, but a well-intentioned mistake or even a sob story doesn't change the premise of a crime.

 

It might convince the jury to let you off, but that's a different thing.

 

You are mistaken. Intent is the difference between murder and "not guilty." A "sob story" can make the difference between a grand jury returning an indictment or a no-bill. A well-intentioned mistake can be a defense to prosecution (e.g., good samaritan.)

 

I don't want to derail this thread into a discourse on US criminal law, but I'm more than a little bit familiar with the subject and I assure you that you are in error.

[durasteel]

...

This ignores two points: the first is that mages haven't been identifying as the same people as the mundanes, which is a requirement of their perspective, and the second being the existence (and nature) of magic, which is a distinction category as relevant as race, culture, creed, and location. Magic is a dominant distinguishing factor in how people interact with and are viewed by their societies, and that's a truism that holds true across Thedas.

...

 

Magic ability is actually much more akin to sexual orientation, in that it is something you're born with that tends to manifest in adolescence but that can quite often be kept "in the closet" to protect against persecution. I don't want to offend anyone, so I'm not gonna take the comparison any farther, but the point is that a native-born mage can blend in to, for example, Ferelden society much more easily than a Rivaini, or Qunari, or Dalish could, to the point that a mage hunter would have to rely upon blind luck or a mistake on the part of the mage in order to distinguish him from his neighbors.

 

Your use of magic as a distinguishing factor applies only when the mage is already known to be a mage.

 

I would also point out that Merrill seems to identify first as a Dalish, then as a mage. Saarebas seem to identify first as Qunari, then as a dangerous thing. Grey Wardens are Wardens first, then mages, warriors, or rogues. Only when dealing with what has become of Andraste's Cult of the Maker do you find the mage/mundane divide to assume primacy.

[durasteel]

...

I do not believe in status quo law above all else. I do believe the Andrastian laws of the Circle have a legitimate basis in the reflecting the views and desires of the population majority, which does not want a mage class above them. The laws of Tevinter supported by a minority to suppress a majority have no such legitimacy to me.

...

 

So is it fair to say that a magocracy would be legitimate if 6 out of 10 children were born with magical ability? If not, what about 9 out of 10? 

 

Also, what makes the ability to master magic a less legitimate criteria for rulership than, for example, a gift for military strategy, or an uncommonly strong sword arm? Each characteristic will be found in only a small percentage of the population, but you seem to have no problem with the "normal" people being dominated by gifted warriors. Is it just that you are conditioned to accept that by the history of your own society?

[Lotion Soronarr]

It's charming in a pejorative sort of way that you think being puppets of the crown is somehow worse than being puppets of the Chantry. As for being "the power behind the crown," the Circles would not be in any greater position to assume that role than the Chantry is now, or would very likely remain under my construction.

 

Of course it is.

You have a dozen crowns each with it's own interests and laws, that will end up pitting circles against each other. There is no unifiying factor, no structure.

 

The Chantry is one. It's easier to keep order, to keep things balanced across countries. And to keep the Circles from becoming political/war tools between warring politicians.

 

As for power behind the crown. Mages are powerful. As such they would end up holding a lot of sway over time - and that is, without taking into account things like MIND CONTROL.

 

 

Clearly you think that anything short of total isolation of mages from politics is an "epic fail," but you might as well wish upon a star for a unicorn to come take you over the rainbow.

 

I think that keeping people who can mind control you or can get possesed by demons (and are generally more tempted than your average person) away from other people of power a good thing.

 

Also, reactionary systems only work if the price for a delayed response is small. Which in the case of abominations, isn't.

If you only come to the scene after the abomination in question has already burned 3 villages to the ground and amassed an army, you're doing it wrong.

Your kingdom is already 3 villages (+ population) short + the people who will die fighting it. All for 1 mage. A friggin horrible trade.

[Dean_the_Young]

The existing "goals of the Andrasteans" are, in essence, to ensure that all mages are subjugated to Chantry authority and supervised in all things by Templars. Failure in achieving these goals is a given. To the extent that my system would ever receive significant support from Andraste's bleating flock, it would only be because the Divine, along with the crowns of a few kingdoms of Thedas, saw that it was to their benefit for the system to receive that support. People will largely believe what they're told to believe, as long as they already believe in the messenger.

