imperistan Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 And as for what I refer to by that, I simply ask this one question: Why is it wrong for the Stormcloaks to seek independence? Lets forget about Ulfric and whatever his motivations are, lets forget about Torygg, about Tullius and the impending Dominion threat. Lets just look at those simple soldiers who are fighting for Skyrim's indepedence, and I would like to see a reason why these people, regardless of all the other issues at hand, do not deserve independence from the Empire, an external government that has proven that its interests are more concerned over the well being of the capital province than over the well being of the entire Empire? If we are to presume that every living being is free, and that we also presume that every free living being is free to rule over themselves, and as such, every group of free living beings free to rule over themselves, why is it wrong for one group to seek independence from a larger one, regardless of every other reason that could be given other than their simple right to independence? It might be said in this new topic that the needs of the many outweigh those of the few, but I Say, why must the few be forgotten? Why must the legitimate (<---key word here) grievances of the few be ignored so that the many may remain within a status quo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacSuibhne Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Imperistan, I'm sorry, I have to disagree with your premise. The issue has been raised...I've raised it myself on numerous occasions. The problem is that it falls on deaf ears...just as the concept of "presumption of innocence" falls on deaf ears. Just as "guilt by association" or "trial by innuendo" or "gossip mongering" or even the idea of "credible evidence", cause more quibbling than comprehension. The whole idea of protecting the rights of the few is a foundational creed in any democratic system of government and one of the the most critical ideas in any fair and just society. The idea that the "needs of the many outweigh" the rights of the few is the governing principle of flocks of sheep, or herds of wildebeests or schools of fish--the world is full of predators and only by sacrificing the nameless and unimportant few can the majority survive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirTalbot Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 It must and by inclination go deeper than that. There is always a more sinister undertone to independence but then I'm relating this to real world independence movements much of which were based on false notions and rhetoric that played into the hands of a select few at the top. Will avoid mentioning names to avert a flame war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraeten Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 (edited) And as for what I refer to by that, I simply ask this one question: Why is it wrong for the Stormcloaks to seek independence? Lets forget about Ulfric and whatever his motivations are, lets forget about Torygg, about Tullius and the impending Dominion threat. By disregarding all of that, you're completely avoiding the actual issues surrounding the civil war. You've removed the context, and context has an enormous impact. Your question also avoids another certain pertinent issue. Would there even BE a Stormcloak rebellion without Ulfric? I highly doubt it. It might be said in this new topic that the needs of the many outweigh those of the few, but I Say, why must the few be forgotten? Why must the legitimate (<---key word here) grievances of the few be ignored so that the many may remain within a status quo? In medieval times, peace wasn't won with pretty goals and intentions. It was won with blood and enforced with an iron fist. Anyone who threatened the peace was crushed. This was especially true domestically. Fundamentally, it could be said that "the few" were ignored because "the many" were stronger and thus worthy of more consideration. It isn't pretty, but that's how it was. The whole idea of protecting the rights of the few is a foundational creed in any democratic system of government and one of the the most critical ideas in any fair and just society. Medieval society, wasn't particularly fair or just. Don't bring modern politics into this. They don't belong here. Edited July 16, 2012 by Kraeten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sukeban Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Lol @ this thread. Ninja rez of the other two keke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imperistan Posted July 16, 2012 Author Share Posted July 16, 2012 I'm sorry, I have to disagree with your premise. The issue has been raised...I've raised it myself on numerous occasions. Well, I haven't seen it or, more likely, I haven't remembered seeing it. By disregarding all of that, you're completely avoiding the actual issues surrounding the civil war. You've removed the context, and context has an enormous impact. Your question also avoids another certain pertinent issue. Would there even BE a Stormcloak rebellion without Ulfric? I highly doubt it. The reason I avoid those issues is because at the heart of the issue, the rebellion is still justified unless we're presuming that people do not have a right to indepedence. And whether there would be a rebellion without Ulfric or not is besides the point, there is a revolution. Who or what started it is irrelevant to the general point I'm getting at here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraeten Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 (edited) The reason I avoid those issues is because at the heart of the issue, the rebellion is still justified unless we're presuming that people do not have a right to indepedence. It's certainly justified in the abstract, which is practically where your question belongs. Of course fighting for unity is equally justified, if we maintain this flight of fancy. And whether there would be a rebellion without Ulfric or not is besides the point, there is a revolution. Who or what started it is irrelevant to the general point I'm getting at here. Ulfric's importance to the Stormcloak cause is hardly irrelevant. Do you seriously think his rabble could maintain any sort of real drive without him? You give the disgruntled Nords more credit than they deserve if you do. Edited July 16, 2012 by Kraeten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breakwind Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 I wonder if this thread will last as long as the other two? :whistling: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaedalusMachina Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Okay, let's consider for a moment we forgo everything you presented, and we translate that to something we can relate to: Does not the East Coast deserve independence? The imperials don't believe that Skyrim is its own location, they believe it is part of a whole, by removing that part, they become weaker. Much, MUCH weaker. Now factor everything else back in, or just let one thing slip through: The Thalmor. Let's re-translate. China (for sake of example) is invading the western US, would you not treat the Secession of the Eastern Seaboard a VERY SERIOUS and DAMNING issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StayFrosty05 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) Oh I completely agree, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a people wanting their independence....In the case of the Stormcloaks though, whilst independence is all well and good...a noble pursuit...their timing and command are a recipe for idiocy and disaster....Get rid of Ulfric (he is much more harmful to their cause than beneficial), rally Tamriel and finally rid themselves of the Thalmor yoke and then would be the perfect time to sue for independence. Edited July 17, 2012 by StayFrosty05 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts