Stormcloaks VS Imperials - Arguments

[Cyrotek]

Imperials tried to kill me? Well, every day someone tries to kill my PC. But Stormcloacs are racists and Ulfric is just trying to be nice to someone else than a nord if he thinks he gets something of it. Iam a argonian and they dont even let "my" people into their city and pay them like crap. Why shoud i join them? O.o

 

Btw, funny part. At the meeting at High Hrotgar, be on the side of the imperials. Ulfric is talking to you like he thinks your a nord. pretty funny.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Cyrotek

[spinspider]

I'm with the Imperials all the way.

 

The bit about Ulfric I actually found kind of heartbreaking. He has all of these people at his back, all of these people who've invested all of their hopes in him, thinking that in supporting him they are opposing the Imperials and the Thalmor, when in truth he's actually secretly working FOR the Thalmor himself.

 

The Thalmor are trying to divide and conquer and Ulfric is in on their plan. His victory is exactly what they want, so once Skyrim is no longer under the Empire's protection, they can storm in and take over.

 

Talk about a chronic backstabber. He is a traitor to everyone, he must die so the Empire can be restored and people can be saved from these rogue Altmer, many of whom are clearly mad as hatters. (I still don't understand what went wrong with the Altmer, two hundred years ago they were just fine and dandy. What the hay are they trying to do with the world and why??)

[LobselVith66]

 

Which proves what exactly?

 

If different people living in Markarth contradict the claims made by the "Bear of Markarth," it addresses that the book is likely inaccurate. You've made it clear that you view Ulfric as an "idiot" and see the option of siding with the Stormcloaks as siding with people who are "primitive," but the book makes claims that are explicitly contradicted by the denizens who were actually living in Markarth at the time. If multiple sources in a Legion allied Hold point out that Ulfric Stormcloak and other Nords were lured into forming a miltia to reclaim Markarth in exchange for religious freedom from the Empire and its Jarl, it's likely that's what happened.

 

 

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.

 

Are you suggesting that it's a mass conspiracy to invalidate one book? So multiple people, including Igmund, are lying to protect Ulfric in case the Stormcloaks win the civil war? Isn't that stretching things quite a bit? Igmund had Ulfric arrested because the Thalmor demanded the arrest of the militia, despite Igmund and the Empire's promise to freely worship Talos in Markarth if they reclaimed the Hold from Madanach and the Reachmen.

 

 

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.

 

If the book, "Bear of Markarth," contradicts the people who were actually living there, as well as the Jarl who was part of the negotiations, I have no reason to trust one author over multiple people who were actually living there, and have no reason to lie for Ulfric when they aren't even allied with him.

 

 

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.

 

My involvement started when I argued against the idea that the Stormcloaks are nothing more than WWII Germany, when we see evidence to the contrary. You've continually made it clear that you disagree with the Stormcloak option. You paint Ulfric as an "idiot" and make it clear that you disagree with people who have a different opinion. You claim that the Stormcloak option is "short-sighted" and you disregard the Nords as "primitive." Are you really attacking me for sharing my opinion, when you have consistently done the same?

 

For people who dismissed the Stormcloaks as nothing more than racists, I disagreed. We see the proprietor in Falkreath state that he accepts "outsiders" (unlike his brother) because of his time in the Stormcloaks. Ralof sees the Stormcloak effort focus on the freedom of Skyrim, and has no problem with non-Nords. We can see an elf pretend to be a Stormcloak without another Stormcloak seeing anything odd about it. We see two Nords berate a Dunmer woman because the Dunmer in the Gray Quarter aren't becoming members of the Stormcloak cause. It's clearly not "Skyrim only for the Nords," which is an argument made by the detractors of the Stormcloaks.

 

Also, I don't argue against siding with the Empire. I think both options are valid, and I've consistently stated this. I've also pointed out that siding with the Stormcloaks is equally valid.

 

 

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.

 

I've never claimed to be neutral. I have opinions, and I share them. This is an open forum, and it was intended for people to share their thoughts and ideas with one another. I also don't see why you are attacking me for sharing my opinion when you have shared your opinion consistently - the difference being, you don't think siding with the Stormcloaks is a valid option, and I do think it's a valid option.

 

 

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.

 

No, it means I see strengths and flaws with both sides, and I'm willing to share my opinion on the matter.

 

 

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

 

If a discussion is taking place, then I don't see it as spam. You are clearly more than willing to share your own opinion.

 

 

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.

 

You mean, like my view that multiple people are likely telling the truth about the "Markarth Incident" and that the "Bear of Markarth" is likely factually inaccurate as a result, as opposed to your view that multiple people are lying to get on Ulfric's good side in case he wins the civil war? I didn't think you'd get so irate about me pointing out that multiple people from Markarth contradict the book, "The Bear of Markarth."

 

 

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

 

I have disagreed with you about many things, except for the threat posed by the Thalmor.

[DonQ]

I'm an American, and am neither a democrat or a republican. I see the pros and cons to each party, and feel like a sell-out whenever I vote for anyone b/c I hate the guy I'm voting for about as much as I hate the guy I'm voting against. Whenever I meet strongly opinionated democrats or republicans, I feel compelled to play devils advocate and counter their arguments. This isn't to be annoying, but to simply point out that neither side is necessarily the 'best' point of view, and each has serious flaws.

 

Therefore, if you're an ardent liberal, you're likely going to label me as a conservative b/c I'm constantly countering your liberal ideas with conservative ones. You're never going to hear anything but conservative rhetoric from me b/c you are only spouting liberal ideas and denouncing all conservative ones yourself.

 

I'm not sure, but I just thought this might apply here somehow. Welcome to politics people. Its frustrating as hell.

[bombomb]

The Greybeard's philosophoy of "do nothing" probably is the best route for the Civil War.

 

Don't join either side, and let fate sort it out.

[nefarious89]

I would side with Ulfric because at the present state the empire is submitted to the Thalmor, and thus letting them control Skyrim would just make things easier for the Thalmor to take over. It's best to drive both the empire and Thalmor out of Skyrim and let them resolve their conflict elsewhere assuming that the empire would ever rebel against the Thalmor. Should a rebellion within the empire happen against the Thalmor I'm sure the nords of Skyrim would gladly assist against the threat as a free country unbound by the restrictions of the empire.

 

As for racism well it's quite natural in imperfect societies and somehow people get along as long as no one committing genocide (Something that could happen if an extremist party conquers total domination)

[Dukkah]

Eh, Feudalism is Feudalism. If it's not one Lord beating you over the head for his rent, it's another.

 

Now abolishing Monarchy is Skyrim: that's a cause I can support.

 

But I went with the Empire for my main character. He's a Dark Elf Mage, so seeing how his people were treated in Windhelm sealed the deal there.

 

I then started a new game with a Kajit Assassin/ Mercenary. He sided with the Storm Cloaks because I wanted to see if the story changed much.

 

It didn't :down: