Bonding and the merits of Compulstion

[Sleeper]

Absolutely, Compulsion is evil. Including "lesser" forms like the Three Oaths and the Warder Bond.

 

Kill them.

 

Hahaha. That was pithy, but you don't actually think that Compulsions is an unadulterated evil do you? Including Warder style or thee Oaths (which is typically chosen, btw). It is a tool like any other, and can be used for good or ill. Means are never evil, only ends.

Compulsion, in my opinion, comes as close as anything can to being objectively evil. That's why I despise the institution of Wardership, because Aes Sedai are able to compel them to do things. Warders essentially are relegated to the position of a guard dog.

 

Any tool that gives someone control over another person's actions without their consent and allows you to exert influence over their behavior possibly against their own will lands in the darkest shade of grey I've ever seen.

 

I don't see how magical coercion is morally distinct from physical coercion. I take away your choices if I kill you too. For that matter, if I lie to you and trick you into doing what I want, thats basically the same thing as compelling you to do so (although it is less certain to work, when it does, I have controlled your actions). Seems to be a difference in degree, not in kind, from other types of manipulation and coercion.

 

Do you all have the same problem with Mat or Rand ta'verening people? Nobody seems to think that is evil, but it is practically the same thing.

 

In response to the question of what I would do if I were an Ashaman, I'd have to say that I wouldn't be one in the first place. Until the source was clean, I would have submitted for gentling, or moved to a stedding. I'm not about to risk blowing up everyone around me.

If you lie to me and trick me into doing something, I have still done it with my own free will. That's the critical difference.

 

As Zentari said, even in a case like a threat of physical violence, I still have the choice of whether I want to do something. I still have free will. Compulsion completely and utterly robs you of the power to make your own choices. You have no option to refuse. You are essentially a slave. That's pretty damn evil.

 

Ta'veren's a tricky issue. When Rand exercises his ta'veren ability, it usually seems to be to do the will of the Pattern. The Pattern needed him to be ta'veren, so he's ta'veren. Therefore, it's not as much a matter of an individual forcing another individual to submit to control as it is the will of the very fabric of the universe forcing someone in a certain direction. I wouldn't consider it evil.

[EvilSocrates]

Absolutely, Compulsion is evil. Including "lesser" forms like the Three Oaths and the Warder Bond.

 

Kill them.

 

Hahaha. That was pithy, but you don't actually think that Compulsions is an unadulterated evil do you? Including Warder style or thee Oaths (which is typically chosen, btw). It is a tool like any other, and can be used for good or ill. Means are never evil, only ends.

Compulsion, in my opinion, comes as close as anything can to being objectively evil. That's why I despise the institution of Wardership, because Aes Sedai are able to compel them to do things. Warders essentially are relegated to the position of a guard dog.

 

Any tool that gives someone control over another person's actions without their consent and allows you to exert influence over their behavior possibly against their own will lands in the darkest shade of grey I've ever seen.

 

I don't see how magical coercion is morally distinct from physical coercion. I take away your choices if I kill you too. For that matter, if I lie to you and trick you into doing what I want, thats basically the same thing as compelling you to do so (although it is less certain to work, when it does, I have controlled your actions). Seems to be a difference in degree, not in kind, from other types of manipulation and coercion.

 

Do you all have the same problem with Mat or Rand ta'verening people? Nobody seems to think that is evil, but it is practically the same thing.

 

In response to the question of what I would do if I were an Ashaman, I'd have to say that I wouldn't be one in the first place. Until the source was clean, I would have submitted for gentling, or moved to a stedding. I'm not about to risk blowing up everyone around me.

If you lie to me and trick me into doing something, I have still done it with my own free will. That's the critical difference.

 

As Zentari said, even in a case like a threat of physical violence, I still have the choice of whether I want to do something. I still have free will. Compulsion completely and utterly robs you of the power to make your own choices. You have no option to refuse. You are essentially a slave. That's pretty damn evil.

