2341 réponses à ce sujet

[Sifr]

Look I'm not completely against interracial relationships but the fact of the matter is that he should never bring her to their territory in the first place, if he was smart he would've gone somewhere else to prevent an incident between two peoples. That's why I called him selfish and careless and even the "relationship" with Celene & Briala didn't go together and it wasn't a love thing at all, Briala is nothing but a fling and a tool Celene can use. As I said before different people see different things and I'm not going to back down of what I believe in and I will not apologize to you just because you're pissed off solely because I don't agree with you. I believe what I believe you believe what you believe.

 

Except that he didn't, the Emerald Knight went to the human settlement of Red Crossing to meet with her.

 

What you're saying also doesn't make sense, because where else could they have gone to meet? The only places were the Dales (Elven-controlled) or Orlais (human controlled), so there's not a neutral or no-man's land for them to have gone... not unless you want to head to the Frostbacks or the Deep Roads for date night? Fairly certain the cold or Darkspawn don't much care about human/elf couples.

 

As for Celene/Briala, it's safe to say they are in love, because you don't get that hurt and feel betrayed over something that is merely a booty call of convenience. They've been together for a long time and interacting with both of them in Halamshiral shows us that both of them still clearly have feelings for each other, as complicated as their relationship actually is.

[BaaBaaBlacksheep]

Except that he didn't, the Emerald Knight went to the human settlement of Red Crossing to meet with her.

What you're saying also doesn't make sense, because where else could they have gone to meet? The only places were the Dales (Elven-controlled) or Orlais (human controlled), so there's not a neutral or no-man's land for them to have gone... not unless you want to head to the Frostbacks or the Deep Roads for date night? Fairly certain the cold or Darkspawn don't much care about human/elf couples.

As for Celene/Briala, it's safe to say they are in love, because you don't get that hurt and feel betrayed over something that is merely a booty call of convenience. They've been together for a long time and interacting with both of them in Halamshiral shows us that both of them still clearly have feelings for each other, as complicated as their relationship actually is.

If that's what you believe that's fine man. But think about this: Did IR solves the problem of racism? Did it put an end to the disparity and the oppression of elves from humans?

[Sifr]

If that's what you believe that's fine man. But think about this: Did IR solves the problem of racism? Did it put an end to the disparity and the oppression of elves from humans?

 

It's not so much what I believe, as what the game either tells us directly or in the case of Celene and Briala, implies numerous times in both dialogue as well as the events of Masked Empire. Their relationship most definitely wasn't simply a fling or a booty call that meant nothing, there was something deeper there, otherwise why would either of them care about it when it ended?

 

IR? If you meant international relations... you do know that part of the problem was that it wasn't taking place, because they were doing what you suggested and segregating themselves into their own tight-knit groups? As a result, the disparity, racism and xenophobia were allowed to flourish in both groups and thus lead to conflict between them.

 

Segregation has never proven to end problems between two disparate groups, it only causes them.

[BaaBaaBlacksheep]

It's not what I believe, it's what the game either tells us directly or in the case of Celene and Briala, implies numerous times in both dialogue as well as the events of Masked Empire. Their relationship most definitely wasn't simply a fling or a booty call that meant nothing, there was something deeper there, otherwise why would either of them care about it when it ended?

IR? If you mean international relations... you do know that part of the problem was that it wasn't taking place, because they were doing what you suggested and segregating themselves into their own tight-knit groups, so that the disparity, racism and xenophobia were allowed to flourish in both groups and thus lead to conflict between them.

Segregation has never proven to end problems between two disparate groups, it only causes them.

OK. But I respectfully disagree. What's the point of getting along with the same people who put elves into a position where they're kept poor, disenfranchised, and killed by humans simply because they're elves? The elves don't have a problem it was humans have a problem with elves, and what's the point of putting forth an effort to have unity with the same people who caused them harm? Why did the humans didn't take a stand with the elves to fight against the system that benefits them and not elves? They keep them that way to see them suffer and they will always hate them, same thing with real life of why this world isn't a better place. That's why I believe separation is the best solution to have peace and to leave each other alone. The elves have a right to claim a place of their own to establish independence without human influence so they can heal and recover from the bloody history from humans.

