515 réponses à ce sujet

[General TSAR]

Yo.

[Ulyces]

Demons came to be from spirits! Only way for spirit to become demon was if some dear a$$ of a person came and twisted their purpose with their own selfish agenda! 

So how about you think then who corrupted so many spirits and turned them in demons in first place! Beside it is not just what we found out thanks to Solas it is whole mage thing that makes me more wanting to side with templars then them in DA:I!

Ok no no no no. Solas himself says that spirits get twisted into demons through their desire to join humanity, like wisdom turning into pride. Yes, mages do corrupt spirits, but that is not the universal f***ing source of demons. That's about as stupid as saying all mages are blood mages. What you are saying is directly contradicted by Solas. Exposure to humanity corrupts demons, and yes, mages can do that, but they can also expose themselves. Unless a human directly binds a spirit to the human world, such as the case with Solas's friend, it is their own desire/jealousy of humanity that twists them into demons after being in contact with humans, as Solas has said.  

[Giantdeathrobot]

Unfortunately innocent people get tangle up into wars. It's the ultimate price.

 

For an example... was it the United States government fault that over 135,000 Japanese people died in the Hiroshima bombing in Japan? While it was sad that innocent people died.. it was not the US governments fault because we gave the The Imperial Government of Japan what they desire... war. They declared war on us first on the morning of December 7, 1941 when they deliberately attacked Pearl Harbor. We just returned fire right back on their soil.

 

Same goes for the mages and the Chantry. The mages are fed up with the kind of abuse that they get... being forced to live in a tower for the rest of their lives as prisoners, unable to have a family of their own, and getting “permission” to temporary leave the tower because they're a good little obedient mages is ridiculous.

 

No wonder you like Anders with such a simplistic and black-and-white view on history. 

 

Mass murder is never justified no matter how much farcical ''but they deserved it because  they weren't on my side!!'' rationalizing bullshit one can come up with. And that's all I will say on the matter.

[Lord Raijin]

The bombing of the chantry murdering of hundreds of innocent people was terrorism pure and simple, the deliberate murder of mass murder civilians can not be justified, Even Anders knew that and he did it anyway knowing he did not deserve to live after committing such a act.

 

I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall over here. I don't think I can make it any clear as of why Anders did what he had to. I've already explained why it was necessary yet I keep getting the same response over and over again. I don't like repeating myself over again in such a short amount of time, and so please re read my post again at http://forum.bioware...dai/?p=18524612

 

It's so easy to furrow your brow over what Anders did, but refuse to see why it was necessary.

Meredith had no intention of ever allowing any of the nobility to elect a new Viscount because she wanted rule the ENTIRE city, and not just the gallows... which goes against the Templar Order. Even Knight-Commander Guylian had to remind Divine Beatrix III in a letter he wrote to her "It is not our place to interfere in political affairs. We are here to safeguard the city against magic, not against itself." as she contacted him regarding to a political situation between Emperor Florian Valmont of Orlais, and Viscount Perrin.

 

While its sad to see innocent lives destroyed in the process, theirs a happy ending to what Anders did. He broke the chain that was holding the city down for such a long time. With Elthina and Meredith dead the nobility can once again vote for a new Viscount, and the surviving mages can rest easy now that Cullen has been elected as the new Knight-Commander. Apparently Cullen did a complete 180 now that he no longer spits his anti mage rant in Inquisition. Cullen became a man after Meredith was killed.

[Lord Raijin]

No wonder you like Anders with such a simplistic and black-and-white view on history. 

 

Mass murder is never justified no matter how much farcical ''but they deserved it because  they weren't on my side!!'' rationalizing bullshit one can come up with. And that's all I will say on the matter.

 

Discriminating is never justified either. What gave the Chanty the right to do what they did to the mages? Who died and ask the Chantry to protect people against mages, and vice versa? Mages and mundanes can coexist with each other without the help of the Chantry.

[Uccio]

Should we applaud his irresponsibility? His inability to acknowledge the threat he poses? A threat that came to pass as he was possessed and killing hundreds of people.

Maybe his wish to have the right to electrocute people if he feels like it? Should that be supported?

Or maybe his willingness to enslave people he doesn't like as seen with Fenris?

 

If someone in quarantine chooses to leave, placing everyone around them in danger, would you have us clap for them as well?

 

People are responsible for their action, true. A question for you thought. What if I f** you up year after year, deny your freedom. Abuse you verbally, mentally and physically, then in one day you snap and go on a killing spree. Do you think I also bear responsibility?

[Vit246]

Y'know, I just never got the impression that Anders killed anyone else in the Kirkwall Chantry at nighttime beyond the Grand Cleric and a few Templars. And those people are hardly "innocent".

