8640 réponses à ce sujet

[Lulupab]

No, with the law in place you can not carry out a Tranquil Solution. Making a change in the laws so that the law would not forbid it is perfectly legal- which is why Alrik proposed a policy change.

 

Laws are not immutable things. Even fewer criminalize proposals to change them.

 

 

No, the better example would be when someone in the government advocates a change of laws and the criminalization of homosexuality. Which has happened, sad as it is. Laws can be changed for better and for worse.

 

But, sad as it is, the ability to suggest changes to established law is a very necessary and appropriate ability for a healthy society. Criminalizing even the attempt to propose a change is the mark of a static, inflexible society and system. Such systems break because they actively oppose efforts to adjust.
 

 

Rewarding the exposure of corruption also rewards corrupting the arbitrators in your favor. There's a reason why many anti-corruption drives are often little more than partisan attacks by one corrupt entity on another.

 

Yes, a system based on immediate severe punishment with no questions asked or strings attached is very much a system which punishes without proof. You might not have meant it, but that is the effect of what you proposed.

 

Still you need to slowly and gradually target the roots of laws one by one. Proposing something that big NEVER worked. I'd like an example if you claim as such.

 

My example is after the American civil war no one could propose to make slavery legal again. 

[KainD]

Still you need to slowly and gradually target the roots of laws one by one. Proposing something that big NEVER worked. I'd like an example if you claim as such.

 

My example is after the American civil war no one could propose to make slavery legal again. 

 

Remember also that DA society isn't as civilized as the modern one.

[Lulupab]

Proposing a change to a law might be taboo (in many places it's not), but it's not criminal unless the law claims it is criminal. Nor is it always doomed to failure and retribution: I'm fairly sure your country has reversed quite a number of established laws over the last five hundred years.

 

Seriously, societies change their norms. Regularly. The whole history of western liberalism and progressivism champions this fact as an accomplishment of political enlightenment and progress.

 

That depends on what the law is. For example you cannot make a propose to bring back capital punishment. Any political doing so will completely ruin his career. I did not claim proposing such things will make them a criminal, but it does have consequence. it always does.

[Lulupab]

Remember also that DA society isn't as civilized as the modern one.

 

Remember what happened to mages who merely suggested the idea of an autonomous circle? Templars became much harsher and college of Enchanters was disbanded. It was just a proposal, nothing more. But the consequence was severe.

 

This is hypocrisy in its most glorious form.

[Dean_the_Young]

Still you need to slowly and gradually target the roots of laws one by one. Proposing something that big NEVER worked. I'd like an example if you claim as such.

 

American Constitution history alone has a number of radical legal changes. All eventually start with someone advocating a change and trying to convince others, including elites.

 

Pretty much every successful social movement in history begins with this. Including the abolishment of slavery, which itself was a legally entrenched and protected practice before the law changed.

 

 

My example is after the American civil war no one could propose to make slavery legal again.

 

 

No, they could propose it. In fact, proposing it is explicitly protected.

 

Advocacy of changing an amendment for the masses is protected under the first amendment and freedom of speech- which has consistently been upheld to protect even bigoted and taboo topics.

 

The speech and debate clause (Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1) protects the rights of Congressmen to propose such changes (."shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place"). In practice this has consistently been interpreted as protecting the rights of lawmakers to make laws and change existing ones.

 

The Constitution also makes an entire Article (article 5) on just how to make changes to the Constitution- this is how the anti-slavery amendment was enacted, and also how it could be repealed. Altering established law isn't just legal- it's expected and with a defined and practiced process.

[Lulupab]

American Constitution history alone has a number of radical legal changes. All eventually start with someone advocating a change and trying to convince others, including elites.

 

Pretty much every successful social movement in history begins with this. Including the abolishment of slavery, which itself was a legally entrenched and protected practice before the law changed.

 

 

No, they could propose it. In fact, proposing it is explicitly protected.

 

Advocacy of changing an amendment for the masses is protected under the first amendment and freedom of speech- which has consistently been upheld to protect even bigoted and taboo topics.

 

The speech and debate clause (Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1) protects the rights of Congressmen to propose such changes (."shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place"). In practice this has consistently been interpreted as protecting the rights of lawmakers to make laws and change existing ones.

