Stormcloaks VS Imperials - Arguments

[LobselVith66]

 

Your 1 sentence "I think neither are good or bad!" Versus a few books of you telling how awesome Ulfric is?

 

You mean that I often counter the argument that the Stormcloaks are WII Germany, when such a comparison has no basis in reality? I find the comparison ridiculous because it has no merit, and I don't see why it shouldn't be addressed.

 

 

Your replies favour the Stormcloak massively. That alone is enough to make that claim. If you mean something else, perhaps ease up on your Stormcloak crusade?

 

My replies have continually addressed that I don't see either faction being perfect, or in a "good v. evil" struggle, but rather a dichotomy between two opposing points of view. The Empire and the Stormcloaks are imperfect, and Tullius and Ulfric are both flawed leaders. I have repeatedly stressed this, over and over again, while you have continually villified the Stormcloaks and Ulfric in support of your argument.

 

 

How hard do you think it is to make soembody lie? If Ulfric did, and I am not saying he did, slaughter half of Markarth, I believe nobody would dare talk against the man.

 

In a Legion-allied Hold? And I don't see how you can seriously make that claim against the Jarl of Markarth, who arrested Ulfric on orders from the Empire.

 

 

At least not when he killed the High King and got a chance for the throne. Remember, the majority isn't always right. If a city says something, they might not tell the truth. Wether it's true or not is irrelevant: We got as much profo there as the books give us. If you want to throw the book out of the discussion, you might as well throw this out. It's assumptions either way, unless we get some hard facts and a source of it.

 

Multiple people living in Markarth, from a Reachman to the Jarl of Markarth v. one book written by an author who wasn't witness to the events. I'll continue putting my trust in the people who actually lived there.

 

 

If we put it as black and white, it is our bussiness.

 

And it's my business if I decide to respond and counter such a statement.

 

 

But let me tell you, you do a great job at it yourself. If you didn't add the line "This isn't black and white!" every now and then, I would have believed you were all out Stormcloak fan. I have yet to see you do anything than dismiss every argument against the Stormcloak, and use your own assumption as facts. Is that really different from seing it black and white?

 

By "assumption," you mean addressing what's explicitly stated in the narrative? Maybe you have such a problem with it because it doesn't support your attempt to villify the Stormcloaks and turn the dichotomy between two sides with merit into little more than a cartoon. I dismiss making the Empire or the Stormcloaks out to be villains, and I think both sides have their own strengths and weaknesses. There are reasons for siding with either respective faction.

 

 

POlitics in a nutshell. Yes, it's very well done. However, that wasn't the point of my post, or my sentence there. Let me rephrase:

 

1) If you really look at this as a greyzone, you should ease up on your crusade to dismiss every argument against the Stormcloak.

 

You mean I should capitulate to your opinion and forgo my own?

 

 

2) We don't need more threads on this subject, not when the 2 others are regulary on the front page. We got a topic rolling on the exact same, and we got one about Ulfric. This is getting more spam than anything.

 

It seems to be getting responses, rather than spam, so far.

[Hidole555]

You see, people. This is why we make multiple accounts so we don't have to pick just one side. Although I might as well put in my two cents.

 

I have a Nord who is siding with the Stormcloaks and an Imperial siding with the Imperials (I AM SO ORIGINAL AND CRAFTY)

 

Whether or not the Stormcloaks can beat the Thalmor on their own is debatable, but I think Hammerfell provides a good example of a single province standing on its own two feet. Just because the Empire has more land, doesn't necessarily mean it has a more lethal army.

 

You mean that I often counter the argument that the Stormcloaks are WII Germany, when such a comparison has no basis in reality? I find the comparison ridiculous because it has no merit, and I don't see why it shouldn't be addressed.

 

Yeah, I don't get that. If anyone is WW2 Germany it's the Thalmor Dominion, with Valenwood being Austria and Hammerfell being abandoned Poland.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Hidole555

[Matth85]

You mean that I often counter the argument that the Stormcloaks are WII Germany, when such a comparison has no basis in reality? I find the comparison ridiculous because it has no merit, and I don't see why it shouldn't be addressed.

