The Great Imperial vs. Stormcloak Debate

[StormHammer81]

Wait... doesn't Windhelm have a serial killer / rapist on the loose that Ulfric refuses to do anything about?

Edited February 25, 2013 by StormHammer81

[kradus]

Didn't Ulfric himself slaughtered a buch of inocent civilians for simply not joining his cause? Good luck for him gathering allies. I didn't get the child raping bit.

[Gabryal]

@Gabryal

 

Ok so on "oppression"... what you're saying is anyone who receives a title as "liberator" or "freedom-fighter" gets a free pass into "oppressing" whomever they want but when the lawful Gov tries to stop the violence, then we're somehow the "oppressors"? I don't buy that.

 

So... Ulfric can murder people in Markarth for not coming to fight for his cause while Stormcloaks were sieging their city. Then when he captures said city, young, elderly, shopkeepers, children old enough to wield a

sword... whoever didn't fight for his cause he had them executed and now you're saying he gets a free pass? Give me a break dude.

 

The Imperials didn't do the same thing when the took back the Imperial City from the Dominion at the Battle of the Red Ring. They didn't actually because in Ulfric's case it was thousands and in the Empire's case it was hundreds of thousands. As well as that it was the Empire that gave Ulfric the Orders to recapture Makarth so no, You don't get a break.

 

 

 

 

When does it end? Ulfric has killed as many neutral parties in his revolution as he has killed Imperials. Ulfric "oppressed" the Reachmen, and Whiterun (a neutral city), he "oppresses" elven races, in particular the Dark Elves, the Stormcloaks in general are "oppressive" towards non Nords even Imperials, the Stormcloaks are in nature "oppressive" and, if you can't understand that then you're the one living in a fantasy. I'm here in the real world, a zebra does not change it's stripes.

 

The Imperials oppress as many " neutral " parties as Ulfric does, hence the problem, and you can only accept that Whiterun is neutral if you accept that it isn't Imperial which as it turns out it is. That being said by the logic you just mentioned I think pretty much everyone has a reason to hate the Empire, they Khajit have been oppressed by the Empire for centuries, they attempted to commit Genocide on the Argonions, they have been setting the Dunmer against each other for years, they abandoned their Bosmer allies allowing them to be absorbed into the Dominion, oh and they screwed Skyrim and Hammerfell completely. Don't get hostile on me either, it doesn't make your argument right, it only makes you look hostile. Your logic is deeply flawed.

 

And you know, I was going to continue to quote you but I'm just tired.

 

I could go on about false equivalence between a rascist Ulfric and a Genocidal madman like Hitler or a paranoid man with delusions of grandeur like Stalin, but honestly what's the point?

 

Oppression is a fact, not a question, it's oppression because it is a central government suppressing the right of someone to express their culture and heritage. Now is some oppression good? Yes, I think that oppressing people who come from cannibalistic cultures is probably good, as well as one's that have arranged marriages to minor's and one's that keep half their population covered in Burkha's ( sorry Saudi Arabia, you're a 13th century collection of backward elitists who depend on the rest of the world to keep you fabulously wealthy because you happened to be sitting on something that only became valuable when we found out that it didn't just ruin the camel forage areas )

 

If you want to scream about Hitler, or Stalin, or Mao, then crack open a damn History book and draw a real comparison. If you want my real life ( and oft repeated ) comparison that bears some resemblance on reality I'll throw this one down.

 

Ulfric to William Wallace ( who seems to be well known enough thanks to a fan of Hitler's who stared in a movie about him )

 

People loved William Wallace, they absolutely adored him, and in 1995 the Scottish People loved the movie Braveheart so much they formed their own parliament in order to retain a sense of national identity. An interesting move in a Kingdom that is more or less run by Democratic principles at that point in History

 

Now Let's go Down the List

 

Started Rebellions? Yep Both of Them

Bigotry? Yep Both of Them

Attacked and Sacked Neutral Cities? Yep Both of Them

Committed Murder of Local Lords that sided with their enemies? Yep Both of Them

 

OK on to Reasons

 

Interference in National Politics? Yep Both of Them

Atrocities against local Populations? Yep Both of Them

Desire for Power? Yep Both of Them ( I'll lean towards Ulfric a little more on this one since he actually could be High King, Wallace wasn't in the line of Succession, though the co-Defender of Scotland was )

 

OK on to Personalities

Ulfric: Hates Dunmer

Wallace: Wove his own belts out of the Skin of the Men he killed

 

Whoa, Ulfric man you got to calm down.

