How to solve a problem like Aes Sedai?

[Reiver]

Your words my mouth=straw manning!

The NK analogy was a vain attempt to bring relevance to your insistence to bring a fantasy situation into the real world. The NK and Iran having nukes example is the idea of a small group having control of a weapon so powerful that it allows them to dominate the world. You hysterically suggest that i'm saying enslave them. ::) You deal with each situation as best you can and if you're trying to bring down dictators you remove the source of their power. With the Aes Sedai that's the OP and one way of doing so is by putting them in A'dams.

Like in the other thread where you can't see the difference between killing and murder you don't seem to be able to see there are degrees of slavery. Call it enforced labour, penal labour, whatever. I'm not implying that it is wonderfully moral but the best of of a poor range of alternatives.

 

Tbh the stuff you write is too divergent and irrelevant to engage in so *claps hands* i'm out.

[Mr Ares]

Your words my mouth=straw manning!

No, it's me trying to interpet your rubbish into something that makes sense. Unless you make it clear what your point is, I can't do anything else besides what you do, ignore it.

You hysterically suggest that i'm saying enslave them.

I'm not hysterical, no matter how many times you say it. But, as we were discussing slavery, surely thinking that your point might have some relevance to that point isn't too much to ask? Apparently it is. You support the slavery of Aes Sedai, why not slavery in this instance? Aes Sedai aren't dictators, by the way. If you cannot be bothered to clearly state what your arguments are, then confusion is bound to erupt. Simply claiming that I am being irrelevant or divergent doesn't do a damn thing to support your points. I asked you for examples of Aes Sedai being impossible to reason with, but you haven't done it. I ask you to explain your points, but you don't. Maybe even can't. And now you give up because I ask you to engage in debate, to clearly state your point, to provide examples. Bad show. Just not cricket.

[Guest The Thin Inn Keeper]

It's not like they're bound not to murder (ask Siuan's warder) and they don't seem to be beyond manipulating the situation to make themselves feel threatened enough to channel.

We don’t know who killed him. Could easily have been Alvirian.

Hypothetical Situation: Aes Sedai marches into throne room tying up the guards on the way and uses forc choke on the King which causes one guardsman to try and kill her suddenly she's making free with the fireballs

Hypothetical Situation:

A dog walks into a room full of children and precedes to eat them.

 

Response: Put all dogs to sleep because they eat children.

I thought they were largely responsible for destroying Hawkwing's empire.

Nope, it was Ishy.

The Suldam don't channel. They are capable of it but it took a lot of pushing to get Bethamin or Seta to admit that to themselves.

Ahhh… but they might.

 

What if one of the slaves escapes and teaches one? What if the learners realize that they are capable and then feel empathy toward the sparkers?

 

Good gracious, better chain them all.

 

That’s where the enslaving of Aes Sedai leads.

The windfinders are like the Aiel in that they defer to non channelers

Rarely do they defer to non-channelers. And, they only defer to non-channelers who are members of their little club.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Ahhh… Wikipedia. It’s a really useful tool.

 

Allows you to make statements and immediately back them up.

Your words my mouth=straw manning!

It’s wonderful when people use the old strawman line.

 

I tend to find it’s akin to saying, “I can’t think of a reply to this post, so I’ll refuse to acknowledge it’s a valid argument.”

You deal with each situation as best you can and if you're trying to bring down dictators you remove the source of their power.

But only the bad dictators; the good dictators can stay.

 

Pinochet. Hussein (pre-Gulf War I). Every Egyptian leader since 1979. Countless African leaders.

 

WoT Leaders.

Rands steward in Cairhein. Rands steward in Tear. Rands steward in Illian.

 

Rand.

 

Sound like dictators, don’t they? But it’s ok, they’re good dictators.

 

Oh wait, so was Hussein, and Pinochet….

With the Aes Sedai that's the OP and one way of doing so is by putting them in A'dams.

Which, by today’s standards would be seen as a gross violation of their Human Rights.

 

Just so long as you know.

Like in the other thread where you can't see the difference between killing and murder you don't seem to be able to see there are degrees of slavery.

Yes, there are differences. However, all are equally wrong.

Call it enforced labour, penal labour, whatever. I'm not implying that it is wonderfully moral but the best of of a poor range of alternatives.

Yes, but that’s a codified punishment, that takes place for a specified time, for breaking an established law. An established law that, presumably, the offender knew about before committing said crime; an established law that one chose to break.

Tbh the stuff you write is too divergent and irrelevant to engage in so *claps hands* i'm out.

Translation:

“I can’t refute what you’re saying.”

 

**

At the end of the day, you’re endorsing slavery.

 

Well done.

