Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY
Sign in to follow this  
Sightblinder'sMinder

The Black Ajah & Seanchan Morality

Recommended Posts

There's quite a bit of musing here, so if you want to fast-forward to the meat of it, scroll down to the last paragraph.

 

Clearly, Darkfriends are a threat to all that is good and decent. If they had their way, society would be turned upside down. We all know this, it's a well-established fact, yada yada yada. They're sadistic, decadent, debauched, dishonest, manipulative, etc. You can go right on down the list. They're bad news, simply put. And, logic would follow that Darkfriends who can channel are about 1,000x more dangerous than those of the non-Aes Sedai or Asha'man variety. In other words, the only thing more dangerous than the Black Ajah are the Forsaken (and Padan Fain, of course, but I digress). A single Aes Sedai of the Black Ajah has the ability to kill thousands, if not millions all by herself, come Tarmon Gai'don.

 

Now, consider, for centuries the Red Ajah gentled men who could channel for the sole reason that they would eventually go insane and (potentially) lash out. They were a threat to the world, so better to just gentle them all, rather than take it case-by-case and pick and choose who's fit to channel, and for how long. The idea behind it is "sacrifice the few for the good of the many". Of course, in today's supercharged political climate, any action taken against the individual for the good of society is viewed as either communism or fascism, depending on which side of the aisle you fall on, so it's basically anathema. But realistically, when faced with the choice of sacrificing one to save ten million, you do it, because the cost isn't nearly so high.

 

Using this same rationale, consider the Black Ajah. They are basically akin to a sort of madness or illness that infects the female half of the source. Technically, any Aes Sedai could be Black Ajah, and no one would have any way of knowing. And, even if a given Aes Sedai wasn't Black Ajah, it would still be possible for her to be corrupt, or sadistic, or out for her own ends, or what have you. So, why take the chance? Prior to Rand's amnesty for Asha'man, there weren't any male channelers pledging themselves to the Shadow (because there weren't any male channelers).

 

As bad as the Seanchan may be, you know there aren't any damane who are going to be making the trip to pledge allegiance to the Dark Lord at Shayol Ghul any time soon. Leashing Aes Sedai is as sure of a method of ridding the world of the Black Ajah as killing them, and depending on your sense of morality, sparing their lives could be viewed as the more decent thing to do.

 

In any case, what I'm trying to get at is this; we sympathize with channelers because we read the story through their perspective. However, their very existence poses a dire threat to the vast majority of everyone else on the planet. Is the Seanchan practice of leashing damane more sane than leaving Aes Sedai free to pledge themselves to Sightblinder? We're talking apocalypse here, so I think it's a little bit beyond the Earth-bound realm of Civil Rights, and things of that nature. Sure, everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... but what if that person is a weapon? Are nuclear bombs entitled to those same rights? I think not.

 

On the other hand, the flaws in the damane system are readily apparent (i.e. sul'dam can channel just the same as damane), and their system by no means prevents regular people from becoming Darkfriends. And, in the case of those DFs who just so happen to control the sul'dam, like Suroth, for example, the practice of leashing Aes Sedai only empowers them, providing them with some pretty devastating weaponry they wouldn't otherwise have. However, it should be noted that it would be a hell of a lot easier to root out a Darkfriend who wasn't Aes Sedai than it would be to root out one who was. But, given the complications, would it not be safer to just still and/or kill everyone who can channel, man or woman? If people can be weapons in this world, why even give the Dark Lord the chance to claim them for his own?

 

Of course, the case can be made that the Aes Sedai & Asha'man are needed to counter the Black Ajah and Forsaken at Tarmon Gai'don, so, no matter how many are claimed by the Shadow, they are still absolutely vital to the war effort. Perhaps, the best solution would then be to keep them imprisoned in a place like an Ogier Stedding, or Far Madding, in cells, under guard, well out of the reach of the Shadow, come until the Final Battle (but in that case, how many would even be willing to fight for the light after that?).

