Freedom or Security

[USURP888]

I don't know if this topic would be allowed but I have thought about this topic alot. I fear treading on this topic but I come honestly curious.

 

 

The rationale behind the use of damane is to control a dangerous person, the root of it being that the channelers back in seanchan then were power hungry and destructive.

The warder bond was started to give the AS security but it can be used to compel the warder and to be honest it makes them more like guard dogs.

The slave system in Seanchan makes property out of people but we have been shown that not all of them resent it, in fact aside from those who are criminals or have been punished they seem to be honored by their status in life.

 

I have always been curious as to why people take the stand that they do, is it cultural? is it racial? I am Asian ( chinese ) by birth and I value security over individual freedom, it is okay with me if my personal freedom is restricted somewhat if it will make society better. People in America tend to criticize China alot regarding their restrictive society but if you ask the Chinese there, the vast majority would say that as long as business is good, life is improving and they feel secure then the government is doing a good job. I know too that in China, slaves were treated and viewed alot better and I believe RJ pattern the seanchan system to it. Slaves were not dogs to be worked but properties to be valued and slaves have risen to high prominence in society as well.

 

This is not the case with America where Individual Freedom is of paramount importance. Is this why most posters here hate the system of damane, bonding and seanchan da'covale system or is more because of America's bad experience with slavery? Is it white guilt and black anger about the past history of slavery that is causing the anger?

 

If there are real life channelers amongst us ( or mutants with superpowers ala XMEN ) what would you say should be the best way to insure that they do not dominate the less fortunate of us who were not born with those powers? What would stop them from taking advantage of the people without powers?

[Durinax]

to the last part a gun.

 

as to the rest I am indifferent, I know I would hate to be a slave but then again I am in canada where personal freedoms are paramount (which is a bit wrong since people want all the freedoms and the security which is impossible)

[David Selig]

The rationale behind the use of damane is to control a dangerous person, the root of it being that the channelers back in seanchan then were power hungry and destructive.

Of course that's clearly nonsense, since nothing is stopping the sul'dam from being as destructive and power-hungry as an unleashed channeller. It's a massive hypocrisy on the part of the Seanchan. Besides, they use the damane to gain power and control others, just as those Seanchan Aes Sedai of old they demonise. They are hypocrites to the core, Tuon is the biggest one since she feels so proud for choosing not to channel on her own, yet has no problem at all channelling through proxy (damane) which amounts to the same thing.

 

Freedom vs security is a false dichotomy in most cases. It's possible to strike a balance and have a lot of both.

[USURP888]

The rationale behind the use of damane is to control a dangerous person, the root of it being that the channelers back in seanchan then were power hungry and destructive.

Of course that's clearly nonsense, since nothing is stopping the sul'dam from being as destructive and power-hungry as an unleashed channeller. It's a massive hypocrisy on the part of the Seanchan. Besides, they use the damane to gain power and control others, just as those Seanchan Aes Sedai of old they demonise. They are hypocrites to the core, Tuon is the biggest one since she feels so proud for choosing not to channel on her own, yet has no problem at all channelling through proxy (damane) which amounts to the same thing.

 

Freedom vs security is a false dichotomy in most cases. It's possible to strike a balance and have a lot of both.

 

 

I would tend to agree on the damane v. suldam argument and I think Tuon would need to change her outlook on it. but that does not negate the point that the damane were initially chained to constrain the AS on the seanchan side being destructive and manipulative. The revelation that suldam can channel is very recent so at that time they did not know that suldam can learn to channel.

 

Easy enough to say that it is possible to strike a balance between freedom vs security but it is a topic that is being continually discussed around there world. It is not a false dichotomy but a reality that was brought upon us by terrorists. The US has the patriot act right now. China has been restricting media / internet and individual's right to assembly. Both goverment believe they are protecting the society from terror but having to curtail individual freedom to do it.

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

this is going to get moved to debates and discussions PDQ i think.

 

before it does, may i say give me liberty or give me death, and those who would trade security for freedom deserve neither.

 

the world is not a less dangerous place for imprisoning those we fear.

 

sigh. 'k, it'll probably be my post that gets it moved, sorry.