 

The Constitution also makes an entire Article (article 5) on just how to make changes to the Constitution- this is how the anti-slavery amendment was enacted, and also how it could be repealed. Altering established law isn't just legal- it's expected and with a defined and practiced process.

 

The future is not being discussed here. What would happen to a senator that would propose making slavery legal right now? More importantly can a lieutenant make such proposal without any consequence?

[Dean_the_Young]

That depends on what the law is. For example you cannot make a propose to bring back capital punishment. Any political doing so will completely ruin his career. I did not claim proposing such things will make them a criminal, but it does have consequence. it always does.

 

Nonsense- that is a perspective much to narrow and blind to history. A politician will ruin his political career only as long as the public believes proposing bringing back capital punishment is worth ruining a political over- this is not a criminal consequence mandated by the proposal, but a particular political context, and political contexts change. Change starts with people talking about a subject, changing it from taboo to acceptable discourse: homosexuality, woman's suffrage, human rights are all topics that overcame social inertia.

[Dean_the_Young]

The future is not being discussed here. What would happen to a senator that would propose making slavery legal right now?

 

 

 

A sitting Senator who proposes making slavery legal right now would be laughed at. He or she may or may not be voted out of office at his next election (if they even try) depending on what issues dominate the campaign, and would lose support, but you'd be surprised how many crackpot beliefs exist at high office.

 

They would not be stripped of their status, dismissed, or formally penalized.

 

 

 More importantly can a lieutenant make such proposal without any consequence?

 

Legal consequences? Yes. Which are the only kind that matter when insisting that someone making a proposal must be punished or retaliated against for making a proposal.

 

Social consequences? A separate issue, and frequently inappropriate on legal grounds. Frequently the tool of insecure authoriatarians who don't value concepts such as freedom of speach and wish to punish dissent from the norm.

[Dean_the_Young]

Remember what happened to mages who merely suggested the idea of an autonomous circle? Templars became much harsher and college of Enchanters was disbanded. It was just a proposal, nothing more. But the consequence was severe.

If by 'merely suggested the idea of autonomous circle' you mean 'actively trying to instigate secession and treason.'

 

There's also the argument that the Templars weren't actually justified in disbanding the college of enchanters the way they did. In which case the Tempalrs weren't right to make consequences, they just had the power to and did it.
 

 

This is hypocrisy in its most glorious form.

 

Not if you consider treason a separate issue proposing from legal changes within a system. Or don't consider the Templars justified in their action in the first place.

[Lulupab]

Nonsense- that is a perspective much to narrow and blind to history. A politician will ruin his political career only as long as the public believes proposing bringing back capital punishment is worth ruining a political over- this is not a criminal consequence mandated by the proposal, but a particular political context, and political contexts change. Change starts with people talking about a subject, changing it from taboo to acceptable discourse: homosexuality, woman's suffrage, human rights are all topics that overcame social inertia.

 

Dean you are stretching too hard. Did people want a tranquil solution in Kirkwall? NO. Do people want a capital punishment? NO (In Netherlands anyway). Why do you even mention it then? There should have been a consequence for Alrik. It just screams self righteous proposing such a thing quite selfishly without considering anything or anyone in process. They are not voice of anyone but their own.

 

Speaking of consequence in DA, Remember what happened to mages who merely suggested the idea of an autonomous circle? Templars became much harsher and college of Enchanters was disbanded. It was just a proposal, nothing more. But the consequence was severe.

 

A sitting Senator who proposes making slavery legal right now would be laughed at. He or she may or may not be voted out of office at his next election (if they even try) depending on what issues dominate the campaign, and would lose support, but you'd be surprised how many crackpot beliefs exist at high office.

 

They would not be stripped of their status, dismissed, or formally penalized.

 

Legal consequences? Yes. Which are the only kind that matter when insisting that someone making a proposal must be punished or retaliated against for making a proposal.

 

Social consequences? A separate issue, and frequently inappropriate on legal grounds. Frequently the tool of insecure authoriatarians who don't value concepts such as freedom of speach and wish to punish dissent from the norm.