No, I mean the part you counter every argument ever given to you, and dismiss every other argument. Go check your last dsicussions: You got a whole bunch of them. It really throws you into a "Black and white" scene there, since you have yet to do anythig but counter arguments.

 

 

I have repeatedly stressed this, over and over again, while you have continually villified the Stormcloaks and Ulfric in support of your argument.

What I do is irrelevant, as I don't claim the same you do. You, on the other hand, claim you are neutral to this and you really do set Ulfric on a pedestal above Tullius. Again, check your topics, and the context as a whole.

 

And I don't see how you can seriously make that claim against the Jarl of Markarth, who arrested Ulfric on orders from the Empire.

I reallt struggle to see how you dismiss a book that easily, but you got no problems taking the arrest as is?

My point is still there: If you want to dismiss the book so quickly, you might aswell dismiss the people. You say books lies, people write books, and you say people tell the truth. Yeah .. nothing wrong there.

 

Multiple people living in Markarth, from a Reachman to the Jarl of Markarth v. one book written by an author who wasn't witness to the events. I'll continue putting my trust in the people who actually lived there.

Put your trust where you want it, you have as much right to dismiss the book as garbage as you do trusting the people there. UNless you character witnessed it, you got no proof. That is my point. You mention it over and over, but you never take the time to see it the opposit way: People lie. PErhaps Ulfric promised a lot of gold, or more land, to the Jarl? Since he actually got a chance for the throne.

 

By "assumption," you mean addressing what's explicitly stated in the narrative?

Funny, we said the same a week ago -- what was your reply again?

No, "assumption" as in "You do not know the facts, but you set what you think is right above what other think is right, yet nobody got a clue what's going on since Skyrim is in chaos and is corrupted"

 

And it's my business if I decide to respond and counter such a statement

.

Yup, but if you are countering every "I prefer the legion!" argument, you are setting yourself up for "Stormcloak over the Empire!".

 

You mean I should capitulate to your opinion and forgo my own?

Start by not setting your own arguments on a pedestal and dismiss everything else?

Further go down the road of not breaking down every argument?

Ending with you trying to actually stay neutral when you discuss?

You know, how all neutral discussion should go?

 

It seems to be getting responses, rather than spam, so far.

The topic itself is not doing anything but taking place. We got 2 threads up, where all these replies could have gone too. That is called "spam", at least when a new topic comes up every day.

 

*sigh* You are so not "greyzoning" this. If you got some new arguments to the table, I welcome you to say them, but if you dimiss everything with your own assumption as usually -- it's just taking place since we have allready discussed it.

[LobselVith66]

 

No, I mean the part you counter every argument ever given to you, and dismiss every other argument. Go check your last dsicussions: You got a whole bunch of them. It really throws you into a "Black and white" scene there, since you have yet to do anythig but counter arguments.

 

If I don't agree with something, I express that. I've also expressed that I don't see either side as the bad guy or the villain. The narrative makes that clear enough.

 

 

What I do is irrelevant, as I don't claim the same you do. You, on the other hand, claim you are neutral to this and you really do set Ulfric on a pedestal above Tullius. Again, check your topics, and the context as a whole.

 

No, I addressed that I don't see the Legion or the Stormcloaks as villains.

 

 

I reallt struggle to see how you dismiss a book that easily, but you got no problems taking the arrest as is?

My point is still there: If you want to dismiss the book so quickly, you might aswell dismiss the people. You say books lies, people write books, and you say people tell the truth. Yeah .. nothing wrong there.

 

I dismiss the book because it contradicts what's explicitly stated by the characters living in Markarth.

 

 

Put your trust where you want it, you have as much right to dismiss the book as garbage as you do trusting the people there. UNless you character witnessed it, you got no proof. That is my point. You mention it over and over, but you never take the time to see it the opposit way: People lie. PErhaps Ulfric promised a lot of gold, or more land, to the Jarl? Since he actually got a chance for the throne.

 

So Jarl Igmund, who sided with the Legion, is lying because Ulfric promised him more land and gold, which explains why he is siding with the Legion against Ulfric? Explain to me how that makes sense.

 

 

Funny, we said the same a week ago -- what was your reply again?