[Feral]

I'm probably quite unusual in that I don't value personal freedom as the be all and end all. At the end of the day, it's mostly illusion anyway. You have to be very wealthy to have a decent amount of true freedom. We are all slaves to our culture, laws, social expectations, lack of funds, work, family - even our own psychology and biology. So I've never really understood Egwene's whole "be free or die" thing. Yeah I get it's not nice to have your choices reduced even more than they would normally be, but for me LIFE is more important than that, and it's what's in your head that really counts, not how your body and actions are limited. But it all depends on circumstances really, and how the slaves would be treated. Like with the damane being forced to kill people might be enough to make me choose death, but then if I was an Aes Sedai I wouldn't have to worry about that and I could live with everything else. Also love is another big issue. I could live with not being allowed to find love, but if I was already in love then I was made a slave and not allowed to be with that person that would be pretty intolerable. But there's always hope of escape, so I don't think I'd try to kill myself over it.

 

And if there were real channellers in this world...to be honest I'd be scared stiff of them and I probably would prefer some method of control, but nothing so strict as being damane. More like the 3 Oaths, but not removable and applied as soon as they can channel.

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

few people think about what a great slave they'd make, but most everyone thinks they'd make a great master.

 

those under subjugation hate those in power. they may act like they don't, but they do. it's a terrible thing to do to another human being.

 

i could not live with being told what to do without the freedom to say take this job and shove it. i won't do it, but i always know i can, and i cherish that. i couldn't be a child forever. hated it the first time around. don't want anything like it again.

[Zentari]

I would tend to agree on the damane v. suldam argument and I think Tuon would need to change her outlook on it. but that does not negate the point that the damane were initially chained to constrain the AS on the seanchan side being destructive and manipulative. The revelation that suldam can channel is very recent so at that time they did not know that suldam can learn to channel.

Which is kinda irrelevant since it is the individual that abuses the power.What the Seanchan did was remove the choice from the sparkers and give it to the trainable ones.Pure idiocy in itself.

[capuga]

I would tend to agree on the damane v. suldam argument and I think Tuon would need to change her outlook on it. but that does not negate the point that the damane were initially chained to constrain the AS on the seanchan side being destructive and manipulative. The revelation that suldam can channel is very recent so at that time they did not know that suldam can learn to channel.

 

He wasn't refering to the sul'dam learning to channel. His point was the a'dam simply transfers the control over the One Power to another person. It does not remove the threat. Merely places the threat in the hands of another person who is just as likely to misuse it for person gain as the original damane is.

 

Nobody should be punished or lose their freedom over potential crimes. Kill, restrained with an a'dam, etc the channelers that actually commit crimes with that power just like you do with any other person. Pretty much all adults are capable of easily killing an infant. So should they all go to jail or lose their freewill and be treated like an animal to protect the infants? Or should only those that actually kill people be punished? People should be judged by their actions, not their abilities.

[USURP888]

I would tend to agree on the damane v. suldam argument and I think Tuon would need to change her outlook on it. but that does not negate the point that the damane were initially chained to constrain the AS on the seanchan side being destructive and manipulative. The revelation that suldam can channel is very recent so at that time they did not know that suldam can learn to channel.

Which is kinda irrelevant since it is the individual that abuses the power.What the Seanchan did was remove the choice from the sparkers and give it to the trainable ones.Pure idiocy in itself.

 

 

Seanchan history says otherwise though, the unleashed ones were causing mayhem in seanchan, when they were leashed, their power was used to consolidate the empire.

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

I would tend to agree on the damane v. suldam argument and I think Tuon would need to change her outlook on it. but that does not negate the point that the damane were initially chained to constrain the AS on the seanchan side being destructive and manipulative. The revelation that suldam can channel is very recent so at that time they did not know that suldam can learn to channel.

 

He wasn't refering to the sul'dam learning to channel. His point was the a'dam simply transfers the control over the One Power to another person. It does not remove the threat. Merely places the threat in the hands of another person who is just as likely to misuse it for person gain as the original damane is.

 

Nobody should be punished or lose their freedom over potential crimes. Kill, restrained with an a'dam, etc the channelers that actually commit crimes with that power just like you do with any other person. Pretty much all adults are capable of easily killing an infant. So should they all go to jail or lose their freewill and be treated like an animal to protect the infants? Or should only those that actually kill people be punished? People should be judged by their actions, not their abilities.

 

 

well said

[David Selig]

The Seanchan history is probably partly Imperial propaganda, and it serves their goals to make the Seanchan Aes Sedai of old look like monsters. Besides, I don't get how using the damane in battles to conquer the Empire is morally superior to the Seanchan Aes Sedai using the One Power as a weapon to help the realms they rule and to hold their political power.