 

What do you make of this moral dilemma? Were the Reds right to gentle men who could channel? Were the Seanchan right to enslave women who could channel? Were the Ogiers and people of Far Madding right to ward against channeling entirely? Should the whole world have been warded against the One Power? Or, is it right to (potentially) sacrifice the community for the individual? Should 10 million (potentially) die so a handful of Aes Sedai can run free and pledge themselves to the Lord of the Dark? Quite the moral dilemma indeed.

Edited by Sightblinder'sMinder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a

the Sanchan enslave not only channelers,

slavery seem to be the way of leaving there (rem Dacobal, rem how ppl must debase themselve before the 'blood')

 

b.

according to your logic:

a king/Queen can start a war and couse tousands of death (Laman for example) let kill or imprisoned all the Monarchs

a strong noble can start rebellion and civil wars (the idiot in Andor that war against Elaine) let kill or imprison All the nobles

a ppl with great ability can hurt a lot of ppl (Petra from the cyrcus) let kill or imprison all the ppl who exeed the norm

a beutuful person can lure a lot of ppl to do his whishes that might be evil (Galad/Berlain) let kill or imprison all the beutifull ppl

 

c.

healing / mediating / travelling / darkspawn eradicating / item creation /Mineral finding / HEALING !!!!! (yup i know i put healing twice)

there is a lot a channeler can do for the good of society.

Ass Sedai -> servent of all

the AS been SERVING the community in AoL

AS been heling and negotiating -preventing wars after the breaking.

the Aial wise woman who use the gift to lead and help the clans.

the Abu Dar red belts

the country side wise woman.

the sea falk wind channeler

 

so to summerise it: i dont c any dilema , the sancheen is a pyre example to a society based on evil (and personaly i alway tought Luther was a DF )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you make of this moral dilemma? Were the Reds right to gentle men who could channel?

Yes.
Were the Seanchan right to enslave women who could channel?
No.
Were the Ogiers and people of Far Madding right to ward against channeling entirely?
It's not really a moral question. It's neither right nor wrong. If they want to do it, why not? Also, it wasn't a choice on the part of the ogier - you simply can't channel in stedding.
Should the whole world have been warded against the One Power?
No.
Or, is it right to (potentially) sacrifice the community for the individual? Should 10 million (potentially) die so a handful of Aes Sedai can run free and pledge themselves to the Lord of the Dark? Quite the moral dilemma indeed.
Not really. The nature of free will means that people have the ability to make bad decisions, like joining the Shadow. The only real way to stop it is to deny people free will. If people can channel, it magnifies both the good and the harm they can do. The damane system merely shifts the power - rather than a bomb with free will, you have a man with free will with his finger on the button. The community isn't being sacrificed. Channelers can both help and harm. If you deny people the ability to channel, you deny them the ability to help with the OP as well as to hurt with it. And most channelers have done more good than harm. To deny channeling across the entire world thus denies the world much good - more good than bad. Would you say it's right to deny access to skills and abilities that will save 20 million?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you make of this moral dilemma? Were the Reds right to gentle men who could channel?

Yes.
Were the Seanchan right to enslave women who could channel?
No.
Were the Ogiers and people of Far Madding right to ward against channeling entirely?
It's not really a moral question. It's neither right nor wrong. If they want to do it, why not? Also, it wasn't a choice on the part of the ogier - you simply can't channel in stedding.
Should the whole world have been warded against the One Power?
No.
Or, is it right to (potentially) sacrifice the community for the individual? Should 10 million (potentially) die so a handful of Aes Sedai can run free and pledge themselves to the Lord of the Dark? Quite the moral dilemma indeed.
Not really. The nature of free will means that people have the ability to make bad decisions, like joining the Shadow. The only real way to stop it is to deny people free will. If people can channel, it magnifies both the good and the harm they can do. The damane system merely shifts the power - rather than a bomb with free will, you have a man with free will with his finger on the button. The community isn't being sacrificed. Channelers can both help and harm. If you deny people the ability to channel, you deny them the ability to help with the OP as well as to hurt with it. And most channelers have done more good than harm. To deny channeling across the entire world thus denies the world much good - more good than bad. Would you say it's right to deny access to skills and abilities that will save 20 million?

 

I totally agree with you and thank you for expressing my thoughts better than I would do.