 

In which case Alrik received none of the named consequences which is as I mentioned earlier hypocrisy in its glorious form especially when we considered what happened when college of enchanters, the leaders of all mages proposed such a thing.

[Lulupab]

If by 'merely suggested the idea of autonomous circle' you mean 'actively trying to instigate secession and treason.'

 

There's also the argument that the Templars weren't actually justified in disbanding the college of enchanters the way they did. In which case the Tempalrs weren't right to make consequences, they just had the power to and did it.
 

Not if you consider treason a separate issue proposing from legal changes within a system. Or don't consider the Templars justified in their action in the first place.

 

No they "actively tried to instigate" on 2nd attempt. First time was just voting.

 

In Thedas change was never achieved without violence, it speaks volumes about consequences of proposing a change. Unless of course you are a Templar. God forbid, they are divinity!

[Dean_the_Young]

No they "actively tried to instigate" on 2nd attempt. First time was just voting.

 

Voting on it is trying to instigate it.

 

 

 

In Thedas change was never achieved without violence, it speaks volumes about consequences of proposing a change. Unless of course you are a Templar. God forbid, they are divinity!

 

 

In both games so far you are able to make changes and resolve conflicts by avoiding violence. Your claim is false.

[Xilizhra]

In both games so far you are able to make changes and resolve conflicts by avoiding violence. Your claim is false.

I find myself skeptical of this claim. Which instances were you thinking of?

[Dean_the_Young]

Dean you are stretching too hard. Did people want a tranquil solution in Kirkwall? NO. Do people want a capital punishment? NO (In Netherlands anyway). Why do you even mention it then? There should have been a consequence for Alrik. It just screams self righteous proposing such a thing quite selfishly without considering anything or anyone in process. They are not voice of anyone but their own.

 

 

 

The very same could be said of mage independence. The people advocating the mage independence and break from the established system are the mages, not the majority of people.

 

Being a minority viewpoint is why they are rejected and their proposals refused. But advocacy by a minority of its viewpoints is not and should not be considered a crime requiring official retaliation: any person who values deviation and freedom for ideological orthodoxy should concede that. Removing the state as the enforcer of acceptable morality is one of the great achievements of liberalism and reformists across hisotry, and a key component of liberal values such as freedom of conscience.

 

Currently you are arguing that someone who advocated a proposal through proper channels should have been severly punished for doing so. Not for the fact that he later ignored the refusal and hid his defiance: the mere fact that he sought to challenge an established orthodoxy and legal arrangement and does not face official sanction and retaliation is the basis of your condemnation.

 

The exact same rational can be used to justify the Templars doing what you condemn them for doing: reacting harshly to a minority viewpoint that wants to change an established system. They are what a system cracking down on ideological deviancy looks like. That is the issue, not the solution.

 

 

 

 

In which case Alrik received none of the named consequences which is as I mentioned earlier hypocrisy in its glorious form especially when we considered what happened when college of enchanters, the leaders of all mages proposed such a thing.

 

 

Hypocrisy would depend on him supporting the Templars' actions on a basis he doesn't support the mages on, or vice versa.

 

If he, for example, advocated a principle of institutions swiftly punishing and humiliating a minority viewpoint that proposed systemic change, it would be hypocritical for him to not advocate swiftly punishing and humiliating the mages raising the propsect of secssion.

 

If he does not support the Templars actions, or he supports them on another  basis, then hypocrisy is not evident.

[Dean_the_Young]

I find myself skeptical of this claim. Which instances were you thinking of?

 

In DAO, resolving the Templar's delimma on whether to annul the Circle and making peace between the elves and werewolves comes to mind. Combat is used to get to the resolution points (the dungeon crawl), but violence isn't what resolves the issues: compromise is. Unlike, say, the Dwarven Arc, or the Darkspawn threat, which are ultimately resolved through violence (Beheln's actions at the crowning, the defeat of the Archdemon). The whole Boon epilogue is also a point at which changes are attempted peacefully to varying effect.

 

We also get various points across both games in which the resolution points for this delimma or that can be resolved via dialogue rather than fists. Fighting is a major part of the game and getting to them, but actually resolving and deciding the conflicts frequently allows you to avoid violence.

[Lulupab]

The very same could be said of mage independence. The people advocating the mage independence and break from the established system are the mages, not the majority of people.

 

Being a minority viewpoint is why they are rejected and their proposals refused. But advocacy by a minority of its viewpoints is not and should not be considered a crime requiring official retaliation: any person who values deviation and freedom for ideological orthodoxy should concede that. Removing the state as the enforcer of acceptable morality is one of the great achievements of liberalism and reformists across hisotry, and a key component of liberal values such as freedom of conscience.

 

Currently you are arguing that someone who advocated a proposal through proper channels should have been severly punished for doing so. Not for the fact that he later ignored the refusal and hid his defiance: the mere fact that he sought to challenge an established orthodoxy and legal arrangement and does not face official sanction and retaliation is the basis of your condemnation.

 

The exact same rational can be used to justify the Templars doing what you condemn them for doing: reacting harshly to a minority viewpoint that wants to change an established system. They are what a system cracking down on ideological deviancy looks like. That is the issue, not the solution.

 

 

 

Hypocrisy would depend on him supporting the Templars' actions on a basis he doesn't support the mages on, or vice versa.

 

If he, for example, advocated a principle of institutions swiftly punishing and humiliating a minority viewpoint that proposed systemic change, it would be hypocritical for him to not advocate swiftly punishing and humiliating the mages raising the propsect of secssion.

 

If he does not support the Templars actions, or he supports them on another  basis, then hypocrisy is not evident.

 

The mages received their consequence. They proposed something out of the blue that countered chantry laws. Alrik should have received such consequence too. There is always a consequence unless the system is biased which it was towards Alrik. 

[Xilizhra]

In DAO, resolving the Templar's delimma on whether to annul the Circle and making peace between the elves and werewolves comes to mind. Combat is used to get to the resolution points (the dungeon crawl), but violence isn't what resolves the issues: compromise is. Unlike, say, the Dwarven Arc, or the Darkspawn threat, which are ultimately resolved through violence (Beheln's actions at the crowning, the defeat of the Archdemon). The whole Boon epilogue is also a point at which changes are attempted peacefully to varying effect.

 

We also get various points across both games in which the resolution points for this delimma or that can be resolved via dialogue rather than fists. Fighting is a major part of the game and getting to them, but actually resolving and deciding the conflicts frequently allows you to avoid violence.

Violence is required to make peace between the elves and werewolves, as you have to beat Zathrian into submission. I would also argue that violence has to be used to save the mages in DAO, directed specifically to prevent Uldred from transforming any of them, but I can see why you might not. However, none of the various boons appear to have any lasting effect aside from maybe pledging military aid to Orzammar, so I wouldn't count them as terribly successful.

[Lulupab]

In DAO, resolving the Templar's delimma on whether to annul the Circle and making peace between the elves and werewolves comes to mind. Combat is used to get to the resolution points (the dungeon crawl), but violence isn't what resolves the issues: compromise is. Unlike, say, the Dwarven Arc, or the Darkspawn threat, which are ultimately resolved through violence (Beheln's actions at the crowning, the defeat of the Archdemon). The whole Boon epilogue is also a point at which changes are attempted peacefully to varying effect.

 

We also get various points across both games in which the resolution points for this delimma or that can be resolved via dialogue rather than fists. Fighting is a major part of the game and getting to them, but actually resolving and deciding the conflicts frequently allows you to avoid violence.

 

Except all of it is irrelevant. Deciding to spare or annul mages is not a decision or proposal to change Thedas. Its a decision to save people or not. I was strictly talking about changes that happened in Thedas peacefully which we have no instance of. 

[Mistic]

Except all of it is irrelevant. Deciding to spare or annul mages is not a decision or proposal to change Thedas. Its a decision to save people or not. I was strictly talking about changes that happened in Thedas peacefully which we have no instance of. 

