I will give Ulfric credit

[Matth85]

Torygg's refusal to accept the challenge issued by Ulfric would have called into question his ability to rule as High King

Which refusal? He accepted, for the very reason we all know. He ruled fine, unless you got source otherwise.

 

You mean you seem to misconstrue what I say, and I need to point out what I actually said to correct it?

You said about 50 times he could refuse. I have given you about 12 reason why he could not. That is my point. You stretch it too far, when you quote the answer and say it.

 

That would contradict what Ulfric says at the conclusion of the civil war. Ulfric says that he is focused on the Thalmor as the primary enemy.

Wether you attack now or tomorrow, I see no different. At least not when tomorrow you can get 3 times the army.

 

Considering that he was captured during the Great War, and the Thalmor had him arrested after he regained control of Markarth on behalf of the Empire, that doesn't seem to be the case.

What we can see is not the point. If you get tortured and manage to survive, and get caught again: I assure you, you will do anything in the world for the person. He is broken, it's just hidden. Press the right button, and Ulfric would jump when you said so. He is a Nord after all: Fighting is their way of supressing memories.

 

Everyone knew that Ulfric could use the Voice; this is addressed when Jarl Igmund is explaining how Ulfric won back control of Markarth from the Reachmen. This wasn't a surprise to Torygg that Ulfric had such an ability at his disposal

Not that he had, that he used. I could have carried my minigun and I chaleged you to a sword duel. There is no difference: You would die either way, just I decided to overkill you and dishonor you as much as possible.

 

When you seem to misconstrue what I've said, I'm going to correct it and point out what I actually stated previously.

You saying "He is not a robot, he could refuse" 50 times is not correcting it or trying to point it from another perspective. At least not when I've cleared said he could not, for multiple reasons.

 

Clearly, Ulfric isn't alone in wanting to deal with the Thalmor and stand independent of the Empire. Even Nord members of the Legion point out that their family often disagrees with their choice to stand with the Legion. Also, Torygg made his choice. If he wasn't capable of fighting Ulfric, he didn't have to fight him. It was his choice to accept the challenge, and his choice lead to his death. He knew the risks that came with the role of High King, and took the position regardless.

He isn't alone, no, but doesn't got the whole country with him. That is my point. It is not the majority who wants it, yet he feels entitled to turn the country upside down for his own benefit and hatred.

I don't mind the High King being beaten in a duel. I do mind the way it was done, and the fact it was not needed. Why challenge a King that is young, can be manopulated without problems and rules pretty fine? Why throw Skyrim into utter chaos for no reason? Why do this when the Thalmor is about to invade? I simply do not see the logic in it.

[Lachdonin]

Ok, i like a good arguement. I prefer an arguement when i have someone who is a mite rational and evaluates their information with the same criticla eye as they evaluate others.

 

Argueing with you is like argueing with an Anti-Climate Change advocate or a creationist.

 

You refuse to acknolege that your information is based on the same type of tenious information we present, then when presented with that FACT you burry your head in the sand. You refuse to take into account the volume of evidence in the eveny of less than optimal quality. You refuse to even evaluate your own information and arguements while at the same time critisizing sources and evidence which is vastly superior.

 

You have only proven yourself to be as short sighted and as narrow minded as Ulfric himself, and i bid you good day. I'm done argueing with idiots.

[LobselVith66]

 

If i walk into a room carrying a gun, challenge someone to a formal duel (Assuming the rules for a formal duel involve swords) and then procede to shoot said person, sould it be considered unfair? Everyone knew i had a gun.

 

Unless you have evidence that supports that using the Voice was prohibited in the challenge, I don't see a point to this discussion.

 

 

This point deals greatly with the idea of coersion. You seem to support the idea that coersion does nto happen until you are physically prevented from choosing an option, and all options chosen therin are of free will, regardless of other factors.

 

To illistrate the point, assume you are being held at gunpoint and the attacker demands your wallet. By your arguement, if you hand over your wallet, you are doing so of your own free will, despite the fact there is a threat arrayed against you should you choose NOT to hand it over. By your argumentation, the only way you are coersed into handing over your wallet if is the attacker takes it, physically, himself, either after shooting you or by reaching into your pocket.

 

If you're talking about Torygg, he could have said no, he wasn't going to be killed if he refused, so I don't agree with your analogy. He wasn't forced to accept Ulfric's challenge. All he would have lost in that scenerio is the throne of High King, and kept his place as Jarl of Solitude along with his life. His role as High King does not equal his life.