[capuga]

I would tend to agree on the damane v. suldam argument and I think Tuon would need to change her outlook on it. but that does not negate the point that the damane were initially chained to constrain the AS on the seanchan side being destructive and manipulative. The revelation that suldam can channel is very recent so at that time they did not know that suldam can learn to channel.

Which is kinda irrelevant since it is the individual that abuses the power.What the Seanchan did was remove the choice from the sparkers and give it to the trainable ones.Pure idiocy in itself.

 

 

Seanchan history says otherwise though, the unleashed ones were causing mayhem in seanchan, when they were leashed, their power was used to consolidate the empire.

 

So those with the power just happened to use it to conquer the land themselves rather than allowing the "Aes Sedai" to do it. Who says their use of the Power to conquer or rule is any more just than the Aes Sedai's? And again, punish the ones causing problems. Continuing to treat people like sub-human animals a thousand years later when they have not committed any crimes is ridiculous.

 

Sure some people will abuse their power. Punish them. Others will use that power for the betterment of society. An Age of Legends would never be possible under Seanchan rule because they do not allow the people with Power to utilize it. They didn't even use them for healing until recently. All the damane are are tools to wage war and find mines to enrich their owners and make weapons to, again, wage war. Doesn't sound like the near utopia that was achieved by channelers in prior ages when they weren't treated like animals and had their own freewill.

[nolirion]

I would tend to agree on the damane v. suldam argument and I think Tuon would need to change her outlook on it. but that does not negate the point that the damane were initially chained to constrain the AS on the seanchan side being destructive and manipulative. The revelation that suldam can channel is very recent so at that time they did not know that suldam can learn to channel.

Which is kinda irrelevant since it is the individual that abuses the power.What the Seanchan did was remove the choice from the sparkers and give it to the trainable ones.Pure idiocy in itself.

 

 

Seanchan history says otherwise though, the unleashed ones were causing mayhem in seanchan, when they were leashed, their power was used to consolidate the empire.

Not at all , it did just give power to one , the emperor or the empress . witch without the intervention of the lightside would have result in the defeat of mankind to the DO

 

 

 

Toward your first post , even if their were some superhuman the would not be able to as you so assume control everyone on the planet . Whatever the power of One man he is still alone , and the many beat the one , simple as that .

I don't know How one can assume that Domination is a good way of life

[Zentari]

 

Seanchan history says otherwise though, the unleashed ones were causing mayhem in seanchan, when they were leashed, their power was used to consolidate the empire.

Not really.Disregarding the fact that this only comes from the Seanchans themselves and thus highly questionable,they were not causing mayhem.They just did not fall in line and given how anti-sedai Hawkwing was ( a good deal thanks to Ishamael) it's not surprising that his descendants jumped on the opportunity to bring them to heel.

[Durinax]

 

Seanchan history says otherwise though, the unleashed ones were causing mayhem in seanchan, when they were leashed, their power was used to consolidate the empire.

 

 

Not really.Disregarding the fact that this only comes from the Seanchans themselves and thus highly questionable,they were not causing mayhem.They just did not fall in line and given how anti-sedai Hawkwing was ( a good deal thanks to Ishamael) it's not surprising that his descendants jumped on the opportunity to bring them to heel.

 

I wouldnt say that, after all how did the adam come into being? in the power struggle one AS made it to gain control of another and turned to the Hawkwing dynasty to try and sell this for a high ranking position

 

and to those who say that they just moved the problem and that nothing stops a suldam from doing the same thing consider this

 

suldam are rotated frequently, all damane are tightly controlled (both in movements and functionality), and cultural constraints prevent them from trying a coup

[Zentari]

 

 

I wouldnt say that, after all how did the adam come into being? in the power struggle one AS made it to gain control of another and turned to the Hawkwing dynasty to try and sell this for a high ranking position

Which is when the descendants jumped on the opportunity to do so.Doesn't change what I said.

 

suldam are rotated frequently,

Doesn't stop the problem.If the 20 closest suldam to the Empress decided to kill her, she would be as good as dead.

 

and cultural constraints prevent them from trying a coup

Which could be made to be applied to normal channelers too.

[randsc]

Give me Malpais, every time.

[Durinax]

 

 

I wouldnt say that, after all how did the adam come into being? in the power struggle one AS made it to gain control of another and turned to the Hawkwing dynasty to try and sell this for a high ranking position

Which is when the descendants jumped on the opportunity to do so.Doesn't change what I said.

 

suldam are rotated frequently,

Doesn't stop the problem.If the 20 closest suldam to the Empress decided to kill her, she would be as good as dead.

