601 réponses à ce sujet

[Boost32]

I already said it was the last thing I would say in the matter, you can continue your headcanon alone if you want.

[Sifr]

Your the only one asserting theory Boyo.

 

A theory is a hypothesis based on the evidence and the facts that are currently at hand and subject to change when new evidence is presented that either disproves the theory or requires that theory to be amended into a new one.

 

The brainwashing theory can be proven incorrect, which is what I've been saying.

 

What you're saying is that we should embrace dogmaticism, that something is correct simply because we declare it to be true, while anyone who disagrees or questions otherwise is wrong... and how dare they question things that cannot be proven whatsoever?

 

That kind of mode of thinking seems oddly familiar, where some people dismiss something as a "theory" because it contradicts an established school of thought... I might need to ask Bill Nye or Galileo, I think they've heard that kind of talk before, they'll probably know where it's from?

 

[Master Warder Z_]

Did you seriously just compare yourself to one of the major figures of the 16th century scientific revolution?

Ego but anyway.

Also don't put words into my mouth and provide cited sources if you want your conjecture to be treated more then that.

[thesuperdarkone2]

Funny how Templar supporters demand evidence to disprove their claims yet always ignore everything that disproves it yet they do the same thing. Guess nothing, including logic, gets in the way of blind hatred.

Don't worry sif, your points make sense and i support you

[Andromelek]

Yup, Fiona would not be the first case.

Anyway the only thing that can prove or disprove mind control is a writer, I don't see why they wouldn't answer, two books and a game is enough content to give a closure to Fiona's character.

[Boost32]

No, "we" demand evidence when someone makes a claim, like the codex in Hissing Waste, you said it confirmed that Fiona was brainwashed, yet you still didnt show it to us.

[Sifr]

Did you seriously just compare yourself to one of the major figures of the 16th century scientific revolution?

Ego but anyway.

Also don't put words into my mouth and provide cited sources if you want your conjecture to be treated more then that.

 

No, because Galileo's critics later admitted they might have been wrong... I'm more like Bill Nye in the analogy, as the other side of the debate operates with the entrenched rhetoric he often deals with, as well as half the people who work on Fox News.

 

And Warder, I've repeatedly cited dialogue and codex information when presenting a case, yet it has always been dismissed as "theory" and "headcanon".

 

If you want to provide sources and citations to prove me wrong, then kindly do so, I'm fully prepared to hear what you and Boost have to bring to the table... saying we're wrong just because we're wrong, doesn't cut the mustard.

[thesuperdarkone2]

Yup, Fiona would not be the first case.

Anyway the only thing that can prove or disprove mind control is a writer, I don't see why they wouldn't answer, two books and a game is enough content to give a closure to Fiona's character.

The guide outright says Fiona and the rebels are brainwashed if you side with the templars and Weekes said since that since the guide says it must be true.

[thesuperdarkone2]

No, because Galileo's critics later admitted they might have been wrong... I'm more like Bill Nye in the analogy, as the other side of the debate operates with the entrenched rhetoric he often deals with, as well as half the people who work on Fox News.

And Warder, I've repeatedly cited dialogue and codex information when presenting a case, yet it has always been dismissed as "theory" and "headcanon".

If you want to provide sources and citations to prove me wrong, then kindly do so, I'm fully prepared to hear what you and Boost have to bring to the table... saying we're wrong just because we're wrong, doesn't cut the mustard.

Get used to it. That's literally how they react to any evidence disproving their claims. Still waiting on how they would react if Gaider confirms they are brainwashed

[Boost32]

The guide outright says Fiona and the rebels are brainwashed if you side with the templars and Weekes said since that since the guide says it must be true.

Half truths are still a lie.

No, because Galileo's critics later admitted they might have been wrong... I'm more like Bill Nye in the analogy, as the other side of the debate operates with the entrenched rhetoric he often deals with, as well as half the people who work on Fox News.
 
And Warder, I've repeatedly cited dialogue and codex information when presenting a case, yet it has always been dismissed as "theory" and "headcanon".
 
If you want to provide sources and citations to prove me wrong, then kindly do so, I'm fully prepared to hear what you and Boost have to bring to the table... saying we're wrong just because we're wrong, doesn't cut the mustard.