 

Ta'veren's a tricky issue. When Rand exercises his ta'veren ability, it usually seems to be to do the will of the Pattern. The Pattern needed him to be ta'veren, so he's ta'veren. Therefore, it's not as much a matter of an individual forcing another individual to submit to control as it is the will of the very fabric of the universe forcing someone in a certain direction. I wouldn't consider it evil.

 

I don't think that computes. If the "Evil" part is robbing someone of free will, whatever that means, then the fact that the pattern is doing it for "good reasons" is irrelevant. Besides which, characters consciously use their ta'veren nature to accomplish their own aims. See, eg. Dark Rand being able to pattern Caddy to death if he wanted or the girls using Mat with the Sea-Folk.

 

Also, Compulsion doesn't rob you of your ability to make free choices any more than trickery does. If a man pretends to be the husband of a woman, using illusion, in order to trick her into sleeping with him, has she really "chosen" to sleep with the man? Nope. Similarly, if I trick you into killing a man by fooling you into thinking he murdered your brother, when he was innocent, have you really freely chosen? If I get you to steal something by making you think it was rightfully yours (or mine to give away) have really really freely chosen?

 

Perhaps it would clarify the issue for me if you could define what you mean by free will.

 

It might help if you could tell me what you mean when you say "evil" too. Is it just a list of bad things you have or is there some hallmark of a thing that makes it wrong?

 

(I also don't think its much comfort to say to a person who is forced at knife-point to do something and say "well you freely chose to do what they wanted rather than die!")

[Puny]

I don't think that the aes sedai reaction is unbelievable. However it remains despicable as it is both arrogant and sexist.

 

I find it astonishing that people are having a hard time with why Elaida would have taken this action. It was the Red's job to gentle men who could channel. That has been the way of the world since the breaking. You can't rightly call something sexist when that event has shaped the world in such a way. At this point in the story the taint still exists and Elaida's rogue group, unbacked by the Tower(not sure why people keep mentioning Tower Law when the Tower had no idea this was even taking place)decided to do their job. It is actually one of the few times we have seen someone take a decisive action based on what their Ajah represents. Did Elaida go about it the wrong way? Sure, much as she has gone about everything especially after Fain came into the picture. Would the Ashaman have been right in using force to defend themselves? Of course, but it doesn't change the fact that they are men who were destined to go insane. For thousands of years they have been a threat second only to the Forsaken in reputation. The AS really took a quite reasonable course of action but went about it in entirely the wrong way.

 

Well, I wasn't talking about Elaida's reaction to the BT. I was talking about how the aes sedai reacted to the ashaman not rolling over and dying to satisfy the aes sedai who went to kill them. Romanda was more or less appalled at the fact that the ashaman defended themselves against aes sedai and bonded them, even though the alternative was killing them, in which case she would have been even more appalled. Basically the only way the ashaman could have not pissed off the aes sedai would have been to not fight back against the aes sedai Elaida sent.

 

As for Elaida sending aes sedai to exterminate the ashaman, well if they're unbacked by the Tower then they are just a bunch of murderers. If they are backed by the Tower then they are breaking Tower law and are still in the wrong. And this is without even getting into the how stupid it was politically since it was basically a declaration of war agains the DR and the only reason complete disaster was averted is because Rand told the ashaman not to harm aes sedai.

 

Given the history of the Aes Sedai as the biggest political force since the Breaking, a force that can channel at that I think their reaction is... expected. And although the Asha´man are men that can channel (horrible men that will break the world again... grr them!) they are also men that can channel, giving some counterweight to the Aes Sedai, and surely seen as a threat to the Aes Sedai´s political power in the world. Plus that they are hindered by the three oaths, I dk how much hinderence that really is, seen how they can wiggle out of the oaths anyhow. People having been bowing and scraping to the AS for hundreds of years, so they expected nothing less of the Asha´man. Luckily, they were misstaken.