[Sifr]

OK. But I respectfully disagree. What's the point of getting along with the same people who put elves into a position where they're kept poor, disenfranchised, and killed by humans simply because they're elves? The elves don't have a problem it was humans have a problem with elves, and what's the point of putting forth an effort to have unity with the same people who caused them harm?

 

Except that the events of Red Crossing show that it was Elves who (mistakenly) fired the first shot in the war, not humans.

 

The problem was also caused not by the Emerald Knight who was tolerant and accepting of coexistence with humans, but the insular, patriotic and xenophobic members of his order, who feared their kinsman was being swayed by humans and was abandoning his people and culture.

 

And from the scroll we find in Inquisition, written by one of the Emerald Knights actually present for the events, they actually admitted that what happened was their fault and they betrayed their friend but letting their hatred and mistrust of humans get the better of them.

 

Why did the humans didn't take a stand with the elves to fight against the system that benefits them and not elves? They keep them that way to see them suffer and they will always hate them, same thing with real life of why this world isn't a better place.

 

The humans felt justified in putting the Elves into a weakened position, forcing them to live in Alienages and banning them from carrying weapons, because they had just fought a conflict where the Elves were the aggressors. That doesn't make it right, but try to think of any conflict in history where the victor doesn't try to prevent the losing side from having the means to threaten them again in the future?

 

Granted, however justified the unfair terms were in the aftermath of the war, the 800 years of continued enforcement and oppression of the elves into second-class citizens does seem unnecessarily harsh treatment from most quarters of Thedas.

 

That being said, one can understand perhaps why it's not been changed, because those whom aren't racist are being prevented from reforming the system by those who actually are racist. No-one wants to commit political suicide by tearing down Alienage walls, nor a ruler risk their nobles or subjects turning against them should they try to do the same.

 

For as much as Celene tried to do to give Elves more opportunities, even she knew she could not simply abolish the Alienages and establish equal rights for Elven citizens of Orlais overnight. Even the small strides for Elves she had made were enough to have Gaspard and those whom wanted the status quo to continue, to conspire to launch a coup and try to assassinate her.

 

It's a complicated situation that needs society to change so that reforms can happen. You cannot however change a society overnight, as that will only cause tension and continued problems from those who fear change and what it will mean for their way of life.

 

That's why I believe separation is the best solution to have peace and to leave each other alone. The elves have a right to claim a place of their own to establish independence without human influence so they can heal and recover from the bloody history from humans.

 

As I said before, they already created a segregated and independent land, free from human interference, where they could heal and recover from a bloody history of oppression at the hands of humans... it was called the Dales.

 

It didn't end well for them.

[BaaBaaBlacksheep]

Except that the events of Red Crossing show that it was Elves who (mistakenly) fired the first shot in the war, not humans.
 
The problem was also caused not by the Emerald Knight who was tolerant and accepting of coexistence with humans, but the insular, patriotic and xenophobic members of his order, who feared their kinsman was being swayed by humans and was abandoning his people and culture.
 
And from the scroll we find in Inquisition, written by one of the Emerald Knights actually present for the events, they actually admitted that what happened was their fault and they betrayed their friend but letting their hatred and mistrust of humans get the better of them.
 

 
The humans felt justified in putting the Elves into a weakened position, forcing them to live in Alienages and banning them from carrying weapons, because they had just fought a conflict where the Elves were the aggressors. That doesn't make it right, but try to think of any conflict in history where the victor doesn't try to prevent the losing side from having the means to threaten them again in the future?
 
Granted, however justified the unfair terms were in the aftermath of the war, the 800 years of continued enforcement and oppression of the elves into second-class citizens does seem unnecessarily harsh treatment from most quarters of Thedas.
 