You said the templars dont care about Ferelden, all you showed was your speculation.
Please show me just one piece of codex or in game dialogue where it stated that the templars who werent rogue attacked hinterlands. Because until now, you showed nothing.

[Sifr]

No, "we" demand evidence when someone makes a claim, like the codex in Hissing Waste, you said it confirmed that Fiona was brainwashed, yet you still didnt show it to us.

 

Boost, there is a codex in the Hissing Wastes that mentions blood magic and rituals, but it doesn't confirm the brainwashing theory. I don't think anyone is actually making that claim or using that as evidence as it was proven false, yet you drag it up every single time to mock and belittle them, every time you are called out for not having any evidence either.

 

Your side is not proven right because the other side make one error in one particular instance, especially when they acknowledged the error and amended their argument to thus remove it, as one must do when one's theory does not confirm to the evidence at hand.

[thesuperdarkone2]

Boost, there is a codex in the Hissing Wastes that mentions blood magic and rituals, but it doesn't confirm the brainwashing theory. I don't think anyone is actually making that claim or using that as evidence as it was proven false, yet you drag it up every single time to mock and belittle them, every time you are called out for not having any evidence either.

Your side is not proven right because the other side make one error in one particular instance, especially when they acknowledged the error and amended their argument to thus remove it, as one must do when one's theory does not confirm to the evidence at hand.

What is it with pro-Templars being some of the most condescending and ignorant people on this forum

[Boost32]

Boost, there is a codex in the Hissing Wastes that mentions blood magic and rituals, but it doesn't confirm the brainwashing theory. I don't think anyone is actually making that claim or using that as evidence as it was proven false, yet you drag it up every single time to mock and belittle them, every time you are called out for not having any evidence either.

Your side is not proven right because the other side make one error in one particular instance, especially when they acknowledged the error and amended their argument to thus remove it, as one must do when one's theory does not confirm to the evidence at hand.

I bring it because superdarkone told us a long time ago about a codex that splicity stated that the mages were brainwashed, so yes he made that claim, you just didnt see our previous discussion about this.

So what you say about the Dorian dialogue where he says that the mages who didnt join the Venatori either fled or were killed?

[Magdalena11]

A theory is a hypothesis based on the evidence and the facts that are currently at hand and subject to change when new evidence is presented that either disproves the theory or requires that theory to be amended into a new one.

 

The brainwashing theory can be proven incorrect, which is what I've been saying.

 

What you're saying is that we should embrace dogmaticism, that something is correct simply because we declare it to be true, while anyone who disagrees or questions otherwise is wrong... and how dare they question things that cannot be proven whatsoever?

 

That kind of mode of thinking seems oddly familiar, where some people dismiss something as a "theory" because it contradicts an established school of thought... I might need to ask Bill Nye or Galileo, I think they've heard that kind of talk before, they'll probably know where it's from?

 

 

 

Did you seriously just compare yourself to one of the major figures of the 16th century scientific revolution?

Ego but anyway.

Also don't put words into my mouth and provide cited sources if you want your conjecture to be treated more then that.

 

For every rule there is an exception.  In a way, everyone chooses what to believe.  Some people are easier to persuade than the person making the evaluation, so they are judged to have been taken advantage of (brainwashed.)  Other people choose to agree with a particular way of thought if adopting it helps them survive.  I will say anything I need to to stay alive, whatever.  I can always admit I didn't really mean it later (like Galileo.)  That's called recanting your testimony.  People are sometimes misinformed or make bad judgements.  Happens to the best of us.  Einstein was one of the most brilliant minds the world has ever produced, but he never could find all the variables to complete his Universal Theory.  The point is, if you're a good person, you admit you were wrong and say you're sorry if you hurt someone.  Your actions show how true you are no matter what your mouth says.  If it doesn't hurt anyone, who cares anyway?  I have one friend who is completely convinced the moon landing was a stage show and a government coverup.  I disagree with him, but we still like to laugh about other things together.