[Puny]

"If you lie to me and trick me into doing something, I have still done it with my own free will. That's the critical difference.

 

As Zentari said, even in a case like a threat of physical violence, I still have the choice of whether I want to do something. I still have free will. Compulsion completely and utterly robs you of the power to make your own choices. You have no option to refuse. You are essentially a slave. That's pretty damn evil. " by Sleeper

 

The thing is... you cannot use Compulsion on somehow if they don´t one some level agree with it, or in 1 of a 1000 times might accept it. Only then can you Compel someone, so those Aes Sedai had to deep down find some reason, albeit how insignificant to actually be able to serve the Asha´man, so it isn´t like they are mindless slaves... just a little bit

[Zentari]

I don't think that computes. If the "Evil" part is robbing someone of free will, whatever that means, then the fact that the pattern is doing it for "good reasons" is irrelevant. Besides which, characters consciously use their ta'veren nature to accomplish their own aims. See, eg. Dark Rand being able to pattern Caddy to death if he wanted or the girls using Mat with the Sea-Folk.

Actually it computes very nicely.There's a difference to someone lobotomizing you and the ACTUAL laws of the universe bending you over.Even more so, compare the after effects of both.Both can force you to do what the other wants.The one can only be used by those the universe has placed in positions to do so with pre-destined paths.The other can be used by anyone to do whatever the heck they wanted.After effects are also different.Taveren wears off and you feel dizzy.You might be able to fight of compulsion (ala Morgase ) but chances are if it's removed , you will die on the spot like what happened to that man Nyn pulled the web off.

 

Also, Compulsion doesn't rob you of your ability to make free choices any more than trickery does. If a man pretends to be the husband of a woman, using illusion, in order to trick her into sleeping with him, has she really "chosen" to sleep with the man? Nope. Similarly, if I trick you into killing a man by fooling you into thinking he murdered your brother, when he was innocent, have you really freely chosen? If I get you to steal something by making you think it was rightfully yours (or mine to give away) have really really freely chosen?

No , it does , stop denying that and YES , I WOULD have made the choice.Perhaps the wrong choice because you deceived me but MY choice non-the-less.Then AFTER it works out, I would simply gut you like a fish (in the examples you gave).

I get no such choice with compulsion and chances are I get no more choices later on.

 

Perhaps it would clarify the issue for me if you could define what you mean by free will.

Oh come on, now you are just grasping at straws.Open a dictionary and flip over to it.

 

It might help if you could tell me what you mean when you say "evil" too. Is it just a list of bad things you have or is there some hallmark of a thing that makes it wrong?

The lobotomizing aspect of it makes it KINDA uncomfortable.

 

(I also don't think its much comfort to say to a person who is forced at knife-point to do something and say "well you freely chose to do what they wanted rather than die!")

Nope , but now imagine that same person being THANKFUL for it and loving the assaulter simply because he/she told him to do so.Imagine said person killing his whole family , slowly , while laughing.AFTER he tortures them.Because you said so to him and he did not even raise an eyebrow.

 

Far out ? Totally but so are your examples.

[sleepinghour]

The thing is... you cannot use Compulsion on somehow if they don´t one some level agree with it, or in 1 of a 1000 times might accept it. Only then can you Compel someone, so those Aes Sedai had to deep down find some reason, albeit how insignificant to actually be able to serve the Asha´man, so it isn´t like they are mindless slaves... just a little bit

That's only true of Verin's variant, which seems to have been much weaker than regular Compulsion. Normally, the victim can't resist unless extremely strong-willed (like Morgase and Nynaeve), and even then it took them both considerable time before they were able to shake it off, and Morgase only partially. We don't know if Compulsion from a Warder bond can be resisted at all.

 

Compulsion had presented no difficulties with this woman. A scowl twisted his [Rahvin's] face. It did with some. A few—a very few—had a strength of self so firm that their minds searched, even if unaware, for crevices through which to slide away. It was his bad luck that he still had some small need for one such. She could be handled, but she kept trying to find escape without knowing she was trapped.