 

I did like the part about how you defined the US as a Federal Republic ( true in theory ) and not a Democracy ( though there is a very narrow margin of people without franchise anymore ) mostly because it leaves me free to say that the Empire is well... an Empire, the Nords have no vote, none whatsoever, and no representation. If you think there was the Nord equivalent to a Senator, or a Hammerfell one, the WGC would have ever been signed? So nice of you to bring that one up, because it's so easy to contrast a dictatorship against a nation where some system exists to address one's grievances and a system of laws exists to protect your liberties ( in theory anyway ). The dictatorship in this case being the Empire in case you got confused.

 

Now let me explain something to you, and this is where I'm really going to draw the line because there comes a point you don't go across when you want to have a rational debate with people, you don't attack them personally based on the very limited things you know about them.

 

You have at least implied that I am stupid, lazy, and unpatriotic ( how you drew the line from Skyrim to Real Life as far as my political beliefs go I have no idea, but shoot for the moon if you want ) when in reality you know nothing about me.

 

In reality? You have no idea at all though. You might have if you'd read my previous posts picked up a few things, but I don't think you have.

 

I will say this that just by the tone of the ranting I'm going to make an educated guess about you though

 

Republican?

[Gabryal]

Didn't Ulfric himself slaughtered a buch of inocent civilians for simply not joining his cause? Good luck for him gathering allies. I didn't get the child raping bit.

kinda figured you wouldn't, and so some people say ( namely the Bretons ) but so did the Imperials more than once. You can't use counter-intuitive debate tactics. If you apply something you have to apply it across the board or take it off the board. No half measures.

 

It's one of the things that drives me nuts about Imperials, the way you never ever ever want to own up to the crimes of the Imperials. If you guys even know it. I know Ulfric's crimes, I have analyzed them against the Imperials, and cast my lot in with the Stormcloaks.

 

There is a reason for that, but it never seems like you know what the Imperials have done, ever.

 

That being said I have to question why I'm even bothering going through all this again and again and again...

Edited February 25, 2013 by Gabryal

[StormHammer81]

@Gabryal

Quote
Quote
stupid, lazy, and unpatriotic

I think that's gross generalization.

You are very intelligent no doubt, but intelligent people can still be wrong.

You are obviously very hard working and a good man, however, just because you are a good man doesn't make you right.

Hands down, you are patriotic and I thank you for your service.

We just don't see eye to eye and that's fine. Like you said, this thread has been running for a very long time and now it's just turned into a hot mess.

Some of these posts are pure delicious evil.

Edited February 25, 2013 by StormHammer81

[Gabryal]

I am not entirely sure what you're talking about, I'm not sure how you're defining evil, I'm not even sure what you're referring too, and who's pure delicious evil exactly?

 

with pyroclean victory are you referring to " A victory so costly it might as well have been a defeat "? That's a Pyrrhic Victory if that's what you mean. Named for King Pyrrhus of Epirus from the Battle of Heraclea

 

I need something that approaches a hard argument that's substantiated with facts and reality.

 

For the record, as far as William Wallace and Ulfric goes, it was never William Wallace or Ulfric, it's both of them.

 

The comparison is made because they are proportionately the same as far as the military and social costs of their respective rebellions. We aren't talking millions of lives lost here, the entire Imperial force in Skyrim is only 6,000-10,000 people. A single Legion. If the Stormcloaks can match that number then that would be 20,000 people total as far as Military forces in the area. That's roughly one division in the Napoleonic Era. Or the number of soldiers who died in 4 hours during the Battle of the Somme WW1. So just keeping comparison's proportional. I personally support both Wallace and Ulfric. My point was that Ulfric doesn't make belts out of dead people's skin, so by comparison he's better.

 

Then you have to apply the morals of the time vs the morals of our times. In WW2 we bombed Dresdan into the ground, 160,000 Civilian casualties. Yet no one questions whether the cost to the German civilians was worth winning the war. I'd love to hear the person argue that the means ( bombing Dresden ) didn't justify the means ( stopping Hitler ).

 

I'm trying to figure out what you are talking about honestly when it comes to " pure evil ". I just don't see how it's possible for someone in possession of all the facts, and sitting them down and analyzing them, can assign pure evil to either side. I haven't, I accept there is bad on the Stormcloak side, I just find what the Imperial does, has done, and will by trend analysis do in the future to be demonstrably worse.

 

You could say it's choosing the lesser of two evils I suppose, but I don't look at it that way. I really don't think I should go on and on and on about this, because it's hard to argue with someone who I really can't understand.