I would just stress the point about the Seanchan. How can it be other than WRONG to enslave people? For whatever reasons? The whole system of Seanchan society, based on slavery, humiliation, lack of freewill for the majority is revolting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont like alot about Seanchan but I think a much more controlled state is better in a way, the general population in seanchan areas are so much safer and happier and better fed etc etc than outside. Seanchan bring order, just look at Ebou Dar. However the slavery and political system just sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seanchen has a STRONG army -> which bring order.

and the area around Abu-Dar is a chaotic land filled with Prophet ppl /dragon sworn /rabid white cloack/ civil war.

 

why not compare Abu dar to Cairhein under Rand or to Andor ??

where u can look at the leader without risking death or slavery fore the capital offence not pressing your face to the floor when he/she passed near u, and where the common ppl actually have rights instead of beein the property of the the blood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont like alot about Seanchan but I think a much more controlled state is better in a way, the general population in seanchan areas are so much safer and happier and better fed etc etc than outside. Seanchan bring order, just look at Ebou Dar. However the slavery and political system just sucks.

 

We know that order is just propaganda for the most part. It might initially look good in a place like Ebou Dar where the throne has been too weak to properly serve its people. We know however on the Seanchan mainland that Karede has put down "numerous" revolts/rebellions and the Seekers speak of "sedition" in various districts. So no, people are not happy. The unity they profess to have is not reality and the lower levels of society pay far too high a price.

 

As for the above Mr Ares said it well. You can not leash someone based on them having the potential to choose good or evil. Important to note here that its not just slavery, it erases their very identity. Stilling a male channeler pre taint was a necessity. At some point they would go mad and lash out with the power. It's like cutting out an infectious disease. Further we know there are AS like Cads who found ways to do it where the men reintegrated to a normal life and lived just short of a regular span. So no, there isn't even remotely a chance this is a good idea.

Edited by Suttree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and gentling the male channelers where only a LAST resolt after decades of searching for a cure first.

if i rem correctly Far Medding was a result of the cure attempt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reds do what they have to do - or did.

 

The seanchan are slavers and, personally, I don't condone it.

 

But the AS, while nowhere near as bad, are a controlling lot themselves. Think about this - you're a woman born with the power, you're brought to the Tower and somewhere between Novice and AS you're thrown out or you quit - the Tower will tell you to use your power as little as possible or incur their wrath.

 

Who the hell are they to tell you that?

 

That's like being born with the ability to be a great fighter and joining your nations army and then deciding it's not for you and your monarch telling you to never pick up more than a paring knife. Actually, it's worse - the power is tied to your soul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont defend the WT but the WT atleast had some minor (self) justification -> learning the channel by yourself kill u 3/4 times.

and rem not all channeler are AS -> the red belt, the Aial Wise One (best group we was shown so fer IMO), the wind finder and there probably more group we dont know about.

 

and the WT didnt bugged u if you survived the initial learning and bypass your teen years (until Egy and her control freakiness took over :))) ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, consider, for centuries the Red Ajah gentled men who could channel for the sole reason that they would eventually go insane and (potentially) lash out. They were a threat to the world, so better to just gentle them all, rather than take it case-by-case and pick and choose who's fit to channel, and for how long. The idea behind it is "sacrifice the few for the good of the many". Of course, in today's supercharged political climate, any action taken against the individual for the good of society is viewed as either communism or fascism, depending on which side of the aisle you fall on, so it's basically anathema. But realistically, when faced with the choice of sacrificing one to save ten million, you do it, because the cost isn't nearly so high.

 

The basis of what the Red Ajah will do is completely understandable, all male channelers will go insane and they will lash out, there is no question of if it is a question of when and how and given that most male channelers are rather powerful and could cause allot of death and destruction, and besides even if you allow them to live they will die anyway from more or less rotting while still alive. Taking out male channelers is the best cause of action if you care about your own and the world's safety at all, the problem here is HOW it is done. Gentling is described as a fate worse than death, not only is it painful but it leaves the former channeler in a very deep depression until they either manage to kill themselves or die from lack of the will to live, few if any would consider it a better fate than death so why not kill them? Taking out male channelers fine, but hunting them down, destroying their magickal powers and then leaving them to die slowly from an extreme depression had not just stabbing them with a sword been easier? Here the basic concept is morally right but the way it is done is morally wrong. I mean if your beloved pet dog get rabies you have to take it out and shoot it, that is unfortunate but necessary but you do not shoot it in the belly and leave it to slowly die on it's own.

