Why Ulfric was right to kill the High King

[sajuukkhar9000]

He used the Thu'um to make the point that he was a truer High-King than Torygg was. Not only was he a real warrior, but he was more in tune with his people's culture than Torygg, an Imperial puppet, was.

That would be true if people still cared about the Thu'um, or cared if a king/ruler could use it, but they dont.

 

The Thu'um is a relic from an age long since past, most people cant use it, have never seen it used, nor do they care if people can use it.

Edited July 6, 2012 by sajuukkhar9000

[StayFrosty05]

He used the Thu'um to make the point that he was a truer High-King than Torygg was. Not only was he a real warrior, but he was more in tune with his people's culture than Torygg, an Imperial puppet, was.

 

That's a good possibility, though also an assumption as it is not directly stated in the game...there is no hard evidence, just conjecture depending on who we the gamers favor.

[imperistan]

He used the Thu'um to make the point that he was a truer High-King than Torygg was. Not only was he a real warrior, but he was more in tune with his people's culture than Torygg, an Imperial puppet, was.

That would be true if people still cared about the Thu'um, or cared if a king/ruler could use it, but they dont.

 

The Thu'um is a relic from an age long since past, most people cant use it, have never seen it used, nor do they care if people can use it.

 

Its not the general populace he's trying to make that point to. At least, not directly anyway.

 

That's a good possibility, though also an assumption as it is not directly stated in the game...there is no hard evidence, just conjecture depending on who we the gamers favor.

 

The proof is in the challenge itself. The challenge was meant to show who was the better High King. Using the Thu'um was Ulfric hammering in his case.

[sajuukkhar9000]

Its not the general populace he's trying to make that point to. At least, not directly anyway.

But that's the thing though, using the Thu'um against a person that was known to respect you, and would have probably done what you said anyways, only shows to people Ulfrc is a giant ass.

[StayFrosty05]

 

That's a good possibility, though also an assumption as it is not directly stated in the game...there is no hard evidence, just conjecture depending on who we the gamers favor.

 

The proof is in the challenge itself. The challenge was meant to show who was the better High King. Using the Thu'um was Ulfric hammering in his case.

 

...or it could just as well easily be fear on Ulfric's part that he could actually loose the duel so he made damned sure that he wouldn't...or...simple arrogance and show pony one-up-manship....or....displaying his ability to prove his worthiness to take the throne...or...displaying dedication to a cause...etc, etc...It's whatever the gamer see's or wishes to see in it....whether that has taken thought or just pure bias.

[MacSuibhne]

Mac your arguments would be much more compelling and interesting if you weren't so busy concentrating on your own ego and focused all that energy into a solid well worded debate instead.

 

Except in rare occasions with regard to people who have already, in my opinion crossed the line, I don't characterize people or their behaviour...not specifically...nor do I call them names.

 

This who I am...this is the way I talk, this is the way I walk...what you see is what you get.

 

[shrug]

Edited July 6, 2012 by MacSuibhne

[MacSuibhne]

for those thinking that freedoms are better than security, ask yourself this: is the right of safety less important that the religious freedoms that the Stormcloaks want?

 

As ill-considered and thoughtless as this statement is, the implications are serious enough that I feel compelled to comment.

 

First, the idea of a "right of safety", esp. as it applies to the purpose of government, is illusory at best. There is no right to be safe simply because life itself is not safe. The notion that there is, or ought to be, is the bastard child of the "nanny state" and the idea of entitlement.

 

And to the extent that safety is a right that can be conferred or guaranteed by a government...any government...a corresponding curtailing of freedom must ensue. For example, in order to ensure that a citizen is safe, all dangerous sports would have to be outlawed--rock climbing, skateboarding, para-sailing, & hiking in rough country, are but a few that would almost certainly have to be proscribed.

 

Eating foods not grown under strictly sanitary and sterile conditions, not carefully decontaminated by irradiation, not packaged under rigid conditions...not government approved, IOW...would have to be banned. Farmers would be factory drones or outlaws selling raw milk and organic beans to the unwary.

 

I'm sure anyone here can take the analogy even further.

 

"Natural rights"--those we optimistically ascribe to our creator...Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...tend to be ones that pertain only to our individual selves and our interior dialogues. How we spend the hours and years given to us. Where we go, where we live. What we think, what we believe, who and how we worship. If any of those are forfeit or circumscribed we have neither freedom or safety.

 

Think about it...if your very thoughts are regulated...as in what you are allowed to believe, and who, where, when you can worship/express those beliefs...then nothing is off limits and no one is safe.

 

Benjamin Franklin had "the right of it". For any and all times. And as the dark elf on the way to Windhelm to join the Stormcloaks asserts, so does Ulfric.

