Freedom of association is the right to join or leave groups of a person's own choosing, and for the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of members
This is a definition. So you simply don't know what it is in your description. Freedom of association is exactly what the Mages Colleges are. Granted, that right was suspended, and that is a problem, but it was only recently suspended so not a systemic problem of the overall Circle system. In fact, association is encouraged in the Circle system for hundreds of years.
Additionally, Wynne is proof that a mage can have political power. As is Fiona. They most certainly do and can. A mage in many lands in Thedas can have political power. They are simply restricted in most places (except Tevinter where non-mages have basically very few rights) from the superpower of being a mage + having massive lands and armies, etc.
I do agree it's very sad mages are removed from their families, but I'm unclear (based on varying lore sources) whether mages can still see their family members at all. I think they definitely need the rights to see family members, write to them, etc. I don't think a mage is necessarily safe to grow up with a regular family, so I think having them go to the Circle when powers manifest is still a good idea for their family too. I also think many families wouldn't be too keen on keeping them around with the danger they posed. An example with Connor, where he's an only child of noble birth, isn't exactly the same as being the third child of farmers.
he argument for this is your first argument, given the danger they represent is it necessary to risk these rights and thus systematically oppress mages. the reason you refuse to admit their oppressed is that oppression doesn't sit right with you as a person and it shouldn't.
Please don't make assumptions about what I believe. I understand both sides of the mage/templar argument. It's not like the City Elf oppression where I see a clear wrong - that seems like oppression to me. The mage/templar thing really does seem more like gun control to me than Civil Rights - albeit WAY more complicated since obviously Mages can't choose to be non-Mages. That's very sad. Magic is, indeed, a curse. A great power and a great curse. I love the poetry of it.
I can see a case for don't see the Mages as truly oppressed in the Circles, in general. I see that the Circle has become more oppressive recently and that is concerning. But oppression means "prolonged, unjust, cruel treatment" and it usually comes from the idea that the target is inferior (like the way the humans view the elves). In the case of Mages, they are unfortunately superior in many ways, and that is part of the concern. Mages oppressed others for centuries; in Tevinter, they still do. Perhaps some mages were oppressed, but I don't see the general Circle system as being that, nor do I think being regulated to live in a safe space, receive training from experts, live in more comfort than 90% of the population, as being oppression. The City Elves are oppressed; slaves in Tevinter are oppressed.
relating this to gun control is stupid and misses the point. the point for gun control is that, nominal in this day and age a person does not NEED to own a gun and therefore are the potential risks from gun ownership to great to allow unfetted ownership of a gun.
a mage doesn't go out and buy a fireball their ability's are part for them. they are not an object. they are actual people. the same as calling them a living weapon misses the point, a normal human can kill just as easily as a mage.
While that is true of gun control, I don't think it's the point of gun control. The gun control debate is absolutely freedom vs. safety, which is very similar to the Mage/Templar debate. Not a perfect parallel, but I continue to insist a better one than Civil Rights. A mage is a living weapon - their fireballs ARE a part of them. They are people, too, but also living weapons. They can certainly be both. I don't agree a normal human can kill as easily as a mage or that they could be used, by outside entities, to kill as well. We've seen that's untrue.
You bring up the elves and how their oppressed? would go to every dalish clan and remove its keeper, its first and any other elf with magic potential?
I was speaking specifically of the City Elves and elves in Tevinter, frankly. Dalish Elves are not particularly oppressed. They are sometimes persecuted, but not really oppressed. I have no idea - because we've never really been told - what Keeper training really entails. I don't know how the Dalish mind their mages. It seems they do fairly well, though the Dalish elves in the Masked Empire summoning demons chafed me; they got what they deserved, but the demon still lives (not entirely their fault it was lose). Still fools. But, in general, they seem to not cause particular problems for others since they live far from other societies and have some way of minding their own. As long as that is the case, I see no reason to interfere with them. They mind their own. If it became a societal problem that the Dalish were becoming abominations, etc, (basically all the stuff that caused people to hunt mages and later the Circles to form in the first place) then I would re-visit that view. At the moment, I'm fine with letting the Dalish be. I think they're assholes, mostly, though. I get why they're assholes, but it doesn't mean I like them much. But anyway, I clearly wasn't talking about the Dalish elves - I was talking about the oppressed City Elves. If I were a City Elf, I'd feel like being a Mage was winning the lottery.
would you trade that? the dalish get their own lands so long as templars waltz in and take the very elves that carry the last of elven lore?
Would the Dalish? I don't think they'd make any deal with the shem.
Retour en haut