 

Now here is the difference between hunting down walking weapons of mass destruction before they go coco for cocopops and enslaving female channelers in Seanchan. One is individuals who will cause destruction, it is not about possibility, they will. The other is individuals who just happens to be stronger than the average but who have to real reason to actually harm anyone. If you go by the Seanchan logic you should lock up everyone who is a great fighter as they have an advantage over others or anyone else who have a talent, a skill or an ability which put them ahead of the pack, damage control and stomping on the strong to prevent any chance they might do damage is two very different things.

 

As bad as the Seanchan may be, you know there aren't any damane who are going to be making the trip to pledge allegiance to the Dark Lord at Shayol Ghul any time soon. Leashing Aes Sedai is as sure of a method of ridding the world of the Black Ajah as killing them, and depending on your sense of morality, sparing their lives could be viewed as the more decent thing to do.

 

The damane might but her Sul'dam could and then drag her charge with her, having channelers chained up is no guarantee that those who control said channelers could not turn to the Shadow.

 

In any case, what I'm trying to get at is this; we sympathize with channelers because we read the story through their perspective. However, their very existence poses a dire threat to the vast majority of everyone else on the planet. Is the Seanchan practice of leashing damane more sane than leaving Aes Sedai free to pledge themselves to Sightblinder? We're talking apocalypse here, so I think it's a little bit beyond the Earth-bound realm of Civil Rights, and things of that nature. Sure, everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... but what if that person is a weapon? Are nuclear bombs entitled to those same rights? I think not.

 

The argument that nuclear bombs have no rights do not fly since they are not conscious, thinking individuals. Yes channelers of both sexes are more powerful than regular people, however again should we then kill or enslave everyone who is more powerful than others? And at what level would a person be considered to be so strong that they no longer should have the same right as other people?

 

But, given the complications, would it not be safer to just still and/or kill everyone who can channel, man or woman? If people can be weapons in this world, why even give the Dark Lord the chance to claim them for his own?

 

And when you have killed or worse than killed all the channelers who is then next? Blade masters can take down quite a few people single handedly, what about someone abnormally big or strong, someone to smart shall we kill them? What about folks with talents, wolf brothers, sniffers anyone with a leg up on the average man, kill them at. There will always be someone more powerful than others, is it really right to stomp out the strong to avoid potential risk to the weak?

 

Of course, the case can be made that the Aes Sedai & Asha'man are needed to counter the Black Ajah and Forsaken at Tarmon Gai'don, so, no matter how many are claimed by the Shadow, they are still absolutely vital to the war effort. Perhaps, the best solution would then be to keep them imprisoned in a place like an Ogier Stedding, or Far Madding, in cells, under guard, well out of the reach of the Shadow, come until the Final Battle (but in that case, how many would even be willing to fight for the light after that?).

 

Channelers need to channel it is as simple as that, you can not just keep them imprisoned until they are needed, beside if you lock away all the mages how will they learn the magick they need to protect the world from the magickal evil God trying to destroy the world, even if they where still willing to fight.

 

Were the Reds right to gentle men who could channel?

 

Yes and no, they where right to do something about them and remove the danger of insane, extremely powerful magick users running around as if they did not the world would be destroyed again. The Red is in my opinion not right in gentling male channelers as that is just inhuman, far better just to kill them.

 

Were the Seanchan right to enslave women who could channel?

 

No, having a greater potential for destruction do not mean that one will use that potential for destruction, having more power than others do not mean one should be enslaved.

 

Were the Ogiers and people of Far Madding right to ward against channeling entirely?

 

Yes their territory, their choice though I am not sure the Ogier did not intentionally.

 

Should the whole world have been warded against the One Power?

 

Hell no!