[Puny]

The thing is... you cannot use Compulsion on somehow if they don´t one some level agree with it, or in 1 of a 1000 times might accept it. Only then can you Compel someone, so those Aes Sedai had to deep down find some reason, albeit how insignificant to actually be able to serve the Asha´man, so it isn´t like they are mindless slaves... just a little bit

That's only true of Verin's variant, which seems to have been much weaker than regular Compulsion. Normally, the victim can't resist unless extremely strong-willed (like Morgase and Nynaeve), and even then it took them both considerable time before they were able to shake it off, and Morgase only partially. We don't know if Compulsion from a Warder bond can be resisted at all.

 

Compulsion had presented no difficulties with this woman. A scowl twisted his [Rahvin's] face. It did with some. A few—a very few—had a strength of self so firm that their minds searched, even if unaware, for crevices through which to slide away. It was his bad luck that he still had some small need for one such. She could be handled, but she kept trying to find escape without knowing she was trapped.

 

Oh... I wasn´t aware that Verin´s compulsion was weaker. In the case of Compulsion couldn´t the Asha´man just have Compelled the Aes Sedai to say: You will not harm the Dragon reborn whatsoever and you will view men that can channel in the same regard as you view women... something like that. Then the Asha´man could have released the women without the need to keep them prisoner... Why didn´t they do that... I think I just answered my own question...cause if someone delved them they would know... and remove the compulsion.

 

Then the Asha´man should have made a weaker compulsion like Verin´s and let the Aes Sedai figure out that being a man and channeling isn´t so bad at all

[EvilSocrates]

So you think free will is adequately defined in a dictionary? That might explain your approach to this issue. It is a subject of substantial debate, and many philosophers don't think it can or does exist. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

 

I'm not trying to grasp at straws, I am trying to get a better handle on what you think "free will," is and why Compulsion is somehow special in limiting your freedom.

 

By the by what you are saying is consistent with the "horrible" consequential-ism I defined above, where you set freedom as a value. It is still morally nuetral to Compel, but it does tend to destroy values, and thus many instances in which it is used is wrong, and those are the ones your are focusing on. i.e. "a person being THANKFUL for it and loving the assaulter simply because he/she told him to do so.Imagine said person killing his whole family , slowly , while laughing.AFTER he tortures them. Because you said so to him and he did not even raise an eyebrow." The morality of this act is not really in dispute. But if you were achieve it in some other way, such as using illusion to disguise the fact that they were his family, then the morality would be equivalent. It is the consequence (getting you to torture your family), not the means, that is problematic.

[Zentari]

So you think free will is adequately defined in a dictionary? That might explain your approach to this issue. It is a subject of substantial debate, and many philosophers don't think it can or does exist. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

 

EVERYTHING is a matter of debate where existence is concerned.Free will IS more than adequately defined in dictionaries.If your stance on it differs than the norm (as in , the widely accepted) then there's no reason to debate because we won't ever agree on something.

 

For the accepted definition however, compulsion IS evil,in the sense that it's purpose is to circumvent free will (evil is a strong word though, maybe destructive would be better ?). You might be able to raise a point about it being used for good but that does not change it's nature. A gun can be used to kill someone and save thousands of lives ; the gun however was developed to kill, that does not change.Similarly with compulsion , you might get good results if say, get someone to betray the dark or kill one of the forsaken but that does not alter the basis of compulsion : to destroy the person's ability to think for himself/herself.

 

That's the point I'm trying to make.Not that it can't be used for good.

[MasterAblar]

So you think free will is adequately defined in a dictionary? That might explain your approach to this issue. It is a subject of substantial debate, and many philosophers don't think it can or does exist. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

 

EVERYTHING is a matter of debate where existence is concerned.Free will IS more than adequately defined in dictionaries.If your stance on it differs than the norm (as in , the widely accepted) then there's no reason to debate because we won't ever agree on something.