[Phaze50]

No wonder you like Anders with such a simplistic and black-and-white view on history. 

 

Mass murder is never justified no matter how much farcical ''but they deserved it because  they weren't on my side!!'' rationalizing bullshit one can come up with. And that's all I will say on the matter.

 

If it's responsibility everyone wants then yes, everyone should be held responsible.

 

Anders for killing innocents while seeking vengeance/justice.

Fiona for planing to cooperate with the Tervinter Imperium.

Every rebel mage for partaking in a civil war that costs innocent lives.

Tervinter for abusing magic to create a Magocracy (yes, this word was just made up) that treats munadenes as lesser humans.

Every mage and opportunistic mundane that supports Tervinters political structure.

 

Meredith and Lambert for their abuse (directly and through commands) of mages.

Every Seeker/Templar for the imprisonment of then-innocent people.

Every militant Seeker/Templar partaking in a civil war that costs innocent lives.

The Chantry for abusing faith to create a theocracy that treats social groups (including mages) like born criminals undeserving of freedom, rights or fair trials.

Every religious mundane and every loyalist mage for supporting the Chantry and its discriminations and abjections.

 

 

You (and some others in this thread) seem to enjoy pointing out the first 5 points when using the word responsibility, but at the same time you ignore the latter 5 points. Isn't that the perfect example of the black-and-white view you dislike so much?

 

When people say they are pro-freedom that doesn't mean "I want mages to never be held responsible no matter what they do.". Instead they're saying both groups should be treated the same way. If you're a criminal you get punished, no matter if you're a mundane or a mage, if you're not a criminal you at least get the chance to lead a decent life, once again no matter if you're a mundane or a mage.

Obviously that means mages should be expected to learn to control their magic so they won't cause random destruction, but once they're in control of their abilities they should also have the option of having a family, or a job or any kind of purpose in their life except for "And now you'll stay in this tower until you die." 

[d-boy15]

Just when I wonder where them hardcore pro mages gone...

[Ryriena]

We get tired of having to defend the Mages rights to freedom, and not have to be subjected to abuses to point they snap.

[MisterJB]

People are responsible for their action, true. A question for you thought. What if I f** you up year after year, deny your freedom. Abuse you verbally, mentally and physically, then in one day you snap and go on a killing spree. Do you think I also bear responsibility?

Abuse. Given refuge at luxurious places such as Emperor Drakon's former palace, protect by one of the most elite armies in the world meaning they don't ever have to deal with war or darkspawn or bandits, clothed, fed, given education beyond anything most non-noble have access to, given places at courts, have laws and rights that ensure the input of your chosen representative (the First Enchanter) is needed before you are punished whereas in the real world there are no lawyers or juries.

Really, mages have a quality of life beyond, again, what most non-nobles enjoy and if some sacrifices are asked in return so normal people can be safe and their societies remain ruled by them rather than non-mages be reduced to second class citizens like in Tevinter, it's abuse. We never hear the end of it.
 

[thesuperdarkone2]

Abuse. Given refuge at luxurious places such as Emperor Drakon's former palace, protect by one of the most elite armies in the world meaning they don't ever have to deal with war or darkspawn or bandits, clothed, fed, given education beyond anything most non-noble have access to, given places at courts, have laws and rights that ensure the input of your chosen representative (the First Enchanter) is needed before you are punished whereas in the real world there are no lawyers or juries.

Really, mages have a quality of life beyond, again, what most non-nobles enjoy and if some sacrifices are asked in return so normal people can be safe and their societies remain ruled by them rather than non-mages be reduced to second class citizens like in Tevinter, it's abuse. We never hear the end of it.
 

I find it funny that that's literally the same argument Dorian makes for why slavery isn't so bad. You could starve if you had freedom so sell yourself into slavery. You get protection, a place to sleep, and work towards something better. Apparently losing your rights as a human being are perfectly okay if you get a comfy place to live.

[Milan92]

I find it funny that that's literally the same argument Dorian makes for why slavery isn't so bad. You could starve if you had freedom so sell yourself into slavery. You get protection, a place to sleep, and work towards something better.

 

I kinda agreed with Dorian there to an extent. Freedom is a nice thing, but if you can't keep yourself fed and whatnot, what good does it do?

 

Ofcourse beign enslaved to people like Danarius is not great.

[MisterJB]

I find it funny that that's literally the same argument Dorian makes for why slavery isn't so bad. You could starve if you had freedom so sell yourself into slavery. You get protection, a place to sleep, and work towards something better.

No, it's not the same argument. In fact, it has no similarities whatsoever.