 

Throwing words around like Facist, or quoting some of the worst people who ever lived like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, just makes it harder to take any argument made by that person seriously. They're what's called in Psychology " Kneejerk Phrases " and that's why I responded with " child rapist " because everyone agree's that raping children is bad ( well most people do, and the rest I'd without remorse happily put on their knees and blow their brains out ). It's said only for shock value and emotional response, and is truly the lowest form of debate.

 

It's an indicator, and there are only three reasons a person would use them, and none of them are flattering, so I won't go there. I'll just say that if you actually look up the three reasons, you'll know why I didn't, and you'll also know I'm not making any of it up so I'm not attacking, I'm merely informing.

 

I still don't have any idea what you're talking about, but perhaps I'm not intended too. I get so exhausted by all of this, SSDD I guess.

[StormHammer81]

 

Throwing words around like Facist, or quoting some of the worst people who ever lived like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, just makes it harder to take any argument made by that person seriously. They're what's called in Psychology " Kneejerk Phrases " and that's why I responded with " child rapist " because everyone agree's that raping children is

bad ( well most people do, and the rest I'd without remorse happily put on their knees and blow their brains out ). It's said only for shock value and emotional response, and is truly the lowest form of debate.

 

It's an indicator, and there are only three reasons a person would use them, and none of them are flattering, so I won't go there. I'll just say that if you actually look up the three reasons, you'll know why I didn't, and you'll also know I'm not making any of it up so I'm not attacking, I'm merely informing.

 

I still don't have any idea what you're talking about, but perhaps

I'm not intended too. I get so exhausted by all of this, SSDD I guess.

 

 

@Gabryal

 

This is why you have so many Imperials. You want a nice, clean, professional debate but you're accusing us of being "child rapists" now.

 

So, I... I... uhh am not sure what to make of you now.

 

You're saying we're wrong and we're juvenile and all this stuff and now you've brought up "child raping" on this forum which has nothing to do with Skyrim.

 

What do I mean by evil?

 

I think you just gave us a good example.

 

Imperials make some mistakes but ugghhh not one of us would ever stoop so low as to refer to our opponent as a "child rapist".

 

That's not something that belongs on this forum and I'm sure the Nexus wouldn't appreciate it either seeing how this is a "family forum".

 

Not a very nice thing to do Gabryal. And as someone who *did* respect you, I don't appreciate being even remotely compared to something like that.

 

F*ck is wrong with you?

Edited February 25, 2013 by StormHammer81

[Gabryal]

*facepalms*

 

 

Guys, the stormcloaks are the worse kind of fashists.

I'm not sure how to respond to this statement, I'm not even sure it's a full thought, I fear it...

using the same sort of logic though I'll say The Imperials are the worst sort of child rapists

 

P.S. It's Fascists

 

It's called comparison by the absurd. See the part that says " using the same sort of logic "?

 

I could make an argument that killing six million people by being a fascist is worse than being a child raper, which you will notice I'd murder without provocation, and admitted to it.

 

The point was to say something inflammatory for the sake of being inflammatory to make the point that saying something inflammatory without point, comparison, argument, fact, figure, or even more than one sentence is inflammatory and is pointless in a debate, and what's more drags down the discourse to a play ground " he said she said " level of intellectual sewage.

 

The point wasn't to call you guys child rapers, the point was to call the statement itself pointless, to say it achieved nothing other than to lower the intelligence level of the discourse into something akin to 4th graders.

 

Now onto more absurdity

 

So Imperials make mistakes like Mass Murder, Genocide, Regicide, Laws persecuting the rights of certain citizens and certain religious passages, pointless wars, cowardice, and the systematic economic ( both in material and personal ) pillaging of other nations? These aren't mistakes my friend, these are in fact what we would call War Crimes. This is Pol Pot level stuff. These aren't " mistakes ". These are things that any sane person, any person in their right mind, would go to war over, to the death. These are things I'd die to prevent, personally, in my own life. These are recorded, they are demonstrated, and they continue to this day in this " Empire " you serve.

 

If you are ignorant of them, that's on you, if you agree with them then I couldn't disagree more.

 

If you want to say that I called Imperials Child rapers in some sort of literal form, you have completely missed the point, and honestly the debate between us should cease because it's really starting to aggravate me. If you don't understand the most basic things I'm saying, then how am I supposed to make any point at all? Step up or Step aside because frankly I'm becoming frustrated with your inability to understand what I'm saying.