 

For the accepted definition however, compulsion IS evil,in the sense that it's purpose is to circumvent free will (evil is a strong word though, maybe destructive would be better ?). You might be able to raise a point about it being used for good but that does not change it's nature. A gun can be used to kill someone and save thousands of lives ; the gun however was developed to kill, that does not change.Similarly with compulsion , you might get good results if say, get someone to betray the dark or kill one of the forsaken but that does not alter the basis of compulsion : to destroy the person's ability to think for himself/herself.

 

That's the point I'm trying to make.Not that it can't be used for good.

 

A little evil to do a greater good I suppose.

[EvilSocrates]

So you think free will is adequately defined in a dictionary? That might explain your approach to this issue. It is a subject of substantial debate, and many philosophers don't think it can or does exist. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

 

EVERYTHING is a matter of debate where existence is concerned.Free will IS more than adequately defined in dictionaries.If your stance on it differs than the norm (as in , the widely accepted) then there's no reason to debate because we won't ever agree on something.

 

For the accepted definition however, compulsion IS evil,in the sense that it's purpose is to circumvent free will (evil is a strong word though, maybe destructive would be better ?). You might be able to raise a point about it being used for good but that does not change it's nature. A gun can be used to kill someone and save thousands of lives ; the gun however was developed to kill, that does not change.Similarly with compulsion , you might get good results if say, get someone to betray the dark or kill one of the forsaken but that does not alter the basis of compulsion : to destroy the person's ability to think for himself/herself.

 

That's the point I'm trying to make.Not that it can't be used for good.

 

I would agree that it is destructive. It isn't evil more than a fireball or gun is, as you aptly said. It is certainly inherently dangerous and destructive though, though such things have their uses.

[Erunion]

As a tool, I agree with EvilSocrates - Compulsion isn't evil, it simply exists. However, Compulsion is used almost exclusively for evil.

It isn't the compulsion itself that disgusts me (and, I assume, so many others of you), it is the use to which compulsion is put, and to which compulsion lends itself. Sure, Compulsion can be used for good, and would be a ridiculously useful tool in rehab centers (say, you're addicted to drug/item x, and want to be free of your addiction, but can't. Ask to be compelled and voila! No more addiction!) and in the prevention of crime. However, the tool lends itself too readily to evil. May I suggest that a modified form of compulsion be developed (perhaps in the form of a ter'angreal, like the oath rod) that would cast a light net of compulsion on you, but only if you wanted it to.

Once the ter'angreal is developed, use it to wipe out the ability to use compulsion from the people who developed the ter'angreal. A little harsh, but it would maintain the benefits of compulsion while taking away the ability for it to be forcefully used (or at least easily used, as you could force a person to compel themselves using the developed ter'angreal).

However, there is the matter of the lobotomizing effect. Clearly, high-level compulsion, like that which Graendal uses, is absolutely destructive, and the use of it should be considered murder, as you essentially kill that person, leaving only a husk.

[Elan Tedronai]

how did i miss this floozie of a thread.

 

what a post by randsc. Just when you think he can't top his hatred for things aes sedai, BANG! he comes up with another Gem

[Puny]

how did i miss this floozie of a thread.

 

what a post by randsc. Just when you think he can't top his hatred for things aes sedai, BANG! he comes up with another Gem

 

Just when you think Elan Tedronai has something to say about the topic in the thread... BANG! He doesn´t.

 

 

Erunion:

I guess you can say that it´s the use of Compulsion that is evil, not Compulsion on it´s own. I think you can clearly see that the Ajahs have been a hinder in how the AS utilize the power and how they view knowledge. Instead of viewing knowledge as something to be shared, something that can further the use of the Power, inventing different weaves and so forth, knowledge is seen as something exclusive to be guarded jealously by each Ajah and no though is considered to what the AS could do if they opened up their knowledge to ALL the Ajahs (for example the wonderful example of Compulsion and the Yellow Ajah) But since the WT is a institution that conserves knowledge there is no change, no fluctuation between Ajah, knowledge and discovery, advancement.