This argument: Mages are dangerous and therefore, containing them is the smart thing to do. Since we offer you great quality of life, there is really no justification for armed rebellion. Sorry, but it's the only way that we will be safe and free.

 

Dorian's: If I treat my slaves well, is it not preferable for them to serve me than to line in poverty? Forgetting, of course, that everything I already claim to give my slaves, I could give them and still pay them and have them be free, just like in the South where palaces often have quarters for their servants who are still. Therefore, unless we are going to abuse you in such a way that would make you choose to leave, the addendum of being a slave is pointless.

[TevinterSupremacist]

No, it's not the same argument. In fact, it has no similarities whatsoever.

This argument: Mages are dangerous and therefore, containing them is the smart thing to do. Since we offer you great quality of life, there is really no justification for armed rebellion. Sorry, but it's the only way that we will be safe and free.

 

Dorian's: If I treat my slaves well, is it not preferable for them to serve me than to line in poverty? Forgetting, of course, that everything I already claim to give my slaves, I could give them and still pay them and have them be free, just like in the South where palaces often have quarters for their servants who are still. Therefore, unless we are going to abuse you in such a way that would make you choose to leave, the addendum of being a slave is pointless.

 

You were born a slave, you deserve to be without freedom, it's only natural, if I treat you well, that should be enough and you shouldn't rebel.

You were born a mage,  you deserve to be without freedom, it's only natural, if I treat you well, that should be enough and you shouldn't rebel.

 

No, being dangerous isn't reason enough to be without freedom. You don't punish potential for wrongdoing, that's insane. Only actual actions should have consequences, not hypothetical ones.

[Ryriena]

No wonder you like Anders with such a simplistic and black-and-white view on history.

Mass murder is never justified no matter how much farcical ''but they deserved it because they weren't on my side!!'' rationalizing bullshit one can come up with. And that's all I will say on the matter.

This is what we call projection ladies and gentlemen in this case someone claims that a poster has a simplistic view of history, when he points out Hiroshima as his point of reference in WW2.

The American actions in bombing Hiroshima and the capital of Japan led to Japan ending the war and saving more lives in the process.
However, he is correct that we acted in self defense, when they declared war on us by bombing Pearl Harbor.

Although, some have suggested mostly by Japanese history books we caused them to act against suposed aggression done by the Americans so they had to bomb Pearl Harbor with civilians still on the island mind you.

[MisterJB]

You were born a slave, you deserve to be without freedom, it's only natural, if I treat you well, that should be enough and you shouldn't rebel.

You were born a mage,  you deserve to be without freedom, it's only natural, if I treat you well, that should be enough and you shouldn't rebel.

 

No, being dangerous isn't reason enough to be without freedom. You don't punish potential for wrongdoing, that's insane. Only actual actions should have consequences, not hypothetical ones.

First, the ability to light people on fire with one's mind is objectively dangerous and it, undeniably, makes a very real distinction between slaves and mages thus meriting a different treatment.

Second, as I have said it before, many times in fact, the law forbids us from doing certain things or acquiring certain objects based solely on our hypthetical behaviors. Our freedoms are restricted because we can be dangerous.

Since mages can be even more dangerous, their freedoms shouldn't be restricted even more? Where is the logic in that?

 

[Ryriena]

First, the ability to light people on fire with one's mind is objectively dangerous and it, undeniably, makes a very real distinction between slaves and mages thus meriting a different treatment.
Second, as I have said it before, many times in fact, the law forbids us from doing certain things or acquiring certain objects based solely on our hypthetical behaviors. Our freedoms are restricted because we can be dangerous.
Since mages can be even more dangerous, their freedoms shouldn't be restricted even more? Where is the logic in that?

I am not even touching this since as a Libertarian, I have a view against such reasoning.

Your basicly stating since someone might do something they deserve or enjoy being slaves or prisoners ect. Nope just Nope

[MisterJB]

There is no "might". People use "might" as lot but what we are talking of are not possibilities but certainties.

If mages are allowed to have the same freedoms as any man there are going to be Abominations, there will be mages using their magic to intimidate others into giving them what they want or simply control their minds, there will be magic children who will lose control and kill people, there will be magic children who will use fire in playground fights, mages will place themselves in positions of authority and power when they are already powerful.

 

Will it be all mages? No, but a great number will.

Mages, in many aspects, already have a better quality of life than normal people. And yet, normal people should accept all of thi, should accept death and suffering and loss of autonomy and Independence just so mages can be even better off in life.

"Oh, little Timmy became an Abomination and killed two hundred people before the Templars put him down. Two hundred people dead, fathers and mothers and sons and daugthers and husbands and wives and grandfathers and grandmothers but, at least, little Timmy got to come home at night to be with his family."

 

This is justifiable? Why?