 

Or, is it right to (potentially) sacrifice the community for the individual? Should 10 million (potentially) die so a handful of Aes Sedai can run free and pledge themselves to the Lord of the Dark? Quite the moral dilemma indeed.

 

I see no dilemma here is it right to imprison, kill or worse than kill an individual just to prevent potential risk? If it where a sure thing that an individual would kill a million others off course it is right to take them down, but just for the potential no. Think of it this way, what if magick was proven today in our world, even a little of it, would it be right to go and shoot someone with this gift because they could perhaps, possibly misuse it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the AS, while nowhere near as bad, are a controlling lot themselves. Think about this - you're a woman born with the power, you're brought to the Tower and somewhere between Novice and AS you're thrown out or you quit - the Tower will tell you to use your power as little as possible or incur their wrath.

 

Who the hell are they to tell you that?

 

That's like being born with the ability to be a great fighter and joining your nations army and then deciding it's not for you and your monarch telling you to never pick up more than a paring knife. Actually, it's worse - the power is tied to your soul.

 

They don't put any limits on how to use the power IRRC. They tell them not to band together or impersonate AS. There is no rule against using the OP.

 

The Red is in my opinion not right in gentling male channelers as that is just inhuman, far better just to kill them.

 

Except we know there are AS who have managed to do it in a way which the males live a normal life so the above is not correct.

Edited by Suttree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the AS, while nowhere near as bad, are a controlling lot themselves. Think about this - you're a woman born with the power, you're brought to the Tower and somewhere between Novice and AS you're thrown out or you quit - the Tower will tell you to use your power as little as possible or incur their wrath.

 

Who the hell are they to tell you that?

 

That's like being born with the ability to be a great fighter and joining your nations army and then deciding it's not for you and your monarch telling you to never pick up more than a paring knife. Actually, it's worse - the power is tied to your soul.

 

They don't put any limits on how to use the power IRRC. They tell them not to band together or impersonate AS. There is no rule against using the OP.

I'm pretty sure they tell them to use it as little as possible. Or, at least, I'm pretty sure Moiraine thought something about that when she was afraid she wouldn't pass her AS testing. I'd have to look again. And, again, who are they to tell people what they can or cannot do with a part of themselves - as long as it's not illegal or hurting someone else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for the above Mr Ares said it well. You can not leash someone based on them having the potential to choose good or evil. Important to note here that its not just slavery, it erases their very identity. Stilling a male channeler pre taint was a necessity. At some point they would go mad and lash out with the power. It's like cutting out an infectious disease. Further we know there are AS like Cads who found ways to do it where the men reintegrated to a normal life and lived just short of a regular span. So no, there isn't even remotely a chance this is a good idea.

 

Sorry for the double post you posted this when I was writing my last reply. I think it is an important point that yes being a damane is not just slavery the damane is mentally conditioned to think like a child and completely loose their former identity, this is not just controlling a channeler, it is breaking them and making them into little more than animals.

 

Now when that is said, about gentling, it is not like cutting out an disease, it is destroying a person and leaving them to die slowly. Now you can disagree with me on whatever the weave itself is "physically" painful, I think the reactions of those characters severed in the books and Moggy's quote about it proves it but if you do not agree then fine, it is still extremely emotionally painful, the men Cads found did not go back to society and just lived a little shorter lives the longest lived or about 10 years and died in his 30's or 40s. I agree the Reds have to take male channelers down, but gentling them is needlessly cruel and the male channelers should be killed instead or at least have been given the option of death instead of gentling, as Thisguy say much indicate that channeling is a part of the soul, you just do not go around cutting pieces of people's souls off!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[the men Cads found did not go back to society and just lived a little shorter lives the longest lived or about 10 years and died in his 30's or 40s. I agree the Reds have to take male channelers down, but gentling them is needlessly cruel and the male channelers should be killed instead or at least have been given the option of death instead of gentling, as Thisguy say much indicate that channeling is a part of the soul, you just do not go around cutting pieces of people's souls off!

 

Read the notes about Cad again. She is successful in reintegrating the men and they live just short of a normal life span. Not sure where you got the numbers above but they are incorrect.

