366 réponses à ce sujet

[Periculo]

am with you man, i also would love to see tevinter !!!! why ? because am very curious about the only place in thedas where mages are truely free !!! my heart is sore from watching mages suffer from hating ,bashing, lobotomization and feared thanks to a chantry that doomed the kind once for all  throught this dragon age serie .... i want to see and breath the air of a free nation despite whatever legends about it !! freedom stays freedom ,and if i can choose the origin of my inquisitor it would be either tevinter or the anderfels ,cause the last is my truely eternal love .

 

You do know that the Rites of Tranquility are more popular in Tevinter, and arguably are a cultural carryover from Tevinter? I don't think Tevinter is as corrupt as the clergy in Orlais portray, but don't fall for the idea of it as a land of mage's milk and honey.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

The Imperium is many things, but hardly a breathe of "free air". Mages who go there are less restricted but arguably in more danger being forced to participate with the ruthless dog eat dog power struggle that Tevinter Magisters constantly fight.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

You have yet to respond to my question, Periculo. I want to hear your answer.

[Medhia_Nox]

Periculo:  Your entire argument is based on perceived value.

 

So the question then becomes.  Is the perceived value of the human race more important than the means by which the human race is preserved?  My answer would be "No."  As I hold no intrinsic value in a species, albeit unique, that I find largely antagonistic to it's biosphere. 

 

But an unbiased answer should be:  "Unknown".

 

However, this is not why I find the "Rape to save mankind." wrong.  The answer is twofold. 

 

====

 

Firstly, the rape cannot be acceptable, because the value of the rape cannot be ascertained.  It "can" be decided upon, but not without bias.  Would "you" accept being raped to save the species (and for the exercise, it must be considered that the act is violating and unwelcome).  I doubt you would be so reasonable as to truly say:  "I do this, so that the human race may continue." 

Who made the judgement on the value of mankind?  If both parties believe the act necessary.  Then rape cannot happen.  If the rapist believes the act necessary, but the victim does not, who's value holds more credence?  You cannot say which.  But I will say that the rapist is in violation of another sapient beings choice (which is SO condemned in the Chantry).

 

What IS going to happen, is that one human being is going to utterly disregard the desire/need of another human being for a belief it cannot provide true value for (again, this is the Chantry in the aspects it is condemned for). 

 

So it is with all crime. 

 

If you steal bread to eat.  You have placed value of your survival over another's need to make an honest day's wages (ultimately, their survival).  There is no intrinsic value in one person's survival.  The human race is a speck, on a speck, in a vast sea of eternity. 

 

If you lie to save someone's feelings, you have placed your own agenda over the truth in order to manipulate a person's feelings under the presumption that you know better.

 

The ONLY morality is the ethic of reciprocity, otherwise known as the Golden Rule. 

 

Does no Meredith believe she is saving the world?  Or Alrik?  If the majority agree that they are, then by your standards, the mages must all be tranquilized... and it is a "good" thing, or at least, certainly not evil.

 

===

 

Secondly, the act of acceptance of such acts encourages such acts. 

 

Sun Tzu knew this and warned against the danger of it when he said:  "Those who celebrate victory are bloodthirsty, and the bloodthirsty cannot have their way with the world."

You cannot trust a man who celebrates and rationalizes killing to ever look FIRST to the option of peace.  You must always worry that the bloodthirsty man will not only seek war, but also seek to undermine peace (we see this with Gaspard). 

 

So it is with all other immoral acts. 

 

You cannot trust a liar who excuses his lies, nor a thief who excuses his theft, nor a rapist who would excuse his actions as simply "being".  

BUT, even if you are brought to lie, or steal, or kill, or rape... have the decency to welcome condemnation in its measure.

====

 

Note:  I couldn't care less, btw, of any spiritual implication of morality. 

[Periculo]

So explain to me how rape isn't objectively evil or intrinsically bad. Or to put it in other words, how is it good for the victim of the act? 

 

I thought Das had sufficiently re-explained my point for your understanding, apparently I was mistaken. Any and every action (and reaction) only carries a good or evil value based on the observer's predisposition, the action itself simply exists; a movement of volition. Rape is bad because as a society, we have reached a consensus that the action is unacceptably detrimental to the whole, the action in itself is neither. For the perpetrator, it represents a conquest, leading to positive neurochemical feedback, a phenomena that solely exists with that individual. Likewise, the victim experiences a loss of control, an overwhelming violation, leading to an inversely negative neurochemical feedback, again, this event is only experienced within the confines of said person. This is not to say the effects of the event are limited to the involved parties, on the contrary, it is these ripples of impact on the surrounding members of the group that catalyze the formation of a socially enforced series of norms and intolerable acts.