 

If you're talking about the Empire conceding to the Dominion, I'm not condemning the Empire for doing what it felt was necessary to survive against the Thalmor, I'm addressing that Skyrim could be independent and follow its own path, instead of being forced to accept the concessions made by the Empire in the White-Gold Concordt. Hammerfell stood its ground against the Dominion, it's possible for an independent Skyrim to do the same.

 

 

Admitedly, this is a fully acceptable philosophical outlook. I dissagree with it on a philosophical level, but its one of those debates which has persisted for thousands of years, and we will NOT resolve it here.

 

I don't see the Macbeth/Three Witches/Free Will type of debate in either Torygg's acceptance of the challenge Ulfric issued, or the dichotomy between the Empire and Skyrim.

[LobselVith66]

Ok, i like a good arguement. I prefer an arguement when i have someone who is a mite rational and evaluates their information with the same criticla eye as they evaluate others.

 

Argueing with you is like argueing with an Anti-Climate Change advocate or a creationist.

 

You refuse to acknolege that your information is based on the same type of tenious information we present, then when presented with that FACT you burry your head in the sand. You refuse to take into account the volume of evidence in the eveny of less than optimal quality. You refuse to even evaluate your own information and arguements while at the same time critisizing sources and evidence which is vastly superior.

 

You have only proven yourself to be as short sighted and as narrow minded as Ulfric himself, and i bid you good day. I'm done argueing with idiots.

 

The problem with your argument is, you've presented no facts to support the idea that the Empire is now planning to retaliate against the Dominion, only opinions held by characters who think the Empire is the best bet against the Dominion. All you did was address that some characters have an opinion. How is any of that irrefutable proof? I don't dispute that it's possible that the Empire might fight back against the Dominion without being provoked into a confrontation, but I address that it's not a certainty; it's not a fact that the Empire is planning to fight back against the Dominion soon (without being provoked into another war by the Thalmor), it's simply a possibility, addressed by some characters who have an opinion about the issue. You seem to be conflating the views held by some characters as indisputable facts with no alternative opinions, and that's my issue.

[Matth85]

. All he would have lost in that scenerio is the throne of High King

He would also be branded Coward, so everybody related to him would as well. His chilrden and grandchildren would probably be branded cowards as well.

He would be stripped of power, and god knows what.

 

It isn't simply "Yup, no more High King. Back to work!". No, he would be seen as weak, and probably stripped of a lot.

So yes, the analogy works perfectly.

 

Hammerfell stood its ground against the Dominion, it's possible for an independent Skyrim to do the same.

Where the core was from the Imperials. You know, the same Imperials that are under the Empire.

Hammerfell would never be able to push them out without it.

 

The problem with your argument is, you've presented no facts to support the idea that the Empire is now planning to retaliate against the Dominion, only opinions held by characters who think the Empire is the best bet against the Dominion. All you did was address that some characters have an opinion. How is any of that irrefutable proof? I don't dispute that it's possible that the Empire might fight back against the Dominion without being provoked into a confrontation, but I address that it's not a certainty; it's not a fact that the Empire is planning to fight back against the Dominion soon (without being provoked into another war by the Thalmor), it's simply a possibility, addressed by some characters who have an opinion about the issue. You seem to be conflating the views held by some characters as indisputable facts with no alternative opinions, and that's my issue.

Not my discussion, but let me ask you: Do you got any more fact than what we got?

Didn't think so.

Edited December 23, 2011 by Matth85

[Lachdonin]

 

The problem with your argument is, you've presented no facts to support the idea that the Empire is now planning to retaliate against the Dominion, only opinions held by characters who think the Empire is the best bet against the Dominion. All you did was address that some characters have an opinion. How is any of that irrefutable proof? I don't dispute that it's possible that the Empire might fight back against the Dominion without being provoked into a confrontation, but I address that it's not a certainty; it's not a fact that the Empire is planning to fight back against the Dominion soon (without being provoked into another war by the Thalmor), it's simply a possibility, addressed by some characters who have an opinion about the issue. You seem to be conflating the views held by some characters as indisputable facts with no alternative opinions, and that's my issue.

 

Where is your 'proof' that the Empire is not? Wher eis our 'proof' that The Bear of Markarth is innacurate? Where is your 'proof' that everyones oppinions about using a Shout in a duel are wrong?

 

You ahve presented absolutely no proof in this entire arguement, at least not by the critical standard you judge the opposing side. In return, you ahve dissmissed arguements, ingame documentation, core philosophy and blatant statements from YOUR own Jesus wannabe (Ulfric) to try and uphold your strawman arguement.

 

I hate getting personal in arguements, but you are hinging this entire thing on an absolutely idiotic, American notion that 'liberty for its own sake is a godsend.