 

Heidelberg's uncertainty principle says that you can either know where an object is or how fast it's moving, but not both.  Schroedinger's cat is neither alive nor dead until you check (Don't know how he tested that one; I never could keep a living cat in a box if it didn't want to be.)  Point is, unless you've spoken to the person claiming to have been brainwashed, or seen good or bad things they've done, you have no way of knowing what the truth is.

[Master Warder Z_]

And Warder, I've repeatedly cited

Nothing beyond your own intreptation.

You don't have anything like Link1a through link 3E proving your case.

You've as far as I can tell haven't done much but demand your conjecture be admitted as possible despite there being nothing to support it.

[Sifr]

I bring it because superdarkone told us a long time ago about a codex that splicity stated that the mages were brainwashed, so yes he made that claim, you just didnt see our previous discussion about this.

So what you say about the Dorian dialogue where he says that the mages who didnt join the Venatori either fled or were killed?

 

Hey, superdarkone, were you wrong about that and don't think it anymore? Because if so, then shouldn't Boost stop ballying on about it and instead present some actual evidence for once, instead of drudging that discussion over and over again?

 

Because even I know about it due it how often it's given reruns, next to old episodes of the Simpsons.

 

Nothing beyond your own intreptation.

You don't have anything like Link1a through link 3E proving your case.

You've as far as I can tell haven't done much but demand your conjecture be admitted as possible despite there being nothing to support it.

 

Yet I'm presenting a theory based on the interpretation of what little we do know, that's something... whereas you don't seem to have anything that actually disproves it, save for your declarations otherwise?

 

Thus far, you and Boost seem to be refuting everyone yet offering precious little of your own insights into what you think happened.

[Boost32]

Hey, superdarkone, were you wrong about that and don't think it anymore? Because if so, then shouldn't Boost stop ballying on about it and instead present some actual evidence for once, instead of drudging that discussion over and over again?
 
Because even I know about it due it how often it's given reruns, next to old episodes of the Simpsons.
 

I did because I found funny how he says one thing and does another.
Still, I'm wanting for the codex and dialogue where its stated that the templars (not the rogue ones) attacked hinterlands. So please show me.

[MisterJB]

Funny how Templar supporters demand evidence to disprove their claims yet always ignore everything that disproves it yet they do the same thing. Guess nothing, including logic, gets in the way of blind hatred.

Don't worry sif, your points make sense and i support you

 

Because what we are being given is circunstancial evidence at best and really flimsy one.

The proponents of the blood magic theory are using the presence of blood in Redcliff as evidence. So, maybe it was used to control Fiona's mind. MAYBE, PERHAPS.

The real life equivalent would be if...a victim was found with stab wounds and, when you visit her ex boyfriend, he has tons of a swords in his living room. Sure, it's suspect but unless you can actually prove one of those was used in the murder or find a ton more of circunstancial evidence (such as the ex boyfriend being unnacounted for at the time of murder) or direct evidence, it's not going to fly.

 

Furthermore, the defendant attempts to argue that Fiona's morals would impede her from attacking the Inquisition when her previous actions paint the exact opposite. I recall, for instance, how, in the interest of the safety of her mages, she ignores the mages burning anyone without magic in the Hinterlands for giggles.

 

And that is, of course, without taking into account that the possibility of blood magic is not raised by a single person within the game and that the theme pursued in DAI was how people made their mistakes out of their own free will. Samson, Clarel, Denam, Florianne, Alexius.
 

[Deztyn]

Nothing beyond your own intreptation.
You don't have anything like Link1a through link 3E proving your case.
You've as far as I can tell haven't done much but demand your conjecture be admitted as possible despite there being nothing to support it.

Seriously.

The argument against blood magic is "There is nothing in the game the says or even implies that it is blood magic"

This isn't a theory that needs to be proved. It is a fact. There is nothing in the game that says blood magic.

The argument for blood magic is "I don't think Fiona would do that."

Many reasons have been given to explain exactly why she would make the choices she does given her history and the situations she faces in game.

The counter argument is "Well, I still don't think Fiona would do that."

But somehow we're the ones who are irrational and won't see reason.

[Master Warder Z_]

Pretty much what JB said.