That being said, one can understand perhaps why it's not been changed, because those whom aren't racist are being prevented from reforming the system by those who actually are racist. No-one wants to commit political suicide by tearing down Alienage walls, nor a ruler risk their nobles or subjects turning against them should they try to do the same.
 
For as much as Celene tried to do to give Elves more opportunities, even she knew she could not simply abolish the Alienages and establish equal rights for Elven citizens of Orlais overnight. Even the small strides for Elves she had made were enough to have Gaspard and those whom wanted the status quo to continue, to conspire to launch a coup and try to assassinate her.
 
It's a complicated situation that needs society to change so that reforms can happen. You cannot however change a society overnight, as that will only cause tension and continued problems from those who fear change and what it will mean for their way of life.
 

 
As I said before, they already created a segregated and independent land, free from human interference, where they could heal and recover from a bloody history of oppression at the hands of humans... it was called the Dales.
 
It didn't end well for them.

I still think separation from each other is the best solution, its completely pointless to coexist with humans as a whole anyways. As I said what's the point? It is a fool who coexist with a people who want to do you harm so there's no excuse for what the humans did to the elves. They want to see elves suffer. They want to see elves beg. They want them in a constant state of fear. So tell me how is coexistence with them benefits the elves?

[Vit246]

Really, lets not get into "who shot first?" argument, because Red Crossing was not the first and only border skirmish between them. Cuz I could claim a human shot first by killing Siona's sister leading to the chain of events. Or all the other unnamed border skirmishes that never made it into the history books or even a historical footnote.

Also, they also feared the Emerald Knight might give up military information voluntarily or under torture by Orlesia opportunists.

Modifié par Vit246, 25 mai 2016 - 05:31 .

[BaaBaaBlacksheep]

Really, lets not get into "who shot first?" argument, because Red Crossing was not the first and only border skirmish between them. Cuz I could claim a human shot first by killing Siona's sister leading to the chain of events.
Also, they also feared the Emerald Knight might give up military information voluntarily or under torture by Orlesia opportunists.

That is why elves and humans should stay away from each other if they don't want a war.

[Hellion Rex]

That is why elves and humans should stay away from each other if they don't want a war.

And again, that isolationism will get us nowhere, as that leads to xenophobia and then we have another Red Crossing on our hands. You are going in circles with your arguments.

[Vit246]

N7Phantom.

Do. Not. Help. Me.

[Sifr]

I still think separation from each other is the best solution, its completely pointless to coexist with humans as a whole anyways. As I said what's the point? It is a fool who coexist with a people who want to do you harm so there's no excuse for what the humans did to the elves. They want to see elves suffer. They want to see elves beg. They want them in a constant state of fear. So tell me how is coexistence with them benefits the elves?

 

Except there have been numerous examples of what that separation only leads to further conflict, rather than integration allowing both communities to find a mutual understanding and respect for one another.

 

I think you are projecting too much here, because nothing in the DA universe suggests that Humans intrinsically want the elves to suffer, beg or fear them, it's only a certain amount of people who actually do hold those views and bigotry because they've never been really given the chance to see elves as actual people worthy of respect, because they've been kept separate from them.

 

The Ancient Elves of Elvhenan kept Elven slaves and the Tevinter Imperium has many human slaves, so clearly it's not because they are racist and prejudiced against their own race, but rather because keeping slaves, regardless of race is how that particular society functions.

 

The return to the supposed "good old days" you are seeming to champion where Elves had no humans oppressing them doesn't exist, because back then it was other Elves who oppressed them. Same with the humans waging war against each other for political or religious ideologies, the Dwarves having rivalries and conflict between their Thaigs (Kal-Sharok vs Orzammar) and within them, as well as whatever conflict lead to the Qunari/Kossith schism.

 

Races don't seek to fight other races, people seek to fight other people. That's simply how the world works, as sad as it is to say.