 

You obviously do not know what oppression is, that's for certain based on your last sentence, I'm running out of options as to how the hell to have a debate with you Storm. I started out with respect towards you, and you know it, that's the part that's craziest to me. I was patient right up until now, I'm no longer patient because sometimes frankly if you do not see any way, any way at all of reaching a person and having a true exchange of ideas then what's the point?

 

I have only two question left for you, and then I'll give you the only possible explanation that I must ask if the following two things are false.

 

Question One: Are you below 9th grade?

Question Two: Is English your first Language?

 

If neither of those are true then I have to assume that it is simply a matter of the story of Gibbon vs. Voltaire

[StormHammer81]

@Gabryal

 

So at this point, the only thing I need from you is a public apology for referring to Imperials as "child rapists". And I've already had one or two people pm me about the "inappropriateness" of this discussion.

 

That's it. We've tried to be understanding and I personally know I've put up with alot of sh*t from you guys.

 

You either apologize for that right now or I don't want to talk to you again. I don't put up with oppression either, the difference between you and I is that we have different ways of dealing with it.

 

It's either:

 

" I apologize for referring to the Empire and Imperials as "child rapists" and agree that my choice of words was unfortunate "

 

OR

 

" I refuse to apologize for referring to the Empire and Imperials as "child rapists" and agree with my original statement "

 

If you're man enough to tell a man he's wrong, then you should be man enough to admit when you are wrong, as I have done many times before. As for me, I used to live in America but for now I am currently living in Europe. It's a bit of culture change but I like it. Not sure if I want to go back. :)

Edited February 25, 2013 by StormHammer81

[Gabryal]

*facepalms again*

 

I don't see any apologies for fascists, not that I expect any, because I understand the stupidity of the statement.

 

Amazing to me that people consider " fascist " ( people who killed 6 million people ) is less evil a statement to make than " child raper ".

 

If you're offended by child raper and not fascist I have no idea what's wrong with you, if it bothers you that much then you have my apology for making the comparison. However I think it's absolute idiocy that you're demanding an apology and not offering one, especially since apparently you can't understand why I said it in the first place.

 

You don't understand oppression, you have once again you have not used the word in the correct definition.

 

I'll rephrase " child raper " with " serial killer " or any other inflammatory phrase you want to use if you want, but frankly I don't think I owe you or anyone else an apology, since I didn't call you anything at all, and you have completely and totally missed the point. Your inability to understand that is beyond my ability to comprehend.

 

Do you truly believe I literally called you, or anyone, a child raper? Really? Actually screw it, I can't talk to someone who simply is unable to understand anything I'm saying. You're unable to, completely unable, to follow what I'm saying so what's the point. Don't talk to me again, in fact don't talk period again, because I will show up to tell you that you're not making any sense whatsoever.

 

My assumption I now consider fact. This is Gibbon vs. Voltaire, and has completely fallen into the lowest wastelands of the saddest excuse that the mass delusional call " debate ".

 

This is like swatting a fly with a buick, and frankly isn't fun for me at all, it's quite disturbing. It was once mentioned by someone who was sponsored to attend a USO event in Afghanistan ( though not while in Afghanistan ) that a comparison could be made of the average person in the United States, and the Soldiers in Afghanistan this statement. " Why is this first group fighting to defend this second group "?

 

The answer to that question is so that you can be free to make uninformed, anti-intellectual, redundant, ill-educated, and obtuse comments on internet chat forums. For that you are welcome.

 

However it was also so that when I returned I could face down those people and call them out on those same properties.

 

I feel I have done so with you. If you respond I will respond to you, however your constant and unrelenting inability to show any signs of talent to debate, fact, or even the basic understandings of Oratory or Rhetoric leaves me speechless in most respect. Frankly you scare me, and those like you scare me. This is no longer about Imperial vs Stormcloak, it left that behind apparently before it even began.

 

As for people PMing you, I frankly would invite them to PM me and perhaps I can explain it to them privately. Why they would PM you asking for an explanation for what -I- said is baffling, but so be it. If they wish to learn why I said what I said, then I'll tell them. If they don't then it's their choice to remain ignorant.

 

As for an apology, I will never apology for standing on principle, ever, for any reason, till the day I die. The fact you don't get that I'm standing on principle and not that I'm insulting you or anyone else by that statement ( What's wrong with you people? Seriously? Really? Especially when the next post down I explain it and mention I'd shoot a child raper in the head with no thought of consequence just on principle? Then go on to explain the reasoning for it all as if it wasn't obvious to begin with? Really? ) is truly your problem and frankly one that is a likely terminal blow to your ability to analyze the world around you for the rest of your life.