 

and cultural constraints prevent them from trying a coup

Which could be made to be applied to normal channelers too.

yes but the closest 20 suldam would be able to count themselves as dead immediately or if not they would be tortured, which is a deterrent. The only thing is that (I would assume in a culture like seanchans) channelling around the empress would be very illadvised (illegal), where the damane are just a show of power at that location likely with orders to all the suldam that if one grabs the power and starts doing somethign funky to exterminate immediately (I base this off of Fortuonas pov about galgran and the assassins, where she assumes and watches all her followers for betrayal)

[Stitch]

EDIT: HOLY FSK IT TURNED INTO A WALL OF TEXT >.<

 

Power can come in many forms, the strength of your muscles, the political power of a senator, the legal power of a judge, the ability to hire, promote and fire (etc) of an employer, the interperson relationship capabilities (inclusion/exclusion, rumours etc) of a socialite, the wealth and influence of the afluent, the domain specific capabilities of those with knowledge... These are examples of those with power... in the wheel of time we can extend this to Chanellers, Taverens and so forth.

 

 

For me personally I tend towards believing that those who have power should have responsibilities or else restraints or even both as a general principle. I see power as either innate, accumulated or bestowed.

 

• Innate power (for example those things that we obtain through our genes such as being tall and physically capable or an inheritance such as birth into an afluent family) is something we have no control over, we may not know it even exists, ethical issues arise as we consider where it came from and how it can be used - for example if one believes in a god, then it becomes more complicated, more similar to bestowed power. However those who do not believe that this power is some sort of gift or priveledge often simply believe it is a matter of course and therefore they should have no responsibilities as a result of that power.
  
• Accumulated power (for example our skill at billiards developed over years, or a large amount of money saved as a result of fourty years of work) is power that most people consider the person's own gains, their just deserts - however if one considers the environment in which that power was accumulated, is there any responsibility to that which enabled that achievement? The family that raised you, the trainer who taught you billiards, the employer who gave you a steady job... Does the fact that others may have contributed to the environment which gabe you the opportunities to accumulate power (opportunities many others with just as much potential may have lacked) beholden you to them or to provide similar opportunities for others?
  
• Bestowed power (for example an elected official who is given power to represent his or her constituency) this sort of power is more readily seen as one with responsibilities attached; whoever or whatever gives the power does so for a reason, presumably so that the recipient will exercise that power in a given way. Few consider bestowed power to be one that is without conditions; for it is a power that is dependant on those who gave it (although in the case of those positions of power which involve control over resources or processes (which most DO) the position may become insulated from those who granted the power).

 

Restraints

One of the most fundamental principles of Society is that of the social contract. It is for that reason we have laws and the majority of us live in compliance with those laws; we agree to be bound by the law in exchange for protection through the law. In this way the weak are protected from those with power to an extent; stacking up the power of those many who have little against the power of those few who have much. Of course it isnt perfect, those with power find ways to exploit loopholes or outright ignore social contract. A man who intimidates his wife after beating his child, a woman who blackmails her neighbor, a judge who takes bribes, a boss who promotes his favourites, a former friend who spreads lies after a fight, the fat cat who pays a premium to secure 'sold out' tickets, the hacker who steals your credit card details and racks up bills in your name. Social contract however gives the prospect of protection from these people, by stating that they should be restrained by the same rules as everyone else - because if they want to be part of society, they are to submit to the social contract (typically codified in the law)... Regulations are another method attempting to codify an aspect of social contract; it is an attempt to say 'to be allowed to do this you must (not) do that'. Breaches of these restraints are monitored through whatever surveillance mechanism (such as the police) is applicable and processed through whatever enforcement mechanism (the judical and penal systems for example) applies.

 

One interesting thing is when abuses of social contract occur by those responsible for monitoring, judging or penalising breaches... just read another thread and stole this awesome linky http://www.myspace.com/video/boilingfrogs/the-largest-street-gang-in-america/54162036 from Evoke - highlights one of the major failings of social contract

 

 

 

In the case of channelers, I see their names as being clues as to their historical roles.