[BaaBaaBlacksheep]

And again, that isolationism will get us nowhere, as that leads to xenophobia and then we have another Red Crossing on our hands. You are going in circles with your arguments.

As I said you don't have to agree with me, and I believe isolationism is necessary from people who want to harm to prevent war and oppression from a aggressive group.

[Hellion Rex]

Except there have been numerous examples of what that separation only leads to further conflict, rather than integration allowing both communities to find a mutual understanding and respect for one another.

I think you are projecting too much here, because nothing in the DA universe suggests that Humans intrinsically want the elves to suffer, beg or fear them, it's only a certain amount of people who actually do hold those views and bigotry because they've never been really given the chance to see elves as actual people worthy of respect, because they've been kept separate from them.

The Ancient Elves of Elvhenan kept Elven slaves and the Tevinter Imperium has many human slaves, so clearly it's not because they are racist and prejudiced against their own race, but rather because keeping slaves, regardless of race is how that particular society functions.

The return to the supposed "good old days" you are seeming to champion where Elves had no humans oppressing them doesn't exist, because back then it was other Elves who oppressed them. Same with the humans waging war against each other for political or religious ideologies, the Dwarves having rivalries and conflict between their Thaigs (Kal-Sharok vs Orzammar) and within them, as well as whatever conflict lead to the Qunari/Kossith schism.

Races don't seek to fight other races, people seek to fight other people. That's simply how the world works, as sad as it is to say.

/drops mic

[BaaBaaBlacksheep]

Except there have been numerous examples of what that separation only leads to further conflict, rather than integration allowing both communities to find a mutual understanding and respect for one another.

I think you are projecting too much here, because nothing in the DA universe suggests that Humans intrinsically want the elves to suffer, beg or fear them, it's only a certain amount of people who actually do hold those views and bigotry because they've never been really given the chance to see elves as actual people worthy of respect, because they've been kept separate from them.

The Ancient Elves of Elvhenan kept Elven slaves and the Tevinter Imperium has many human slaves, so clearly it's not because they are racist and prejudiced against their own race, but rather because keeping slaves, regardless of race is how that particular society functions.

The return to the supposed "good old days" you are seeming to champion where Elves had no humans oppressing them doesn't exist, because back then it was other Elves who oppressed them. Same with the humans waging war against each other for political or religious ideologies, the Dwarves having rivalries and conflict between their Thaigs (Kal-Sharok vs Orzammar) and within them, as well as whatever conflict lead to the Qunari/Kossith schism.

Races don't seek to fight other races, people seek to fight other people. That's simply how the world works, as sad as it is to say.

But coexisting with people who harms you simply because you are an another race is completely pointless and a waste of effort. It's completely pointless to try a solution will never work for the benefit of the oppressed. And ask yourself: If what you say about unity is so true then why the world isn't a better place? You only fix the symptom if the problem, not solving the problem itself.

[BaaBaaBlacksheep]

I think both Gaspar and Celene are veil and vile and need to meet the executioner's ax.

You mean the guillotine.

[Dean_the_Young]

N7Phantom.

Do. Not. Help. Me.

 

No, please, do!

[Dean_the_Young]

But coexisting with people who harms you simply because you are an another race is completely pointless and a waste of effort. It's completely pointless to try a solution will never work for the benefit of the oppressed. And ask yourself: If what you say about unity is so true then why the world isn't a better place? You only fix the symptom if the problem, not solving the problem itself.

 

The world is a better place- so long as our standard of comparison is what the world used to be like, and not an imaginary standard.

 

Fewer wars, fewer conflicts, fewer conquering empires, fewer impoverished, fewer starving, fewer illiterate, fewer slaves, fewer dictatorships, fewer tribal feuds, fewer bandits, less outright racism, less outright racial caste systems, less extreme racial differences, and a great deal more concern that such things exist at all.