No, "assumption" as in "You do not know the facts, but you set what you think is right above what other think is right, yet nobody got a clue what's going on since Skyrim is in chaos and is corrupted"

 

The entire crux of the civil war is that the protagonist is siding with one faction because he (or she) may think that faction is right.

 

 

Yup, but if you are countering every "I prefer the legion!" argument, you are setting yourself up for "Stormcloak over the Empire!".

 

No, my statement is that neither side is a villain, and that there are reasons to side with the Stormcloaks. I don't think people should side with the Stormcloaks over the Legion, I think siding with the Stormcloaks is as valid as siding with the Legion. You, on the other hand, villify the Stormcloaks and make it seem as though there's no reason at all to side with the faction.

 

 

Start by not setting your own arguments on a pedestal and dismiss everything else?

 

You mean by not forming my own opinion and not expressing it, which seems to be your real problem?

 

 

Further go down the road of not breaking down every argument?

Ending with you trying to actually stay neutral when you discuss?

You know, how all neutral discussion should go?

 

Why do you keep repeating "neutral"? I said the Legion and the Stormcloaks aren't villains, that neither side is a bad guy in all this because Tullius and Ulfric are doing what they think is right - I didn't say I was going to remain neutral.

 

 

The topic itself is not doing anything but taking place. We got 2 threads up, where all these replies could have gone too. That is called "spam", at least when a new topic comes up every day.

 

A discussion is going on, that you are participating in of your own free will.

 

 

*sigh* You are so not "greyzoning" this. If you got some new arguments to the table, I welcome you to say them, but if you dimiss everything with your own assumption as usually -- it's just taking place since we have allready discussed it.

 

You mean I should refrain from forming an opinion if it disagrees with your own?

[Matth85]

I dismiss the book because it contradicts what's explicitly stated by the characters living in Markarth.

Which proves what exactly?

 

So Jarl Igmund, who sided with the Legion, is lying because Ulfric promised him more land and gold, which explains why he is siding with the Legion against Ulfric? Explain to me how that makes sense.

Not everybody is full of ride, as Ulfric has shown. If Jarl Igmund is afraid the Empire might lose, he might got a small hand with Ulfric so he won't get his ass kicked left and right if things get hairy. Ulfric now sees he can turn anybody who wasn't at the scene to dismiss the book and see that Ulfric is some kind of man god. Point being: It is not unheard of to do that, as both part would earn from it. Wether you believe it or not is irrelevant, but dismissing the book because of the people is as much right as me saying Tullius is a god and Ulfric a bastard.

 

 

 

The entire crux of the civil war is that the protagonist is siding with one faction because he (or she) may think that faction is right.

Relevance to the quote?

 

No, my statement is that neither side is a villain, and that there are reasons to side with the Stormcloaks. I don't think people should side with the Stormcloaks over the Legion, I think siding with the Stormcloaks is as valid as siding with the Legion. You, on the other hand, villify the Stormcloaks and make it seem as though there's no reason at all to side with the faction.

Again, what I do is not what we talk about. It is irrelevant, as this is about you -- as of now.

What you mean and what you write is 2 different things. You mean they are both equals, but a different motive, then fine. But arguing against every empire thread on the forum is not a way to show it, and it does set you up to be a Stormcloak fan. Wether that is your intention or not is irrelevant.

 

You mean by not forming my own opinion and not expressing it, which seems to be your real problem?

My problem is not your opinios, it is your ability to push down everybody else' opinions and set your own as the right one. Nothing that has been said to you have gone to you, and you sit on your own. A very one-sided way to do it, if I may add. It is just painfull seing you say you are neutral, yet you push the Empire arguments down the mud and set your own on a pedestal. If you really are neutral, you'd know to take 2 arguments and judge them equally, then see it from another perspective. I have yet to see this from you.

 

Why do you keep repeating "neutral"? I said the Legion and the Stormcloaks aren't villains, that neither side is a bad guy in all this because Tullius and Ulfric are doing what they think is right - I didn't say I was going to remain neutral.

You don't see the problem in: "I think neither is good or bad and both got a reason to be joined!" and "I am not neutral though". 1 means you will see this from different sides and judge it as a third part, whilst the other means you prefer a site and will, of course, arguent for it.