[Poison_Berrie]

First, the ability to light people on fire with one's mind is objectively dangerous and it, undeniably, makes a very real distinction between slaves and mages thus meriting a different treatment.

Second, as I have said it before, many times in fact, the law forbids us from doing certain things or acquiring certain objects based solely on our hypthetical behaviors. Our freedoms are restricted because we can be dangerous.

Since mages can be even more dangerous, their freedoms shouldn't be restricted even more? Where is the logic in that?

How is being able to do something with your mind any different than with a tool or your bare hands?

Looking at the animations and the lore performing magic isn't something that can go by completely unnoticed (unless you hide yourself while doing it).

 

That's like genetic prosecution.

Should we start a closed ghetto for people who have genes connected to criminal tendencies? Or should we segregate and keep watch over the people with a high IQ, because they could develop dangerous weapons of mass destruction?

 

EDIT: A great number will? Are you saying that mages are more inclined to abuse their power than non-mage humans?

[Ranadiel Marius]

Y'know, I just never got the impression that Anders killed anyone else in the Kirkwall Chantry at nighttime beyond the Grand Cleric and a few Templars. And those people are hardly "innocent".

It is stated in DAI and the ISS of the Keep that the explosion Anders caused killed at least 100 people (they might say hundreds but I can't recall for sure). Considering we see the number of people inside of the Chantry, that number can only be reached if there was collateral damage also.

[MisterJB]

How is being able to do something with your mind any different than with a tool or your bare hands?

Looking at the animations and the lore performing magic isn't something that can go by completely unnoticed (unless you hide yourself while doing it).

 

That's like genetic prosecution.

Should we start a closed ghetto for people who have genes connected to criminal tendencies? Or should we segregate and keep watch over the people with a high IQ, because they could develop dangerous weapons of mass destruction?

The difference is that even a trainer soldier would not have been able to do what Connor, at eight years of age, did without even meaning to.

[TevinterSupremacist]

First, the ability to light people on fire with one's mind is objectively dangerous and it, undeniably, makes a very real distinction between slaves and mages thus meriting a different treatment.

Second, as I have said it before, many times in fact, the law forbids us from doing certain things or acquiring certain objects based solely on our hypthetical behaviors. Our freedoms are restricted because we can be dangerous.

Since mages can be even more dangerous, their freedoms shouldn't be restricted even more? Where is the logic in that?

"Is objectively dangerous"=/= "meriting a different treatment". Besides, the people who can subdue and police/hunt down the people who light people on fire with their mind are objectively more powerful than them, otherwise they wouldn't be able to do that. Want to lock those up? Who will do that? And then you'd have to lock up the new people too, because they'd be even more powerful and dangerous. And so on. Bullshit.

Also, your second would only make sense if laws were never idiotic or unfair. Is this what you're arguing? That everything that's legal is always good? Because if you're not doing that, you can't use legality as a basis for what is acceptable and what isn't.

[Uccio]

There is no "might". People use "might" as lot but what we are talking of are not possibilities but certainties.

If mages are allowed to have the same freedoms as any man there are going to be Abominations, there will be mages using their magic to intimidate others into giving them what they want or simply control their minds, there will be magic children who will lose control and kill people, there will be magic children who will use fire in playground fights, mages will place themselves in positions of authority and power when they are already powerful.

 

Will it be all mages? No, but a great number will.

Mages, in many aspects, already have a better quality of life than normal people. And yet, normal people should accept all of thi, should accept death and suffering and loss of autonomy and Independence just so mages can be even better off in life.

"Oh, little Timmy became an Abomination and killed two hundred people before the Templars put him down. Two hundred people dead, fathers and mothers and sons and daugthers and husbands and wives and grandfathers and grandmothers but, at least, little Timmy got to come home at night to be with his family."

 

This is justifiable? Why?

 

And you are using a lot of "might" yourself. Speculation is not basis for incarceration. Kids can take their parents guns and go out killing people. Still kids are not thrown behind bars on that basis. Besides who says mages in control would act worse than mundanes? Cause Tevinter?

[SnakeCode]

It is stated in DAI and the ISS of the Keep that the explosion Anders caused killed at least 100 people (they might say hundreds but I can't recall for sure). Considering we see the number of people inside of the Chantry, that number can only be reached if there was collateral damage also.

Not only that. The chantry literally blows large chunks of debris all over kirkwall, setting parts of the city ablaze. It's naive to believe there would be no casualties from huge chunks of magically burning stone falling from the sky.

 

Then there's all of the people (mage and non mage) who Anders didn't kill personally but died as a direct result of his actions.

 

There's absolutely the blood of innocents on Anders' hands. To deny it is ridiculous.