[BaaBaaBlacksheep]

The world is a better place- so long as our standard of comparison is what the world used to be like, and not an imaginary standard.

Fewer wars, fewer conflicts, fewer conquering empires, fewer impoverished, fewer starving, fewer illiterate, fewer slaves, fewer dictatorships, fewer tribal feuds, fewer bandits, less outright racism, less outright racial caste systems, less extreme racial differences, and a great deal more concern that such things exist at all.

Really? Have you ever look in the news lately? There still racism and wars everywhere and the problem has never ever been solved. Thousands of years of ongoing conflict and people still repeating history over and over again. It's nice to use cognitive dissonance to ignore the problem, but as long people continue to live in a constant state of denial of something is wrong it will never get better just by ignoring it.

[Sifr]

Really? Have you ever look in the news lately? There still racism and wars everywhere and the problem has never ever been solved. Thousands of years of ongoing conflict and people still repeating history over and over again. It's nice to use cognitive dissonance to ignore the problem, but as long people continue to live in a constant state of denial of something is wrong it will never get better just by ignoring it.

 

Except that people don't ignore it, they constantly point out that prejudice and intolerance is still very much a thing even with the strives that society has made towards integration, because people still live in communities that do not integrate with each other and thus allowing prejudices to fester still.

 

The problem will never go away, but it's not like people aren't working tireless to overcome it. Societal problems do not get solved immediately because you do one thing, it's something that takes time and society constantly striving to better themselves and learn acceptance.

 

Segregation and forcing isolationism solves nothing, it's a huge step backwards rather than forwards.

[Dean_the_Young]

Really? Have you ever look in the news lately? There still racism and wars everywhere and the problem has never ever been solved. Thousands of years of ongoing conflict and people still repeating history over and over again.

I not only look at news- I study history. Hence understanding that the presence of things now doesn't imply they are as they've ever been. History repeats, but not in the exact same way to the exact same degree.

 

Claiming that there are still wars every and that the problem has never ever been solved conflates different issues. There is no singular problem that causes war- wars are caused by any number of different problems, each unique to the context of the war in question. Many of these problems have been solved- which is why we have far fewer wars, and less deadly wars when they do occur, than we did in the not-so-distant past. Two hundred years ago, war between the United States of America and it's neighbor Canada was a very real possibility (in part because it had just happened). Two hundred years later, no credible scholar thinks that there is any realistic chance of war between the United States and Canada. The problems that supported war between the two have largely been resolved, so much so that even a few boundary disputes don't have any significant risk of conflict.

 

Things change- the same with racism. The nature, role, and practical relevance of racism has changed greatly over the last several hundred years across much of the world. Generally for the better, unless you intend to argue that racial relations, across the world or in your own country, are no different than they were two hundred years ago.
 

 

It's nice to use cognitive dissonance to ignore the problem, but as long people continue to live in a constant state of denial of something is wrong it will never get better just by ignoring it.

 

 

 

And what's your advice of using cognitive dissonance to ignore progress on problems? After all, I'm not arguing that things don't exist- you're arguing that things haven't gotten better.

 

We can choose a wide variety of metrics, but it is on you to show that the metrics haven't changed over time. 'Existence of a problem' isn't a relevant one, since the existence of a problem doesn't mean that a problem hasn't improved over a period of time.

[BaaBaaBlacksheep]

I not only look at news- I study history. Hence understanding that the presence of things now doesn't imply they are as they've ever been. History repeats, but not in the exact same way to the exact same degree.
 
Claiming that there are still wars every and that the problem has never ever been solved conflates different issues. There is no singular problem that causes war- wars are caused by any number of different problems, each unique to the context of the war in question. Many of these problems have been solved- which is why we have far fewer wars, and less deadly wars, than we did in the not-so-distant past. Two hundred years ago, war between the United States of America and it's neighbor Canada was a very real possibility (in part because it had just happened). Two hundred years later, no credible scholar thinks that there is any realistic chance of war between the United States and Canada. The problems that supported war between the two have largely been resolved, so much so that even a few boundary disputes don't have any significant risk of conflict.
 