 

For all that matter, anything beneficial to the group could be deemed "good", and anything to its detriment could be deemed bad, when in reality, that judgement is made by the individual, typically in comparison to the values shared by the group. (Noticing a trend yet?)

 

Bottom line: Until you realize that the act, and the way the act is perceived, are separate yet linked entities, you won't understand my point.

[Lady Mortho]

Maybe visit the alter where the mages went into the golden city

[Periculo]

Periculo:  Your entire argument is based on perceived value.

 

So the question then becomes.  Is the perceived value of the human race more important than the means by which the human race is preserved?  My answer would be "No."  As I hold no intrinsic value in a species, albeit unique, that I find largely antagonistic to it's biosphere. 

 

But an unbiased answer should be:  "Unknown".

 

However, this is not why I find the "Rape to save mankind." wrong.  The answer is twofold. 

 

====

 

Firstly, the rape cannot be acceptable, because the value of the rape cannot be ascertained.  It "can" be decided upon, but not without bias.  Would "you" accept being raped to save the species (and for the exercise, it must be considered that the act is violating and unwelcome).  I doubt you would be so reasonable as to truly say:  "I do this, so that the human race may continue." 

Who made the judgement on the value of mankind?  If both parties believe the act necessary.  Then rape cannot happen.  If the rapist believes the act necessary, but the victim does not, who's value holds more credence?  You cannot say which.  But I will say that the rapist is in violation of another sapient beings choice (which is SO condemned in the Chantry).

 

What IS going to happen, is that one human being is going to utterly disregard the desire/need of another human being for a belief it cannot provide true value for (again, this is the Chantry in the aspects it is condemned for). 

 

So it is with all crime. 

 

If you steal bread to eat.  You have placed value of your survival over another's need to make an honest day's wages (ultimately, their survival).  There is no intrinsic value in one person's survival.  The human race is a speck, on a speck, in a vast sea of eternity. 

 

If you lie to save someone's feelings, you have placed your own agenda over the truth in order to manipulate a person's feelings under the presumption that you know better.

 

The ONLY morality is the ethic of reciprocity, otherwise known as the Golden Rule. 

 

Does no Meredith believe she is saving the world?  Or Alrik?  If the majority agree that they are, then by your standards, the mages must all be tranquilized... and it is a "good" thing, or at least, certainly not evil.

 

===

 

Secondly, the act of acceptance of such acts encourages such acts. 

 

Sun Tzu knew this and warned against the danger of it when he said:  "Those who celebrate victory are bloodthirsty, and the bloodthirsty cannot have their way with the world."

You cannot trust a man who celebrates and rationalizes killing to ever look FIRST to the option of peace.  You must always worry that the bloodthirsty man will not only seek war, but also seek to undermine peace (we see this with Gaspard). 

 

So it is with all other immoral acts. 

 

You cannot trust a liar who excuses his lies, nor a thief who excuses his theft, nor a rapist who would excuse his actions as simply "being".  

BUT, even if you are brought to lie, or steal, or kill, or rape... have the decency to welcome condemnation in its measure.

====

 

Note:  I couldn't care less, btw, of any spiritual implication of morality. 

 

Believe it or not, you've essentially echoed my point. The point is not the decision made in either circumstance, the point is how you came to that conclusion, and the simple fact that not everyone would arrive to the same conclusion. And, as much as I hate beating a dead horse, moral relativism is by no means a moral system in itself, it is the reality, perhaps even vacuum, that socially influenced moral codes are cast upon.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I thought Das had sufficiently re-explained my point for your understanding, apparently I was mistaken. Any and every action (and reaction) only carries a good or evil value based on the observer's predisposition, the action itself simply exists; a movement of volition. Rape is bad because as a society, we have reached a consensus that the action is unacceptably detrimental to the whole, the action in itself is neither. For the perpetrator, it represents a conquest, leading to positive neurochemical feedback, a phenomena that solely exists with that individual. Likewise, the victim experiences a loss of control, an overwhelming violation, leading to an inversely negative neurochemical feedback, again, this event is only experienced within the confines of said person. This is not to say the effects of the event are limited to the involved parties, on the contrary, it is these ripples of impact on the surrounding members of the group that catalyze the formation of a socially enforced series of norms and intolerable acts.

 

For all that matter, anything beneficial to the group could be deemed "good", and anything to its detriment could be deemed bad, when in reality, that judgement is made by the individual, typically in comparison to the values shared by the group. (Noticing a trend yet?)