 

 

 

This is incorrect: subjugating mages to the Chantry and Templars is a means to an end, not the end in and of itself. It's relevant to remember that the Circle system itself was a compromise the mages helped create. Before that, a different system was attempted. Preserving an endstate (a social system in which mages can not rise to gather enough power to be broadly unaccountable to the mundanes) is more important than the means by which it is achieved, so long as it is achieved.

 

That the endstate itself will inevitably fail is irrelevant to the worth of preserving it: I have no illusions about the morality or corruptibility of western liberalism as we now know it, but millions of people to this day devote their lives in an attempt to preserve and perpetuate it. The fact that our liberal societies as we know them will eventually change or be destroyed does not mean they are not worth preserving despite their flaws, and I am honestly puzzled by any argument that would argue otherwise on the basis of the inevitable.

 

The problem at this fundamental level of avoiding mage dominance (or, if you prefer, mage authority and general unaccountability by mundanes) is that there are so few means to preserve the endstate of keeping mages out of power. There are precious few agencies and organizations that can support and enforce a system of segregating mages from power centers: internationally there is only one, the Chantry, while the national analogues (giving the Circles to the crowns) invites other significant problems (like mages being politicized). The issue with integration, the common proposal of liberally-minded Westerners, is that integration opens up the access to accumulating power, and that the magic itself is an extreme advantage for mages as a whole accumulating and gaining power at the expense of mundanes in any competitive environment: economics, politics, military, and so on. Over time mages will gather more power and wealth, be more sympathetic with the interests and viewpoints of other mages, and tolerate those with cirumstances they understand and empathize with over those that are counter to their own. At which point, through degrees, an oligarchy rises.

 

This isn't sinister, it's simply human nature. Pretty much everyone in this thread, myself included, has reflected aspects of this. It isn't sinister- but it is a significant problem to preserving a significant status-quo that a culture wishes to preserve

 

 

 

I'm fully aware that there would be those opposed to my system, and if you came away from any post of mine with a contrary notion, you should re-read it.

 

 

I regard "the fears of the masses and the Chantry" to be mythical. While built upon a kernel of real danger, the Chantry's dogma regarding mages and magic is mostly just fear mongering. I'm not pretending at all to care about their concerns, any more than I'm pretending to care about what grade you think you might give me if you somehow found yourself in a position to grant me one. There will be those among the Chantry hierarchy who understand that the dogma is largely fiction, and will be willing to work with reality and practical considerations to get what they want. The rest--those zealots who are true believers--will either do what the Divine requires of them or what the Inquisitor compels from them.

 

 

 

 

If you are a person who will not even pretend to care about the concerns of a society, why should that society ever be expected to care or enact your views? What makes you think you can compel them to adopt your views and desires, any more than the Americans and Europeans have compelled western liberalism outside their own borders?

 

This is the self-centered hubris that drives so many attempts to civilize the primitives... and what makes such efforts regular failures. People who fail to understand that social reform comes by the consensus of societies, not the imposition of policy, have such a commendable success record for creating enduring institutions.

[TheKomandorShepard]

The point, in any event, is that violent, murderous revolutionaries play JUST as much a role in bringing about positive changes to injustice as anyone else. Whether you like it or not, that's a fact of history. Every good leader that brought positive change had the opportunity to rise up because revolutionaries granted them that opportunity. And one of the biggest ways they do it is exactly as did Anders: by giving reasonable people cause to step back and say "Hey, templars, you can't rise up and slaughter all the mages of every Circle in Thedas for the actions of one mage who is not even from the circle," which can quickly lead to "Hey, maybe part of the problem is that mages are being forced into desperate situations. We should rectify this."

 

Every successful rebellion and revolution had murderers and violent people who played a critical role in their success. You are delusional if you think otherwise as change never comes peacefully.