 

The Thalmor thought-police are just the sharp end of the punji stake...as is the notion that security trumps freedom...while the rest may be buried there's always a sharp, even deadly, reason for its existence. And where's there's one there's bound to be dozens. Freedom is never lost in one big blatant crackdown (although such actions are an obvious and symptomatic manifestation of oppression).

 

Rather freedom is lost "not with a bang but with a whimper."

 

That said, we do have expectations of any government--chief among these is protection from the interference and depredations of foreign powers--those not "of us", or supported by us...by our taxes, by our blood. Securing those natural rights and protecting its citizens from foreign powers are the principle expectations of any government. It is the simple difference between legitimacy and tyranny.

 

To the extent that a government fails to secure those natural rights and fails to protect its citizens, it fails to be legitimate...

 

A good example is the Empire in Skyrim.

Edited July 6, 2012 by MacSuibhne

[Deleted4666244User]

i am sorry Mac, but can you point out a MEDIEVAL example of your thought that religious freedom beats all citizens being safe from bandits.

 

i see the game and notice that the game has a medieval feel to it. anyways, i feel that the empire is the safest option right now, at least for my Dawnguard characters.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Guest

[Archone]

 

I don't like arguing with teen-agers (and note that "arguing" is the critical word there)...I've said as much. But against my better judgement I am going to address your post in the wildly optimistic hope that you will actually read it and comprehend it.

 

Oh, that's adorable. The self described "old man" is addressing a thirty three year old adult as a teenager, trying to be condescending and once again showing a blissful ignorance of... everything.

 

First, the word "you" can be either singular or plural. It can be associated with a specific person or it can be used to refer to a generic or unidentifiable "you"...in much the same way we say "they" not meaning any particular they. To the extent that you think everytime someone says "you" in a conversation it is referring to you specifically, you reveal your self-centered and egotistical perspective.

 

Okay, let me turn that around. I'm using the words "you" and quoting the post that "you" made. Is this directly associated with you, or is it an open comment to a generalized "you?"

 

All the so called evidence that you have provided, to this date, strikes me as hearsay. I know that you do not accept the definition of "hearsay" as provided by the Concise Oxford Dictionary...apparently preferring the Archone Dictionary of Solipsistic Sophistry...but most of the "evidence" is prima facia worthless to any fair, mature human being.

 

Let me check the online dictionary that pretty much every english speaker uses...

http://dictionary.reference.com/

...nope. I don't see an "Archone" anywhere. But I know that doesn't matter, because at this point you are everything you accuse those who disagree with you of being.

 

 

 

 

Says you...frankly, I don't recall having ever said that specifically. Or if I did, it may have been an observation aimed at all the Imperial apologists who make excuses for Imperial indifference to the Thalmor patrols and the summary executions that they carry out in the basement of their embassy. All the people who claim that it's a small price to pay to avoid Thalmor pique. In my view, those who make that case are complicit...not unlike white Americans who defended the internment of Japanese-Americans--citizens of the USA--in WWII. And in that complicity they bear a share of the guilt for the injustice that was done.

 

 

See... that's the thing. You've made accusations against me. I have requested you provide factual evidence to support your accusations. At this point you now have a multitude of "charges" you have levelled against me. One: that I'm okay with the Thalmor. Two, that I've been part of any anti-Zimmerman mobs (and once again you've introduced RL politics into a discussion of one of the subplots of a video game). Three: that I'm pro-Imperial and anti-Stormcloak. Four: that I (and everyone else on this forum) invariably play the Dovahkin as a sociopathic monster. Five: that I don't provide facts, links, and evidence. You have lain a number of "charges" against me in the same manner that you accuse others of laying charges against Ulfric, and you are refusing to provide any evidence, any proof, any facts beyond this "hearsay" you keep repeating over and over. You are literally everything you accuse others of being.

 

And... I'm actually encouraging you to continue in this. Partially because I have little expectation that you will acknowledge you are being an arrogant and condescending person whose elitist sermonizing is only emphasizing your ignorance and lack of debate skills (and as such, it is nigh impossible to dissuade you at this time). And partially because every post you make actually undermines your own position; the majority of people following this thread are being conditioned against Ulfric in no small part because they're coming to associate thoughts of supporting Ulfric with... you. You and your continual insults and put downs to the entire forum as if you were the one moral individual on the internet.

 

And now I sit back to await another chuckle, paternalistic sigh, and vocalized thought about when all the fools around you will wake up and realize the truth of your beliefs and accept them without argument. (And of course actual questions and factually supported opinions by pretty much everyone else, such as Brett, Warden, Frosty, etc...)

[fraquar]

i am sorry Mac, but can you point out a MEDIEVAL example of your thought that religious freedom beats all citizens being safe from bandits.

 

i see the game and notice that the game has a medieval feel to it. anyways, i feel that the empire is the safest option right now, at least for my Dawnguard characters.

 

A better question is can you find any instance in medieval times where people stopped a war and allowed themselves to be persecuted religiously even though they hadn't been defeated in battle?