 

I'm pretty sure they tell them to use it as little as possible. Or, at least, I'm pretty sure Moiraine thought something about that when she was afraid she wouldn't pass her AS testing. I'd have to look again. And, again, who are they to tell people what they can or cannot do with a part of themselves - as long as it's not illegal or hurting someone else?

 

Not sure why you are just repeating yourself. They don't tell them they can't use the power. As for saying they can't impersonate AS they have every right to do so. Further we know they allow groups like the kin in which they knew they were actively channeling. They essentially jus tell them to keep a low profile. In a world in which any action of a female channeler will be blamed on AS that is totally understandable.

Edited by Suttree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read the notes about Caddy, and I disagree with you there, the only one mentioned and allot indicates that he was an exceptional case lived for ten years and while she do indeed often manage to get them back into society it is not like they go in, have a piece of their soul cut off and happily continue their lives but they just live a little shorter lives, they still die of depression she just manage to get them functional enough that they last for a while. Most only last one to three years.

 

Now as for the whole Aes Sedai telling former novices and Accepted not to channel the way I understand it is more like they do not directly tell them do not channel but they are expected to be very discreet with their use of the Power, sure they can start up as herb healers and use a little channeling to help things along but they can not walk across the land and make fields fertile and heal major wounds. A wilder will be ignored by the White Tower, unless she starts to get very noticed, they can channel but have to hide it as the White Tower to not want competition, after all they can not just tell these women not to channel you might as well tell a heroin addict who spouted the drug out of his head not to use it, but they expect them to be very discreet about it.

Edited by Hagazussa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[the men Cads found did not go back to society and just lived a little shorter lives the longest lived or about 10 years and died in his 30's or 40s. I agree the Reds have to take male channelers down, but gentling them is needlessly cruel and the male channelers should be killed instead or at least have been given the option of death instead of gentling, as Thisguy say much indicate that channeling is a part of the soul, you just do not go around cutting pieces of people's souls off!

 

Read the notes about Cad again. She is successful in reintegrating the men and they live just short of a normal life span. Not sure where you got the numbers above but they are incorrect.

 

I thought they mostly lived about 10 years, which is more than a gentled man usually lives.

 

The only firm numbers we have as far as I know is with Emarin, Lord Alarin's brother from AKOD - it was noted that he lived 10 years, which is noted to be far longer than the presumed 1-3 years (I think this is an estimate).

 

The Great Hunt from 2011 where Brandon released the notes on Cadsuane reveals that:

 

These men have ranged over the years from farmboys to nobles to the king of Tarabon, but one and all, they made much better adjustments to their fate than is considered normal. They eventually died short of a normal span, but they lived considerably longer than usual.

 

The context of the sentence is not specific as to how long Cadsuane's methods improve life span, but Emarin's example fits well. Ten years of peace is "considerably longer" (more than 3-4 times) than a couple years in despondency, but still far short of the addtional 40-50 years that Randlander men can live after the start touching the Source. This assuming that Emarin started channeling in his early 20s, which I believe is average.

 

WHen you say "just short of a normal life span" Suttree, that implies that one gets at least 75% of the normal life span, and I am unaware of any concrete number that support this. Do you have any textual support that I have missed.?

 

Clearly what Cadsuane does here is the light's work, improving not only the length, but also the quality of life (which is more important, to my mind) and is the best thing about her. But what she does hardly seems to be a panacea for the Gentled.

 

edit: ninja'd by Hafazussa

Edited by Damer Sedai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[the men Cads found did not go back to society and just lived a little shorter lives the longest lived or about 10 years and died in his 30's or 40s. I agree the Reds have to take male channelers down, but gentling them is needlessly cruel and the male channelers should be killed instead or at least have been given the option of death instead of gentling, as Thisguy say much indicate that channeling is a part of the soul, you just do not go around cutting pieces of people's souls off!

 

Read the notes about Cad again. She is successful in reintegrating the men and they live just short of a normal life span. Not sure where you got the numbers above but they are incorrect.

 

I'm pretty sure they tell them to use it as little as possible. Or, at least, I'm pretty sure Moiraine thought something about that when she was afraid she wouldn't pass her AS testing. I'd have to look again. And, again, who are they to tell people what they can or cannot do with a part of themselves - as long as it's not illegal or hurting someone else?