[LobselVith66]

 

Which refusal? He accepted, for the very reason we all know. He ruled fine, unless you got source otherwise.

 

I was addressing what would happen if Torygg refused Ulfric's challenge - the outcome would be a new Moot called, where he might lose the throne of High King to another Jarl.

 

 

You said about 50 times he could refuse. I have given you about 12 reason why he could not. That is my point. You stretch it too far, when you quote the answer and say it.

 

This is why I keep addressing the matter, because you seem to think argue as though Torygg couldn't, when the fact is he could. He chose not to - that's the entire point I keep stressing. He wasn't a man with a gun pointed to his chest, he was a man who tried in vain to keep his throne when he didn't have to.

 

 

Wether you attack now or tomorrow, I see no different. At least not when tomorrow you can get 3 times the army.

 

An independent Skyrim could fight alongside a willing Empire just as easily as an independent Hammerfell can.

 

 

What we can see is not the point. If you get tortured and manage to survive, and get caught again: I assure you, you will do anything in the world for the person. He is broken, it's just hidden. Press the right button, and Ulfric would jump when you said so. He is a Nord after all: Fighting is their way of supressing memories.

 

My point is, Ulfric was captured after the Great War - after the victory of Markarth, when the Thalmor found out about the Empire offering religious freedom to Ulfric and his people in exchange for recapturing the Reach from Madanach and the Reachmen. The Empire sold him out and arrested him for the Thalmor in accordance with the White-Gold Concordt.

 

 

Not that he had, that he used. I could have carried my minigun and I chaleged you to a sword duel. There is no difference: You would die either way, just I decided to overkill you and dishonor you as much as possible.

 

If you are allowed to carry a minigun to a duel, it's a different story. I think most people would have refused to accept a duel from someone who was better armed than they were, when all that was at risk was a position of authority. Torygg could have kept his role as Jarl of Solitude, his wealth and power in his Hold, and all that he might have lost is his throne - instead of his life.

 

 

You saying "He is not a robot, he could refuse" 50 times is not correcting it or trying to point it from another perspective. At least not when I've cleared said he could not, for multiple reasons.

 

Peer pressure isn't much of an argument to villify Ulfric for Torygg's decision to accept the challenge issued against him. The man would have still kept his role as Jarl of Solitude.

 

 

He isn't alone, no, but doesn't got the whole country with him. That is my point. It is not the majority who wants it, yet he feels entitled to turn the country upside down for his own benefit and hatred.

 

We don't know what the "majority" wants - we know there are people who have conflicting feelings about the whole thing, and even some who agree with Ulfric's intentions but hate the man himself. I think the entire premise is that it's not supposed to be cut and dry, it's supposed to be gray - ambiguous.

 

 

I don't mind the High King being beaten in a duel. I do mind the way it was done, and the fact it was not needed. Why challenge a King that is young, can be manopulated without problems and rules pretty fine? Why throw Skyrim into utter chaos for no reason? Why do this when the Thalmor is about to invade? I simply do not see the logic in it.

 

Had Ulfric known that Torygg might have accepted his proposal to emancipate Skyrim from the Empire, I think things would have been very differently. However, it doesn't seem that Ulfric knew. And in a nation where the Thalmor are going around, doing horrific things to people for worshipping a particular god, then I'd think that Skyrim was already in a bad place. And who says the Thalmor are about to invade Skyrim?

[LobselVith66]

 

Where is your 'proof' that the Empire is not? Wher eis our 'proof' that The Bear of Markarth is innacurate? Where is your 'proof' that everyones oppinions about using a Shout in a duel are wrong?

 

The Bear of Markarth is written by a scholar who admits in a later book (The Madmen of the Reach) that he lacks actual knowledge about the Forsworn, while the pro-Legion Jarl Igmund and others are recounting what they witnessed happened from first-hand knowledge. Why would Jarl Igmund lie when he is allied with the Legion, and opposing Jarl Ulfric?

 

If someone claimed that the Empire was going to go against the Dominion, that would be a different story, but nobody makes such a claim - people address that they think is going to happen. Tullis never says, "The Empire will go against the Dominion soon," he addresses that he thinks they are a threat, and that the Empire is keeping an eye on the situation. This isn't ireevocable proof that the Empire is going to go to war against the Dominion of their own accord.

 

 

You ahve presented absolutely no proof in this entire arguement, at least not by the critical standard you judge the opposing side. In return, you ahve dissmissed arguements, ingame documentation, core philosophy and blatant statements from YOUR own Jesus wannabe (Ulfric) to try and uphold your strawman arguement.

 

I've addressed what characters have explicitly stated, and all you've done is throw some insults at me and claim that characters voicing their opinions is indusputable fact. None of those characters claimed that the Empire was planning to attack the Dominion; even Ulfric addresses that he is willing to fight alongside the Empire if they chose to wage war with the Dominion. Again, I'm not disputing that the Empire may fight the Dominion without being provoked into a war, but it's not a certainty.

 

 

I hate getting personal in arguements, but you are hinging this entire thing on an absolutely idiotic, American notion that 'liberty for its own sake is a godsend.

 

So your problem with me isn't my argument, it's that you're anti-American?

[Matth85]

An independent Skyrim could fight alongside a willing Empire just as easily as an independent Hammerfell can.

I doubt so with Ulfric leading it.

 

He wasn't a man with a gun pointed to his chest, he was a man who tried in vain to keep his throne when he didn't have to.

Lachdomin explained it perfectly: He couldn't refuse. Remember they had a different mindset than ours. His name would go in the books, and his family would pay the price for decades.

He was forced too. Not because he had a gun pointed at him, but because the tradition are hard and he'd be seen as a coward -- which would hit more than himself. Very selfless of him.

 

My point is, Ulfric was captured after the Great War - after the victory of Markarth, when the Thalmor found out about the Empire offering religious freedom to Ulfric and his people in exchange for recapturing the Reach from Madanach and the Reachmen. The Empire sold him out and arrested him for the Thalmor in accordance with the White-Gold Concordt.

My point: Hit the right switch, and Ulfric will bark for you.

 

The man would have still kept his role as Jarl of Solitude.

You mix up the worlds. This i not earth. This was based on the nordic times. He would not be a Jarl, he would probably have to run from Solitude. If Ulfric then made the situation worse, Torryg would get the blame.

 

We don't know what the "majority" wants - we know there are people who have conflicting feelings about the whole thing, and even some who agree with Ulfric's intentions but hate the man himself

Yet you assume the majority wants to fight the Thalmor, and would do fine in war? The morale is not strong in Skyrim, other than in a few Stormcloaks. Add on top the sight of dragons, and I am suprised they would dare fight.

 

And who says the Thalmor are about to invade Skyrim?

Look at the map of Tamriel. Look what the Thalmor just did. Look where the Thalmor scouts are. Look what tactics the Thalmor are using.

Do you need a big Neon sign?

 

So your problem with me isn't my argument, it's that you're anti-American?

I think his problem with tou is that you are very narrowminded. Wether that is bad or not, is up to you. You really don't see this from any perspective other than your own. You assume, and you bash other for not assuming. You are in denial, and call anything "Personal insult".

Try to look at this from more than 1 side, and perhaps we can have a "adult" discussion, as you put it yourself.

 

But nevertheless, this is getting out of hand. We are going in circles, and getting nowhere. It is clearly we share a totally different view on both discussions, and life in general.

This would be awesome if I was hellbent on getting my postcount up, but I am not. I will then leave, and you can discuss what you want, with who you want.

 

Merry Christmas!

Edited December 23, 2011 by Matth85

[LobselVith66]

 

He would also be branded Coward, so everybody related to him would as well. His chilrden and grandchildren would probably be branded cowards as well.

He would be stripped of power, and god knows what.

 

I never see any character claim that Torygg would have lost his position as Jarl of Solitude if he refused the challenge, only that he would have potentially lost the position of High King if a new Moot was called. Torygg had the backing of the Legion, and people did try to arrest Ulfric after Torygg was defeated, so I don't think a refusal would have been that cut and dry.

 

 

It isn't simply "Yup, no more High King. Back to work!". No, he would be seen as weak, and probably stripped of a lot.

So yes, the analogy works perfectly.

 

It doesn't work because no character explicitly or implicitly makes such a claim that Torygg would have faced that. It's only addressed that he was at risk of losing the position of High King.

 

 

Where the core was from the Imperials. You know, the same Imperials that are under the Empire.

Hammerfell would never be able to push them out without it.

 

You mean soldiers who weren't officially, or unofficially, working for the Empire, but were acting of their own accord?

 

 

Not my discussion, but let me ask you: Do you got any more fact than what we got?

Didn't think so.

 

If you're addressing the Empire fighting the Thalmor, there's no character who addresses it as a certainty, so I don't see why anyone makes the claim that it's fact. It's a possibility, and I've even addressed an independent Skyrim handling the Thalmor as a possibility as well - not a fact. It's possible, nothing more. If you're addressing what actually happened in Markarth, this is explained by the Legion-alligned Jarl Igmund of Markarth who was witness to the events that unfolded.