 

• Servants of All; originally I believe the position was completely different than what it now entails. The name suggests that they were servants of a kind, though we see in the AoL that they are extraordinarily well treated and valued servants - not of any particular person (we dont see any 'masters' of aes sedai) but rather society as a whole; indeed when we hear of Sem's past we see how she hated having to heal when told and to on occasion submit to the authority of those without power (I assume kings and queens). These days however, the name is a joke - instead they should be claiming that everyone is THEIR servants. The way that they address others - 'child' appears currently to be used in a generally condescending fashion, however it was likely originally meant as some sort of maternal inclusion or expression of support. They are shown to be arrogant and manipulative, only partially trusted despite their three oaths, though in some areas they are given great respect (the borderlands) in others they are generally thought poorly of. I see a correlation between the degree to which the Aes Sedai are respected and the POSITIVE impacts they have as well as the perceived need of that help, for example the borderlanders love the Aes Sedai because they are quick to note their need for help and that the aes sedai seem less manipulative of the borderlanders (who are doing what needs to be done). By contrast in the southern areas (ignoring Tear cause they are a special case) they are respected less (though not to their face) and feared more, because their help is less urgently needed and they are seen as more manipulative.
  
• Windfinders; this seems to be a more specialised sort of position - the finding of wind as a service to the people, rather than being a pure role of power it instead implies a responsibility to the people, supporting the captains of the ships they are on to help maintain the welfare of their people. They seem to have a rather respected (not overly so) position within their society, subject to the authority of those above them.
  
• Wise Ones; this name implies respect - it is the first to do so, given great (often indirect) authority and unrestrained by most others - instead their customs forbid them from taking part in many other areas such as impinging on the clan chiefs authority (though they meddle much like the other women in WoT, they do not seem to use their positions as wise ones as any sort of tool against others).
  
• Ones who must be Leashed/Leashed Ones; this is actually an interesting name when you compare it to Aes Sedai (Leashed One versus Servant of All), it harkens back to the older perception of Aes Sedai then takes away any sort of position of regard; instead of valued members of the community who contribute in accordance with their special powers, they are instead considered akin to animals who must be leashed in order to protect society from their powers and in doing so, those very powers can be used for society's sake.
  
• We also see other titles like mother, wisdom, reader, ayyad and so forth - im not going to bother with these ones.
   
  
• Guardians; this name we are actually given the roots of, we are told that the ashamen are there to safeguard, to protect. This may be in contrast to how the aes sedai are seen, it may be a response to how male channelers are traditionally perceived (and given he asks taim to turn them into weapons its rather humorous) or it could be something else.
  
• Blacksouled Tempests: this is what the Seanchan call male channellers, indicating an unpredictable evil - which matches how they are to be treated (death); and is likely the result of the mad channelers over the years.

 

We see that the Aes Sedai (including those that went with the Seanchan) are generally distrusted unless they are desperately needed (and often mistrusted then), however those that take restraints upon themselves (the three oaths) are considered slightly more trustworthy by those around them... however those that isolate themselves from their communities are less trusted than those who immerse themselves in their people and are bounded by whichever social contract is relevant to that society. The Seanchan Aes Sedai were presumably already bound by the three oaths, yet through their own abuses of the power they have, those constraints were felt to be far too lenient, so the Seanchan readily embraced a far more powerful form of restraint - the leashes.

 

 

Were Mutants, ESPers etc to be part of real life, they would indeed be difficult to trust in terms of their impact on society and as MEMBERS of society. One of the major things that would be neccessary would be for us to be CAPABLE OF (rather than actually) monitoring these abilities, being able to prove or disprove the ability was used to violate social contract and finally to be able to actually implement the consequences of such violations - can we in fact jail them to begin with? Can we prevent them using their abilities? etc

 

Without knowing the potential spectrum of what those abilities might entail, it is impossible to determine if we would be capable of monitoring, judging and punishing those who can use those abilities.

[Mr Ares]

I don't know if this topic would be allowed but I have thought about this topic alot. I fear treading on this topic but I come honestly curious.

 

 

The rationale behind the use of damane is to control a dangerous person, the root of it being that the channelers back in seanchan then were power hungry and destructive.

The problem we have here is that when Luthair's armies came to Seanchan they saw the AS in power and decided the problem was not power hungry and destructive people, but channelers. Having misidentified the problem, they leashed all AS in an effort to control them, and then insitutiionalised this control (in the form of damane). In effect they are saying that it is not their actions which are wrong, nor even their capabilities (all channelers, no matter how weak, are marath'damane, until they are actually leashed. Yes, Morgase is marath'damane) but their nature. Thus the problems of abuse of power and tyranny that existed under the AS are not challenged, the power is simply transferred to others who will not necessarily act any better. Thus they do nothing to protect the Empire, nor its citizens, and in that their efforts must be considered failures. In the case of damane, the problem is less the existence of slavery and more the flawed rationale resulting in them enslaving the wrong people.