 

 

A discussion is going on, that you are participating in of your own free will.

Ad we got 2 threads of equal name discussing the same things. You don't see the "spam" in it?

 

 

You mean I should refrain from forming an opinion if it disagrees with your own?

I like how you must pull me in everywhere. I fail to see why..

No, I ask you to start seing an argument more openly and actually be a person that is OK to discuss with. Going all "Hah! X is wrong because Y is right!" or "You assume things will my assumptions are facts!" is not making it nice.

Keep your opinion, express them, but for the love of Talos: Try to express them side by side with other points, not just set yours on top.

 

Meh, do what you wish. I am done with you once again.

I am sorry, no offense, but you are a pain to discuss with.

[ufw7]

lol i'm with Lobselvith66.:PBut I also think that this discussion is pointless because no matter what you'll chose the outcome of the war will be the same (or bethesda has to make 2 tes VI).

[thesapien]

Neither.

 

Your post makes me wonder more about the Thalmor though. Are they supposed to be bad guys like in a clear absolute sense? Did the writers script them as evil?

 

I need to read some more books...

[thesapien]

What if you start the game as a high elf? Then the Thalmor are possibly the good guys, right? Let the human fight each other.

[Matth85]

Your post makes me wonder more about the Thalmor though. Are they supposed to be bad guys like in a clear absolute sense? Did the writers script them as evil?

Not quite. Most of us agree they are the more evil of the 3, but for any high elf in Summerset they are most likely the good ones. I like the Thalmor, for one, but I also see their problems.

 

What if you start the game as a high elf? Then the Thalmor are possibly the good guys, right? Let the human fight each other.

The Thalmor is currently trying to rule over Tamriel, and stop the Talos worship. I do understand them. Mer, or elf, are more "like" the divines than the humans. Of course they believe that a man can not become a god, when they can not.

That said, they do go a little extreme. You could pull the link towards Germany in world war 2: Trying to take over the world. They get problems when they got 3 fronts to attack at the same time.

 

Everybody got a prefference in this, like all politics, but I would range it like this, good to bad:

 

1. Empire - they fight for a united Tamriel, and try to restore their former glory. They know to fight when they are strong, and rather wait.

2. Stormcloak - They fight for Skyrim, and a mostly Norde Skyrim. Allthough I see their goal as a good one, they miss the big picture and would rather rush down to the Thalmor unprepared.

3. The Thalmor - Albiet a very good military going on, and being Elves they got all time in the world, they are a little to ambiteous. Taking on Tamriel hand on isn't going to work out. Of course, their plan for Skyrim would probably have won them Tamriel -- untill you showed up and probably save Skyrim whatever side you choose.

 

With all that down, I would joing the Thalmor if I played a High Elf. Just because I feel an arrogant and power hungry attitude fits the race ;)

[GMatthews]

Agreed that none are evil and they all have faults. I haven't finished the game and I'm not as completely invested in lore as some players are but this is what I have gathered so far...

 

Stormcloaks are refusing to see the big picture because it hasn't slapped them in the face yet. It's hard to realize how much of a threat the Thalmor really is without seeing it first hand... especially in medievel type setting with limited communication. People of true faith would generally rather fight and die than renounce their faith... so I kind of get that attitude even though I'm not spiritual.

 

Imperials are the United States of Tamriel -the biggest ego and boss attitude, but the most likely to pull things together and get the job done -regardless of the opinions of the people they lord over. They have this opinion that they can do whatever they want and people need to fall in line.

 

Thalmor -conceited know-it-alls that consider it their duty to rule the inferior races. Everyone must think what they think, believe what they believe. Not truly evil, just over-the-top conceited and superiority complex.

 

As for who's side I am on... the Imperials tried to kill me 5 seconds into the game so do I care about uniting a kingdom or sticking it to "the man"?

I hate "we know best -fall in line or die" attitudes like the Imperials, but it frustrates me when people can't see the big picture because of religious or personal opinions.

I believe in personal freedoms but this game mirrors real world so much -war and death over feelings of superiority and religion.

So I suppose I'll fight with the Stormcloaks because death is preferable to someone telling you how to think or what to believe.