[Elan Tedronai]

how did i miss this floozie of a thread.

 

what a post by randsc. Just when you think he can't top his hatred for things aes sedai, BANG! he comes up with another Gem

 

.

 

 

not very original iam afraid

 

2/10

[Puny]

how did i miss this floozie of a thread.

 

what a post by randsc. Just when you think he can't top his hatred for things aes sedai, BANG! he comes up with another Gem

 

.

 

 

not very original iam afraid

 

2/10

I could care less about you giving me points or thinking I´m not original. It may not be original but it´s true. Back OT.

[Guest PiotrekS]

I agree with the critique of compulsion.

 

Warder bond is a little more complicated, because the candidate gets the choice whether to enter into this situation and the Aes Sedai should free the warder if he so requests (or at least that's how it should be, it definitely is problematic given the Aes Sedai's mindset). There are also definitive benefits to the warder...But I think that the option of compelling the warder should either be removed entirely from the construction of the bond,or at least the act of said compelling should be a crime and anathema among Aes Sedai.

 

Freedom rules

Sorry if I'm wrong about this but when was the last time an Aes Sedai told her would be warder that she could "pull his reigns" if necessary ?

 

You're right. We could speculate that the young people training with the older warders get this information, but given the omnipresent lack of commnication in WOT, I'm not so sure of that...

 

My point was that the warder bond could be acceptable if it was a free decision with full information and the option to get out of this deal. The reality in WOT is different, but it could be done.

 

Compulsion, on the other hand, is inherently evil IMHO.

[Justen Diablos]

I get the feeling that warders do know beforehand about the warder bond being able to compel. It seems that many a warder are picked out of the group that comes to train at the WT (younglings) who I assume are familiar with all aspects of the bond, others probably get a roughly delivered laundry list of disclaimers before the bonding happens, like an Ipod. We really don't know what the Tower teaches about bonding since most of the protagonists (ie. Egwene, Elayne, Nynaeve) all bonded warders without ever really being properly taught by the WT in the protocals for doing so.

 

As for the WT's upset over the Black Tower bonding it's members I don't think most people understand the world of Randland that well if they don't see where the Aes Sedai are coming from. Mainly because we see the world through 'Rand tinted glasses'. Basically men who can channel are reviled on a level that would be difficult to translate into something we could relate to. To try though we'll just say they have the same place in society that pedophiles have in our society. And because of their power and the local governments inability to deal with them they become the sole jurisdiction of the White Tower. So essentially the Tower would be like a police force in this instance.

 

So back to the analogy. A group of pedophiles engaging in some of the most depraved behaviour immaginable decide to congragate in a big compound. The police go in to arrest and/or kill these people to make the world a safer place. Instead the police are killed (or I guess captured and forced to live in said compound). What's the response then to that?

 

"Well the cops should've known those pedophiles would capture them, and have absolutely no right to be upset about it. I mean really, what did they think was going to happen?"

 

I don't think so. Not only would every police officer (or Aes Sedai in this case) be completely outraged by this (I'm talking visceral outrage here) but the remainder of society would also hold utter contempt for that being done. As generally speaking I'd say Randland as a society values the WT as we do the police, they're well respected and in fact lauded for what they do except by those of the criminal element who would fear or hate them.

 

So in this case I would say Egwene's outrage here is completely understandable if you understand the general view of the majority of the world to Male Channelers.

 

JD,

Yes I still tag my posts.

[anotherfingolfin]

So back to the analogy. A group of pedophiles engaging in some of the most depraved behaviour immaginable decide to congragate in a big compound. The police go in to arrest and/or kill these people to make the world a safer place. Instead the police are killed (or I guess captured and forced to live in said compound). What's the response then to that?