 

Well, we know of one: the return of the Tevinter magisters to effective and official power:

 

"The Circle of the Magi today rules Tevinter directly, ever since the Archon Nomaran was elected in 7:34 Storm directly from the ranks of the enchanters, to great applause from the public. He dispensed with the old rules forbidding mages from taking part in politics, and within a century, the true rulers within the various imperial houses-the mages-took their places openly within the government"

 

Written by a White Chantry scholar, if somone thinks is a biased description of the events. Isn't this the nice peaceful change people advocate?

[Sir DeLoria]

Whatever comes in DA:I, I hope we can solve the conflict between mages and templars/chantry, (fairly)peacefully. While I'm a huge templar fan, I don't believe murdering or tranquilizing every mage in Thedas is a solution. It's really too bad we have terrorist idiots like Anders and sociopaths like Alrik who ruin everything.

[Dean_the_Young]

The mages received their consequence. They proposed something out of the blue that countered chantry laws. Alrik should have received such consequence too. There is always a consequence unless the system is biased which it was towards Alrik. 

 

Consequences aren't the same as being necesasry, or being justified. Which was the issue you were taking with it it not a page ago.

 

You have simultanously condemned and justified 'consequences' and cracking down on dissident. Make up your mind already.

[Dean_the_Young]

Except all of it is irrelevant. Deciding to spare or annul mages is not a decision or proposal to change Thedas. Its a decision to save people or not. I was strictly talking about changes that happened in Thedas peacefully which we have no instance of. 

 

It's only irrelevant because you are selecting defining relevance. The mage revolt hasn't changed Thedas yet either. Nor was it a decision to save people are not, any less than the Ferelden annullment.

[Lulupab]

Consequences aren't the same as being necesasry, or being justified. Which was the issue you were taking with it it not a page ago.

 

I don't remember using the word "necessary" or "justified". I just pointed out there are consequences to extreme proposals. There just are, be it social or political or even cultural there are always consequences. Alrik was unaffected by all of them. As I always repeat myself over and over the old circle system was quite biased and had room for a lot of systematical abuse. Even you in your TL:DR thread point them out hence I always supported an autonomous circle (not self-determined however).

 

It's only irrelevant because you are selecting defining relevance. The mage revolt hasn't changed Thedas yet either. Nor was it a decision to save people are not, any less than the Ferelden annullment.

 

Again you are stretching as I never mentioned mage revolt as the results are still undetermined. Andraste did change the world and people died for it. She did not kindly ask nor she made a proposal. She conquered the world and its delusional to think only servants of imperium died.

 

Also if you think mage-templar war will not bring change I have a bridge to sell you.

[Dean_the_Young]

I don't remember using the word "necessary" or "justified". I just pointed out there are consequences to extreme proposals. There just are, be it social or political or even cultural there are always consequences. Alrik was unaffected by all of them. As I always repeat myself over and over the old circle system was quite biased and had room for a lot of systematical abuse. Even you in your TL:DR thread point them out hence I always supported an autonomous circle (not self-determined however).

 

Your entire beef with Alrik has been that he wasn't persecuted for his advocacy, and that this was a moral failing of the system. You have been condemning systematic abuses and a lack of systemic abuse against dissidents.

 

 

 

 

Again you are stretching as I never mentioned mage revolt as the results are still undetermined. Andraste did change the world and people died for it. She did not kindly ask nor she made a proposal. She conquered the world and its delusional to think only servants of imperium died.

 

Also if you think mage-templar war will not bring change I have a bridge to sell you.

 

 

I'm not streteching your words- I'm demonstrating how your definition of relevance fits in their context. They will only be relevant if they succede on sufficient scale, since both success and scale are priorities. It's a retroactive descriptive term, and a fallacy.

[LobselVith8]

Well, we know of one: the return of the Tevinter magisters to effective and official power:

"The Circle of the Magi today rules Tevinter directly, ever since the Archon Nomaran was elected in 7:34 Storm directly from the ranks of the enchanters, to great applause from the public. He dispensed with the old rules forbidding mages from taking part in politics, and within a century, the true rulers within the various imperial houses-the mages-took their places openly within the government"

Written by a White Chantry scholar, if somone thinks is a biased description of the events. Isn't this the nice peaceful change people advocate?

I don't know many people who would point to the Imperium as a model that should be emulated, given their enslavement of mages and non-mages.