 

Some even call them Martyrs. Someone who does something for his belief knowing it will cost him his life is a martyr by definition. If you share the belief then you will see them as a martyr if not then you will see them as murderers or violent in general. Like dead soldiers in a war between 2 counties. They are martyrs to one side while being murderers to the other. Ironically Anders has a talent in game which is named "Martyr". 

 

 

Funny things about revolutions that they rarely changes something only thing that changes is peoples who are in charge and those who end on the bottom same thing will be with mages mages will end in ruling position and non-mages on the bottom just next tevinter empire.And no peoples won't care about mages as they don't care about elves... 

[Dean_the_Young]

The point, in any event, is that violent, murderous revolutionaries play JUST as much a role in bringing about positive changes to injustice as anyone else. Whether you like it or not, that's a fact of history. Every good leader that brought positive change had the opportunity to rise up because revolutionaries granted them that opportunity. And one of the biggest ways they do it is exactly as did Anders: by giving reasonable people cause to step back and say "Hey, templars, you can't rise up and slaughter all the mages of every Circle in Thedas for the actions of one mage who is not even from the circle," which can quickly lead to "Hey, maybe part of the problem is that mages are being forced into desperate situations. We should rectify this."

 

This cuts both ways you know- sometimes the leaders of much loved treasons really were thugs or selfish bastards who deserved to be opposed. Cult of the Founding Fathers aside, most modern Americans would probably support the British Empire and its concerns that its colonies should be subject to national law and help pay for defense over secessionists hurting over bigger taxes. (And, even at the time, many did- hence a significant exodux of the colonial population to Canada and elsewhere when the rebels won.)

 

 

 

Every successful rebellion and revolution had murderers and violent people who played a critical role in their success. You are delusional if you think otherwise as change never comes peacefully.

 

 

 

Or I am better versed in history: quite a few social movements have succeeded by quietly gathering power and influence before peacefully asserting and pressing for changes, whereas violent revolutionaries just got their cause squashed for a few more years/decades/centuries. The success story of western liberalism isn't one of victorious violent reforms, but the spread of tolerance for peaceful dissent and pressures changing an establishment. Name five social movements in, say, the history of the United States that succeeded through violence and I'll be impressed. I'll even give you a handicap: feel free to claim the American Revolution as one, even though it predates the US.
 

 

Some even call them Martyrs. Someone who does something for his belief knowing it will cost him his life is a martyr by definition. If you share the belief then you will see them as a martyr if not then you will see them as murderers or violent in general. Like dead soldiers in a war between 2 counties. They are martyrs to one side while being murderers to the other. Ironically Anders has a talent in game which is named "Martyr".

 

 

If you believe that, sure. I don't- but then, I grew up in a culture in which military service was voluntary, and in which perceptions of conscription were more negative, and I've long since outgrown childish notions such as 'anyone who opposes my righteous cause is the bad guy.'

[Dean_the_Young]

I really cannot stress enough how much I disagree with this. Both might have positions that represent the extremes of their respective camps, but that similarity is grossly outweighed by their differences.

 

Xil uses basically good grammar, and makes points using a logical structure deriving conclusions from premises. You might not agree with Xil, but you at least have a coherent position with which to differ. 

 

TKS seems to produce nothing but incoherent, violent screeds that make your brain hurt if you try to make sense of them.

 

From the perspective of a reader of their posts, no... they are nothing alike.

 

I wouldn't agree on Xil having a coherent position. She's... I don't know a good word for it. The point is, her morality is heavily influenced by her approval for you as a person or group, in which what constitutes a crime is true for you but not for thee. It comes out as a myriad of double standards and shifting goal posts, and she frequently bounces between ethical systems to rationalize support for her favored groups while condemning her opposed groups without any particularly common ethical distinction between them past her favor. Between bouncing between teleological, denotological, and other minor systems and a not-infrequent habit introducing headcanon and exaggerations and presenting them as facts, there's less a coherent stance and more of a semi-consistent ad hoc approach towards certain topics.

 

Definitely agree on the good grammar, and she's quite mature emotionally. She will also readily concede when challenged on things she can't support, which is a trait worthy of respecting.