 

What year is it? Oh yes, 2008.

 

I'm assuming you're American here ... I do seem to recall something, I might be wrong here, called the Civil War ... lots of people died to prevent slavery in the U.S...

 

And yes, before I get jumped on, I am fully aware that they were not the first state to move against slavery.

[Tel Janin]

I'm assuming you're American here ... I do seem to recall something, I might be wrong here, called the Civil War ... lots of people died to prevent slavery in the U.S...

 

Since we've all gotten somewhat off topic here with the discussion of slavery, I feel compelled to defend my ancestors...

 

The Confederacy did not attempt to secede because of slavery.  It (like most every conflict ever fought) was about money.  The Confederate states produced raw materials and luxury items (tobacco and cotton), the Yankees had all the food and manufactories.  The governments of the Confederate states were fed up with getting the fuzzy end of the lolly-pop.  To the Confederacy, slavery was never an issue of contention.

 

As a matter of fact, General Longstreet (a Confederate officer, and General Robert E. Lee's right hand man) was quoted as saying, "We should've freed the slaves, and then fired of Fort Sumpter."

 

If that'd been the case, it'd be a much different world now.  the Yankee recruiting in the Northern states would have been severely hampered.  Most of the North-Eastern states recruited under the banner of liberating slaves.

 

Anyway, just wanted to point that out.  American History lesson over.  Just goes to prove that History is indeed written by the victors.  ;)

 

As far as the Aes Sedai, I say we just sever all the channelers.  Then everyone will be on an even keel.  Okay, maybe that's a bit excessive, but my point is that those with power, will abuse it.  Eventually.  It's just a matter of time and perspective.

 

Just take off and nuke the site from orbit.  It's the only way to be sure.  ;D

[Fjong]

Who's going to sever the last one???

[Tel Janin]

Who's going to sever the last one???

 

Dangit!  I knew my plan was flawed.  :o

 

That one will just have to sever themselves.  All done in the interest of what's best for the World, of course...  ::)

[Guest The Thin Inn Keeper]

The Confederacy did not attempt to secede because of slavery.  It (like most every conflict ever fought) was about money.  

Yep.

 

And the industries that the Confederacy relied upon to make money were the plantation industries. What do plantation industries require? Manual labor. What’s the cheapest source of said manual labor…?

 

Slavery was one of many issues. It was also of particular importance to the Union.

The governments of the Confederate states were fed up with getting the fuzzy end of the lolly-pop.

Well, that’s the way it works sometimes.

 

Reference industrial North England, or Northern Ireland when the issue of coal powered power stations came up for debate. Witness the death of the US car industry.

 

There are times when economic changes, and central leaders make decisions that hurt people.

 

There are also times when populations as a whole are p*ssed off.  Reference the various regional trade blocs.

 

As for the various populations… well, again, that’s a feature of politics in every state.

 

Sh*t happens.

 

You think people living in the comparatively rich South of the UK like having their politics dominated by less well off people in the Midlands or the North?

To the Confederacy, slavery was never an issue of contention.

Uh huh.

 

Sure, their economy relied upon slavery. Clearly, it was never an issue. The various laws they tried to pass, specifically the one about fleeing slaves, indicate that it was.

As a matter of fact, General Longstreet (a Confederate officer, and General Robert E. Lee's right hand man) was quoted as saying, "We should've freed the slaves, and then fired of Fort Sumpter."

Great. There were Confederates who didn’t like slavery. No political grouping has 100% approval. There are Democrats who believe going into Iraq was a good thing.

 

Anyways. Back to the topic….

[Dbob]

I suppose that we really should move on, but oh well, I feel compelled to add that saying the U.S. civil war was about economy not slavery is revisionist at best. I grew up and was educated in the south and anyone of us who was, has also heard the “money” argument, and I can’t say it’s ever been anything more than an attempt to gloss over the colossal crimes our ancestors perpetuated. The economy of the south was based in slavery, so there is no talking one, in regards to the Antebellum south, without talking the other. Besides, slavery as an issue had a lot to do with the underlying tensions that led up to the civil war, most obviously in the arguments of how slavery was to be restricted and where it was to be prohibited, the basis for the “states rights” argument (here’s your secession justification) had a lot to do with the increasing restrictions on slavery coming out of Washington.

 

I’m also from the south, and at least for me, I don’t think it helps anyone to try and minimize the great influence that slavery had on the culture and politics of the Antebellum south, nor does it help to trivialize or ignore the massive crime against humanity it was. Obviously the antebellum south was in no way interested in giving up slavery no matter what Robert E. Lee said, and if defeat was the price we had to pay to rid ourselves of such a monstrous institution, then it was a price well paid.