 

I have always been curious as to why people take the stand that they do, is it cultural? is it racial? I am Asian ( chinese ) by birth and I value security over individual freedom, it is okay with me if my personal freedom is restricted somewhat if it will make society better. People in America tend to criticize China alot regarding their restrictive society but if you ask the Chinese there, the vast majority would say that as long as business is good, life is improving and they feel secure then the government is doing a good job.

China has had a more turbulent history than America. The promise of a stable and secure government will understandably be a more attractive prospect to many people than a few more individual freedoms. To the residents of stable and secure America, though, restricting their freedoms against a nebulous threat of terrorism which is unlikely to harm them significantly looks like the greater of two evils, not the lesser.

 

If there are real life channelers amongst us ( or mutants with superpowers ala XMEN ) what would you say should be the best way to insure that they do not dominate the less fortunate of us who were not born with those powers? What would stop them from taking advantage of the people without powers?

What is to stop anyone with power taking advantage of those without? An assumption that those who can channel will abuse that power stigmatises people needlessly, and is more likely to make enemies of them.

 

 

few people think about what a great slave they'd make, but most everyone thinks they'd make a great master.

I'd be a rubbish master.

[USURP888]

@ Mr. Ares

 

You're the only one that actually answered my question. Thanks

[solarz]

I have always been curious as to why people take the stand that they do, is it cultural? is it racial? I am Asian ( chinese ) by birth and I value security over individual freedom, it is okay with me if my personal freedom is restricted somewhat if it will make society better. People in America tend to criticize China alot regarding their restrictive society but if you ask the Chinese there, the vast majority would say that as long as business is good, life is improving and they feel secure then the government is doing a good job. I know too that in China, slaves were treated and viewed alot better and I believe RJ pattern the seanchan system to it. Slaves were not dogs to be worked but properties to be valued and slaves have risen to high prominence in society as well.

 

Feudal China did not have slaves, they had indentured servants. The difference is that slaves remain slaves for their entire life, and pass their slave status on to their children. Indentured servants are free to seek other livelihoods once they pay off their debt.

[solarz]

Of course that's clearly nonsense, since nothing is stopping the sul'dam from being as destructive and power-hungry as an unleashed channeller. It's a massive hypocrisy on the part of the Seanchan. Besides, they use the damane to gain power and control others, just as those Seanchan Aes Sedai of old they demonise. They are hypocrites to the core, Tuon is the biggest one since she feels so proud for choosing not to channel on her own, yet has no problem at all channelling through proxy (damane) which amounts to the same thing.

 

Freedom vs security is a false dichotomy in most cases. It's possible to strike a balance and have a lot of both.

 

That's not true at all. The real threat of the damane isn't so much the fact that they can use channeling to kill, as the fact that they can channel without being detected by ordinary folks, and that it is an ability that cannot be taken away from them (again, by ordinary folks).

 

To take a real world analogy: society isn't too bothered by people who carry guns, such as soldiers and policemen. However, if a race of people appeared who can shoot invisible laser beams out of their eyes, then there *would* be panic in society. After all, while both can kill, you know what the guy shooting the gun is doing, and you can always disarm him. There is no way for you to know who is shooting invisible lasers. Such people would be 1000x more dangerous than a guy with a gun, even though they both kill people about as effectively.

 

Same thing for the damane. Sul'dam cannot do anything by themselves. When they link up with a damane, it's as if they're holding a machine gun. Sul'dam are also not unique. If one sul'dam rebels, there are always others to take her place. Just like in a army barracks, if you control which sul'dams are allowed to link with a damane, it's the equivalent of ensuring that terrorists can't break into the armory and steal guns to shoot everyone. There are just so many ways that you can put controls on sul'dam that you can't do to damane.

[Erunion]

The problem, however, remains this: that the primary concern of the Seanchan Empire about Marath'Damane is not that they will randomly go around killing people, it is that they will seize political power, using the power to enforce that rule. Turning the Marath'Damane into Damane doesn't deal with this problem, it simply changes it. Now, instead of worrying about the channelers, the Seanchan now have to worry about the people who are controlling the channelers.

Certainly, the Seanchan have many methods of control over the Damane themselves, but that does not stop the problem, as is instanced by the references to rebellions in the Seanchan homeland where Damane fought on both sides.

 

So yeah, I pretty much agree with Mr. Ares.