 

Bottom line: Until you realize that the act, and the way the act is perceived, are separate yet linked entities, you won't understand my point.

So there is no benefit and only burden for the victim. That is objectively bad, and thus counteractive to your point that there is no such thing as objectively good or bad. 

[Periculo]

Regardless of shared beliefs or experiences, the individual experience, and absolutely all of its facets, are inherently subjective, and thereby determined by that same individual.

[Periculo]

So there is no benefit and only burden for the victim. That is objectively bad, and thus counteractive to your point that there is no such thing as objectively good or bad. 

 

To the victim, yes, it is a burden, but that burden is identified by the victim, ergo it is a subjective state.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

To the victim, yes, it is a burden, but that burden is identified by the victim, ergo it is a subjective state.

There is no subjective in that example. There is nothing positive in that situation for the victim, and thus by definition is objectively bad. 

[Periculo]

There is no subjective in that example. There is nothing positive in that situation for the victim, and thus by definition is objectively bad. 

 

And one could argue the counterpoint, that there is only benefit for the perpetrator, making it objectively good. THUS, illustrating my point. Perception being in the eye of the beholder is by no means limited to beauty.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

And one could argue the counterpoint, that there is only benefit for the perpetrator, making it objectively good. THUS, illustrating my point. Perception being in the eye of the beholder is by no means limited to beauty.

Except there are potential negatives for the perpetrator, such as being arrested. So no, not objectively good. 

[Periculo]

*sigh* And this is why I haven't posted on the forums before. Alright, let's further simplify. What is the color Red?

[Hanako Ikezawa]

*sigh* And this is why I haven't posted on the forums before. Alright, let's further simplify. What is the color Red?

Red is a shade in the class of visible radiation in the electromagnetic spectrum. 

[Master Warder Z_]

You have yet to respond to my question, Periculo. I want to hear your answer.

 

"Let's hear your answer."

 

God i love that line @_@

[Periculo]

Okay, now, how do you know that?

[Hanako Ikezawa]

"Let's hear your answer."

 

God i love that line @_@

Let me guess, the Pain speech. In English Dub it was "I want to know what your answer is." But I agree, his whole speech to Naruto was one of the best in the series.

[Periculo]

Except there are potential negatives for the perpetrator, such as being arrested. So no, not objectively good. 

 

Those potentials are no more actualities than the effects of the act is prior to the act, and after the act, they are null and void. Your attempts to obfuscate the point by adding in superfluous data to the hypothesis are admirable, but not effective. As I said before, until you are able to separate the act from the perception of it, I have no interest in continuing to indulge your need for validation.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Okay, now, how do you know that?

It is an established objective truth through the use of the scientific method. 

[Master Warder Z_]

Let me guess, the Pain speech. In English Dub it was "I want to know what your answer is." But I agree, his whole speech to Naruto was one of the best in the series.

 

Eh, Oddly enough i don't mind either VA when it comes to Pain.

 

They both pulled him off well, although i do think the Japanese VA was a bit more...Menacing.

 

@_@ they both could be my god any day they wanted though.

 

Sexy voice...

[Periculo]

And therein lies the rub. If you don't understand the concept that everything observed or influenced by man in subject by way of being observed or influenced by man, then the rest of it won't compute. Mind you, subject doesn't equate to false, more that it cannot, by nature, be an absolute truth.

[KainD]

You cannot trust a liar who excuses his lies, nor a thief who excuses his theft, nor a rapist who would excuse his actions as simply "being".  

BUT, even if you are brought to lie, or steal, or kill, or rape... have the decency to welcome condemnation in its measure.

 

You don't even have to make any excuses for anything, ever, nor welcome any condemnations, you are simply being. 

[Periculo]

I disagree, "Red" is the name we've assigned to the response to our "Eyes" intercepting and processing a specifically reflected portion of light.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Those potentials are no more actualities than the effects of the act is prior to the act, and after the act, they are null and void. Your attempts to obfuscate the point by adding in superfluous data to the hypothesis are admirable, but not effective. As I said before, until you are able to separate the act from the perception of it, I have no interest in continuing to indulge your need for validation.

And therein lies the rub. If you don't understand the concept that everything observed or influenced by man in subject by way of being observed or influenced by man, then the rest of it won't compute. Mind you, subject doesn't equate to false, more that it cannot, by nature, be an absolute truth.

I have separated the act from the perception of it, so the condescension is not appreciated. Especially considering you doing such implies you are more objectively in the right than I am, and thus hypocritical on your part. 

 

It's not my fault you don't have an answer for a scenario that challenges your perception of their being no objective good or bad and that "Everything is okay from a certain point of view.".