 

Not sure why you are just repeating yourself. They don't tell them they can't use the power. As for saying they can't impersonate AS they have every right to do so. Further we know they allow groups like the kin in which they knew they were actively channeling. They essentially jus tell them to keep a low profile. In a world in which any action of a female channeler will be blamed on AS that is totally understandable.

where did I say anything about impersonating AS? Why are you repeating yourself? Unbelievable. You just said something about Cads that was incorrect and I've seen you say it several times on these boards.

They knew about the kin but didn't let the kin know they knew - they never told the kin to keep a low profile. The kin did that on their own out of fear for AS retribution.

 

Again, who are they to tell free people what they can do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to the idea of preemptively arresting people: How many of you oppose DUI laws? They are preemptive. We arrest drunk drivers even if they haven't hurt anyone. If they're unlucky enough to be stopped at a DUI check point, we'll throw them in jail even if they weren't driving recklessly. And, as far as I know, DUI laws are quite popular. They make people feel more "safe" on the road.

 

But, what about drunk drivers who can handle their liquor? There are plenty of drunks out there who will never get into an accident in their lives, so why arrest them? Because they could hurt someone. Society has deemed the risk too great. Hell, you may drive better drunk than most people drive sober, but that won't stop the cops from slapping handcuffs on your wrists.

 

Point being, if human beings are willing to preemptively arrest and imprison people because they could "potentially" hurt someone while drunk driving, imagine how they'd feel about people who have the ability to rip others to shreds with their minds. Society already finds ways to justify the elimination of potential threats. And, a single Aes Sedai is far more dangerous than an entire highway full of drunk drivers. So, preemptively imprisoning those with the ability to channel would seem like a fairly prudent move.

 

Granted, I personally would rather die than be imprisoned for any extended length of time, but judging by the out of control prison population in the US, most people don't feel that way.

Edited by Sightblinder'sMinder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

where did I say anything about impersonating AS? Why are you repeating yourself? Unbelievable. You just said something about Cads that was incorrect and I've seen you say it several times on these boards.

 

What was incorrect mate? We have no idea if Emarin is the limit of what can be done. The people Cads has helped could have lived longer and given RJ's notes that seems to be likely. Hag is the one that was incorrect in that Emarin is an exceptional case. Regardless we know that...

 

RJ

but one and all, they made much better adjustments to their fate than is considered normal. They eventually died short of a normal span, but they lived considerably longer than usual.

 

Which is exactly what I said. Look at when men start channeling and if the from the still date they live 10+ years that is just short of normal. @Damer I never intened it to be a panacea for the Gentled but it obviously is a method to be shared with others and is a far better option than killing them out right.

 

As for your point you tried repeated that they tell them not to channel(As an aside mellow out, not sure why you are getting so eggy? We are just debating the topic...all good). This is incorrect, further after they have been trained by the WT they have every right to ask them to keep a low profile with their channeling so people do not assume they are AS. The WT will be blamed for their actions across the land. Regardless this has all changed with Eggy's reforms and the exchange program so it really is a moot point.

Edited by Suttree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop repeating yourself. Thanks.

 

So you are still peevish have nothing concrete to counter with. Got it...if you read the posts you will see I was forced to address you again with the same answer.

 

As an aside I have been wanting to ask what is that profile pic from? Is it an album cover...

Edited by Suttree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop repeating yourself. Thanks.

 

So you are still peevish have nothing cocrete to counter with. Got it...

Nah, you're a troll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop repeating yourself. Thanks.

 

So you are still peevish have nothing cocrete to counter with. Got it...

Nah, you're a troll.

 

Bwahaha allright noob. Any number of long standing posters can vouch for the content of my posts and involvement with the community but you get your little feelings hurt so I'm a troll. Classic. If you look up a couple posts I tried to get things to move on with...

 

As an aside mellow out, not sure why you are getting so eggy? We are just debating the topic...all good

 

You pulled us back down after I clearly was trying to steer things back to the debate...

Edited by Suttree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...