 

"Well the cops should've known those pedophiles would capture them, and have absolutely no right to be upset about it. I mean really, what did they think was going to happen?"

 

I don't think so. Not only would every police officer (or Aes Sedai in this case) be completely outraged by this (I'm talking visceral outrage here) but the remainder of society would also hold utter contempt for that being done. As generally speaking I'd say Randland as a society values the WT as we do the police, they're well respected and in fact lauded for what they do except by those of the criminal element who would fear or hate them.

 

So in this case I would say Egwene's outrage here is completely understandable if you understand the general view of the majority of the world to Male Channelers.

 

Well, except that is not exactly the case. Its like there is a congregation of people, most, but not all of whom are potential pedophiles. They have all gathered in one place, with their families etc. Not the police, but effectively an external military strike team comes to destroy everybody in the compound. What do you expect the people under attack to do? Roll over and die?

As for the reactions- To the Salidar AS, this was an illegal, foolish attack by an illegitimate rogue group. They may naturally feel (as you rightly stated) a visceral outrage at the idea of AS being bonded, but are you saying that given the circumstances, they can not be expected to get over their prejudice-induced visceral reaction, and think about it rationally?

[USURP888]

 

As for the WT's upset over the Black Tower bonding it's members I don't think most people understand the world of Randland that well if they don't see where the Aes Sedai are coming from. Mainly because we see the world through 'Rand tinted glasses'. Basically men who can channel are reviled on a level that would be difficult to translate into something we could relate to. To try though we'll just say they have the same place in society that pedophiles have in our society. And because of their power and the local governments inability to deal with them they become the sole jurisdiction of the White Tower. So essentially the Tower would be like a police force in this instance.

 

 

Ok, Let me use Logain as an example to argue about this. Back when Logain was healed by Nynaeve, the Salida AS debated as to what to do with him, one of the AS there rightly pointed out that to gentle Logain again would send out the wrong signal to the Dragon Reborn who afterall is a man who could channel.

 

The men the can channel have been feared for 3000years since the breaking, but the Dragon Reborn caused a paradigm shift. Are men still reviled as much as before when they are in Caemlym on their own tower? when they were gathered there by the Dragon Reborn to train and join the fight against the DO in the last battle?

 

btw men going insane != pedophiles. I'd rather equate them to men with schizophrenia. and the WT is not the police, they have no jurisdiction over the world, they are just like the whitecloaks claiming the right to interfere wherever they wished.

[Puny]

 

Ok, Let me use Logain as an example to argue about this. Back when Logain was healed by Nynaeve, the Salida AS debated as to what to do with him, one of the AS there rightly pointed out that to gentle Logain again would send out the wrong signal to the Dragon Reborn who afterall is a man who could channel.

 

The men the can channel have been feared for 3000years since the breaking, but the Dragon Reborn caused a paradigm shift. Are men still reviled as much as before when they are in Caemlym on their own tower? when they were gathered there by the Dragon Reborn to train and join the fight against the DO in the last battle?

 

btw men going insane != pedophiles. I'd rather equate them to men with schizophrenia. and the WT is not the police, they have no jurisdiction over the world, they are just like the whitecloaks claiming the right to interfere wherever they wished.

 

Logain was a great example. I also remember Logains outrage and despair when one of the Aes Sedai wanted to gentle him despite everything he had done for them. Was a really nice scene I think, were a channeling man was portrayed as a human and not some wild rabid dog. I dk about how people view the Asha´man. I think most of them are still fearful, but they are comming around. 3000 years of fact is hard to dismiss in an instant.

I agree with the WT being more of a private military force then the aqtual police, since they claimed their own jurisdiction cause they have the biggest and sharpest sword. I kinda see why the pedophile is a better analogy. Pedophiles (I believe are born that way) Just as channelers are born that way-soulwise and all- and the reaction we as a society have for pedophiles is more appropriate in regards to Asha´man then say schizofrenics. Pedophiles I think are more loathed and feared then schizofrenics.