[Boost32]

Because what we are being given is circunstancial evidence at best and really flimsy one.
The proponents of the blood magic theory are using the presence of blood in Redcliff as evidence. So, maybe it was used to control Fiona's mind. MAYBE, PERHAPS.
The real life equivalent would be if...a victim was found with stab wounds and, when you visit her ex boyfriend, he has tons of a swords in his living room. Sure, it's suspect but unless you can actually prove one of those was used in the murder or find a ton more of circunstancial evidence (such as the ex boyfriend being unnacounted for at the time of murder) or direct evidence, it's not going to fly.
 
Furthermore, the defendant attempts to argue that Fiona's morals would impede her from attacking the Inquisition when her previous actions paint the exact opposite. I recall, for instance, how, in the interest of the safety of her mages, she ignores the mages burning anyone without magic in the Hinterlands for giggles.
 
And that is, of course, without taking into account that the possibility of blood magic is not raised by a single person within the game and that the theme pursued in DAI was how people made their mistakes out of their own free will. Samson, Clarel, Denam, Florianne, Alexius.

Just a correction, there is no mention of any kind of blood in Redcliff.

[Sifr]

I did because I found funny how he says one thing and does another.
Still, I'm wanting for the codex and dialogue where its stated that the templars (not the rogue ones) attacked hinterlands. So please show me.

 

Fiona states they were at the gates and preparing for an attack, which combined with the extremely large Templar presence in the region, suggests that such an attack was imminent before the recall order was given.

 

Thus the claim that they would not have attacked does not hold up, as there are plenty of indications that they would.

 

We even see the Templars and Mages in the Inquisition, both whom are supposed to be on our own side, were prepared to kick off at one point because they believed the other side was reponsible and tensions were running high at the time.

 

There is no evidence they had attacked... well, save for the huge amount of damage in the Hinterlands that even magic would have taken some time to cause... but that there does exist the possibility they had conducted some kind of action during that week, or were about to before the recall was given.

[MisterJB]

Just a correction, there is no mention of any kind of blood in Redcliff.

There isn't? Then what evidence are we Pro-Templars supposedly ignoring?

[Boost32]

 

There isn't? Then what evidence are we Pro-Templars supposedly ignoring?

 

None.

 

Here is the unfamous ritual that can be blood magic (Leliana section): http://dragonage.wik...edcliffe_Castle

[MisterJB]

Fiona states they were at the gates and preparing for an attack, which combined with the extremely large Templar presence in the region, suggests that such an attack was imminent before the recall order was given.

 

Thus the claim that they would not have attacked does not hold up, as there are plenty of indications that they would.

No, there isn't.

The entirety of the mage rebellion is within Redcliff. In this situation, it makes perfect sense for the Templars to be nearby for several reasons. Monitor the situation, react rapidly if the offer of shelter is revoked, count how many mages enter and leave Redcliff in order to determine the numbers of enemies and, generally, just make sure the mages and the people of Redcliff don't get confortable.

After the rebellion murdered the Divine, which is what everyone believed, evidently they had reason to believe they weren't interested in peace and were about to either renew or get kicked out of Redcliff for their crime at which point, they could kill them.

 

Fiona may have good reason to believe they were going to attack in retaliation but that is a reflection of how she perceives Templars.

None of this necessarely means they were going to attack a Ferelden town.

 

 

We even see the Templars and Mages in the Inquisition, both whom are supposed to be on our own side, were prepared to kick off at one point because they believed the other side was reponsible and tensions were running high at the time.

So, because some Templars and mages somewhere who are unnafiliated with either group were about to kill each other, that suddenly mean the internationally recognized and sanctioned Templar Order was about to breach the sovereignity of Ferelden?
That's like saying because the Inquisition is fighting the Venatori, Tevinter is sure to attack Orlais.

It does not follow. There are treatises and consequences which do not, obviously, apply to a scuffle between Templars and mages with the Inquisition.

 

 

There is no evidence they had attacked... well, save for the huge amount of damage in the Hinterlands that even magic would have taken some time to cause... but that there does exist the possibility they had conducted some kind of action during that week, or were about to before the recall was given.

There are rogue Templars and mages fighting in the Hinterlands. They are causing the damage.

Besides, what you are saying here is "The evidence that the Templars were about to attack is the damage which could only have been caused by an attack."