Things change- the same with racism. The nature, role, and practical relevance of racism has changed greatly over the last several hundred years across much of the world. Generally for the better.
 

 
 
And what's your advice of using cognitive dissonance to ignore progress on problems? After all, I'm not arguing that things don't exist- you're arguing that things haven't gotten better.
 
We can choose a wide variety of metrics, but it is on you to show that the metrics haven't changed over time. 'Existence of a problem' isn't a relevant one, since the existence of a problem doesn't mean that a problem hasn't improved over a period of time.

Things never got better it gets worse and people want to normalize this toxic environment that we put ourselves in and we externalize or fein ignorance to hope that a problem goes away, and people refuse to think for themselves and fix themselves and that's why the world is f****d up today. I believe they are forces behind this that sets this all in motion, and people don't want to deal with issues that damages people's way of life.

[BaaBaaBlacksheep]

Except that people don't ignore it, they constantly point out that prejudice and intolerance is still very much a thing even with the strives that society has made towards integration, because people still live in communities that do not integrate with each other and thus allowing prejudices to fester still.

The problem will never go away, but it's not like people aren't working tireless to overcome it. Societal problems do not get solved immediately because you do one thing, it's something that takes time and society constantly striving to better themselves and learn acceptance.

Segregation and forcing isolationism solves nothing, it's a huge step backwards rather than forwards.

As I said different people see different things and beliefs. I still believe that separation can solve the problem so people can get together to get over issues and heal each other to overcome issues before they could take that step of diversity, and history proves that people as a whole don't know how to get along when diversity comes around. The thing is we can make it with you or without you it works both ways.

[Dean_the_Young]

Things never got better it gets worse

A claim! Let's see you prove it.

 

 

 

and people want to normalize this toxic environment that we put ourselves in and we externalize or fein ignorance to hope that a problem goes away, and people refuse to think for themselves and fix themselves and that's why the world is f****d up today. I believe they are forces behind this that sets this all in motion, and people don't want to deal with issues that damages people's way of life.

 

That would be nice... if true.

 

I contest that change and challenge you to support it. Let's start with wars. Why are wars worse now than they were in the previous 200 years? In what ways are they worse- frequency? Death tolls? Conduct of armies?

[BaaBaaBlacksheep]

Prove it, please.




 

That would be nice... if true.
 
I contest that change and challenge you to support it. Let's start with wars. Why are wars worse now than they were in the previous 200 years? In what ways are they worse- frequency? Death tolls? Conduct of armies?

Look up Michael Moore's documentaries

-The Awful Truth
-Fahrenheit 9\11
-Sicko
-Capitalism: A Love Story



Look up Van Jones, George Carlin, Michelle Alexander, and Tim Wise.

But it's entirely up to you to see it for yourself and come up with your own conclusions

[Dean_the_Young]

Look up Michael Moore's documentaries

-The Awful Truth
-Fahrenheit 9\11
-Sicko
-Capitalism: A Love Story



Look up Van Jones, George Carlin, Michelle Alexander, and Tim Wise.

But it's entirely up to you to see it for yourself and come up with your own conclusions

 

Alternatively, you could make your own argument and cite the relevant information rather that ask someone to watch hours of documentary and research various (notoriouslly loose with facts) people and to try and identify the claims that you might be referring to. Whether I agree with those people or not, I still wouldn't know what, exactly, about them you are referring to.

 

Since that would be the basic standard of decency in any discussion, and since I suspect you would be the first to want to avoid any stereotype associated with 'lazy', I'll ask you again-

 

Why are wars worse now than they were in the previous 200 years? In what ways are they worse- frequency? Death tolls? Conduct of armies?

 

 

Direct answers, please. I'm sure someone as vested in history as yourself can make her own argument rather than let a man whitesplain the world for you.