[David Selig]

IMO the Aes Sedai probably should've executed Logain instead of letting him go, the only reason they didn't is plot conveniency. Not because he's a male channeller, but because he started a war in which thousands died, a lot of them probably killed by him personally.

[Guest PiotrekS]

Apart from the fact that one of the problems with people with some kind of mental disease is that they might be dangerous to themselves and to other people. That's why societies think it justified to limit their personal freedom when necessary. Schozofrenia is just a sickess, there is nothing evil in a person who commits something dangerous because of mental condition.

 

I don't think it's the same with paedophiles. There is certainly danger, but also moral revulsion and condemnation.

 

In case of Asha'man, the only problem is potential danger. Channeling itself, without the Taint, is a good thing. Therefore the analogy with people with various mental conditions seems better to me(especially since that's generally who Asha'man are. Very powerful people with mental health problems). Though it is true that societies in Randland have created this "dark legend" of male channelers, where they are seen not only as sick and dangerous, but also evil.

 

Maybe the best analogy would be to the leader of a country with nuclear weapons, who has the absolute right to use these weapons and is showing some serious mental health issues. You know his country won't remove him (let's say the leaders of police and army are fiercely loyal even to a crazy leader), so what do you do?

 

Aes Sedai had the right to gentle male channelers before the rebirth of the Dragon because nobody else could do it. However, it didn't give them any right to kill these men after having gentled them. There was also an obligation of the Aes Sedai to care for the gentled men who were no longer dangerous and try to save their lives. They have miserably failed to meet this obligation. There was virtually no research done on the Taint or potential ways to remove it by the Aes Sedai. Shouldn't it be the first thing on the "to do" list of the organization who claimed to represent the whole world and possessed the doorway to Finnland?

 

After the Dragon was Reborn and the Horn of Valere was found, any right to gentle men ceased. Faced with imminent Last Battle, Aes Sedai should try to ally with the Asha'man who - even discounting the cleansing - wouldn't have time to go mad before the Last Battle in significant numbers.

 

After the cleansing, Aes Sedai behaviour towards Asha'man became simply deplorable.

 

And the fact that Aes Sedai had a right to gentle men in the past doesn't mean that these men couldn't try to defend themselves. Every person has a right to defend their life, even against a legal military intervention or action by the police.

[USURP888]

IMO the Aes Sedai probably should've executed Logain instead of letting him go, the only reason they didn't is plot conveniency. Not because he's a male channeller, but because he started a war in which thousands died, a lot of them probably killed by him personally.

 

 

I agree, but to be fair Rand started wars too :) Logain thought he might be the DR. Like Taim says, if a false dragon manage to get callandor or just fulfill one of the prophecies, whose to say they aren't the one? history is written by the victor.

 

At the time they captured Logain, they gentled him and considered the matter over they did not need to kill him, nobody has any idea Nynaeve would find a way to heal him.

 

After Nynaeve healed Logain, there is no way that they could gentle him or kill him without sending the wrong signal to Rand and other male channelers.

[Guest PiotrekS]

IMO the Aes Sedai probably should've executed Logain instead of letting him go, the only reason they didn't is plot conveniency. Not because he's a male channeller, but because he started a war in which thousands died, a lot of them probably killed by him personally.

 

 

I agree, but to be fair Rand started wars too :) Logain thought he might be the DR. Like Taim says, if a false dragon manage to get callandor or just fulfill one of the prophecies, whose to say they aren't the one? history is written by the victor.

 

At the time they captured Logain, they gentled him and considered the matter over they did not need to kill him, nobody has any idea Nynaeve would find a way to heal him.

 

After Nynaeve healed Logain, there is no way that they could gentle him or kill him without sending the wrong signal to Rand and other male channelers.

 

Do we know for sure it was Logain who started the war? Or did he simply announce he was DR and began gathering followers and only then was attacked by the army of whichever country it happened in? I don't remember if it was precisely stated in the books.