Anyone else disappointed with the Stormcloak questline?

[Anska]

Smith, as you noticed, I didn't try to contradict anything. As I wrote above, I am not peculiarly interested in who is right and who is wrong or whose argument is weaker. To put it more bluntly: I find this question utterly tedious and rather boring. What interests me is who believes what and why. My point was that there seem to be two contradicting views in Skyrim, some folks who claim Skyrim is men's homeland and some who claim that the Nords are invaders - which are very much ingame opinions that contradict and conflict with each other. I was just trying to fit both of them together in a larger picture. (I can also assure you that your example with the house gets a whole lot more difficult if property isn't sold, but lost to the previous owners due to other circumstances.) And again my point never was that one opinion is better than the other, because I don't really care. Both opinions exist and there are people who believe in them and probably won't change their minds. Thanks to Sajuukkhar's latest link I now have a better understanding of who holds on to the Atmora-story and who might disagree with it.

 

Just because you wish for someone to build up a counter-argument or ask for plenty of links, that doesn't mean every answer to the thread feels the necessity to comply with your request.

 

Oh and Spades, thank you for being considerate of mine and other people's tender feelings *coughs* I guess I am just not used to a forum where people manage to get emotional without getting insulting shortly after, so bear with me. :blush:

[TheObstinateNoviceSmith]

EDIT: While I find it interesting that me pointing out that an argument was weaker and what that argument would require to regain footing is frowned upon but the attempt to discredit another argument is not, I don't feel the need to continue debating which argument is stronger.

 

I apologize to those offended and or annoyed by the path this took due to my posts.

 

Can't promise it won't happen again, but at least I can stop what I've done here. I think this was initially about being disappointed in the Stormcloak story line, but that was a year ago or so me thinks so where are we at now?

[fifteenspades]

Me = Teal You ( Smith ) = Yellow

Quote

And no i asked for the kyne thing because as i said in the statement "I could be wrong about this, not really familiar with her"

When you asked for the information on Kyne, you did not state that it was because you were unsure or due to a lack of familiarity with her.

What you initially said:

Quote

"...Would you have a link to where it describes Kyne creating the nords? or something along the lines~

Because everything i can find it all points towards the same idea that nords come from Atmora..."

This is what i call twisting my words. You are completelty leaving out the part where i said

"I could be wrong about this, not really familiar with her"

Before i asked for the links to Kyne. Here i will present how i see this and what i mean by just "connecting the dots"

"I could be wrong about this, not really familiar with her" ---> Asked about Kyne and some links to her ---> conclusion : i asked for the links bc i am not familar with her

C.o.n.n.e.c.t t.h.e d.o.t.s

"There you go, not holding yourself to the same standard by which you attempt to hold your opponents."

Well... pretty sure i am. i asked for straight to the point just like i do.

"Of course it doesn't. That wasn't the issue here. The issue is if you're going to try to discredit any of what was presented, you need some lore or outside source in the form of Bethesda to do so on equal footing of what was presented."

See that's the thing i don't have to present anything to discredit. that's the mythical wonder of discrediting.

But what did you find that completely contradicts what I found? Doesn't look like you found anything. In fact, your first example and number one clearly has to do with "TRUE or NOT"

1: to refuse to accept as true or accurate : disbelieve<discredit a rumor>

2

: to cause disbelief in the accuracy or authority of <adiscredited theory>

3

: to deprive of good repute : disgrace <personal attacks meant to discredit his opponent>

1. Doesn't make the rumor not true

2. Still doesn't make the theory not true no matter how much people don't believe it

3. Has zero to do with true or not.

Again no clue where you are getting this idea that Discredit = false/wrong.

"Quote

Actually no i only made a note about the Men = more then nords.

so i didn't argue against or attempt to discredit "ALL" or any of it. So with that said your above statement is half false.

You did try to discredit it and even stated that is what you were doing here:

Again connecting the dots i assumed people would understand that All/any only applys to the Kyne references.

But lets just assume you didn't and thought it mean to all those links .

"If you read carefully you would see that i did not Argue against the lore itself. I argued against his interpretation of it.

That may have been your intent, but that isn't entirely what happened"

That is entirely what happened. The Songs of the Return his interpretation was they found Skyforge it was in the shape of eagle which is an ancient nordic animal totem of Kyne and then he thought that since Kyne is the mother of men = nords, that would mean Kyne was in skyrim before the elves therefore the nords were. because the skyforge was. All that books says is Nords found the skyforge knew that the elves feared it so they took it for their own. that is all the book says.

Now for the main point. You keep asking for links to lore or w/e. and your ENTIRE argument is built around the fact since i am not providing links i am the weaker side of the argument and thus . "arguing that side of the argument is pointless without anything supporting it". that since

Your first Mistake was this :

fifteenspades, on 06 Aug 2013 - 11:15 AM, said:

http://forums.nexusmods.com/public/style_images/underground/snapback.png

Kyne being the mother of men doesn't mean just nords. it means all men.

 

I get what you are saying and if i was a nord trying to figure this stuff out and saw all this "evidence" i would probably start to think like you, however all of this is just what the Nords beleifs are.

None of it is actual proof ;o but thank you for linking all of them anyways ^^

 

Please provide links to lore of the contrary preferably equal or greater in number than that provided by Sajuukkhar9000.

 

Doing so would put you back on equal ground at the very least.

 

Being unable to do so would make your attempt to dismiss those links empty and invalid as you didn't actually dismiss them with anything. As things stand, that is evidence and proof until you have proven otherwise or at least provided lore to effectively counter what has been presented.

 

Not for or against either one of you, just basically observing, but right now, 9000 has the upper hand and the ball is in your court to change that.

 

 

3.) You made a request and S9000 provided what was requested. Rather than counter with similar things, you ineffectively tried to dismiss the response. When a similar request was made by me of you, you failed to comply and ineffectively tried to dismiss what was provided again.

 

2.) Unless you are unable to do so, I find the request simple fifteenspades. If the Nords' claims are false, present the lore to back it where it says something entirely different and or claims the Nords' claims to be false. The lore has to completely make it impossible for the Nords' claims to be true if the lore you present were considered true and of course it is acceptable from this to be from the perspective of another race.

 

Failure to do so suggests an inability to do so which would mean that even if you were to try to continue this argument, it would be abundantly clear that there's no sense heeding your argument any further as it is lacking in lore power and you failed to hold yourself to the same standard as your opponent.

 

4.) (You asked for evidence, but failed to provide any yourself)

 

Good luck.

This is your entire argument right here. everything you have said thus far is based upon this.

1. Your #3 is completely wrong. not discrediting it, it's 100% wrong.

"Quote

I am not arguing at all against mankind being created by Kyne. Which is why idk where you got that idea from~

My mistake. You are correct about that fact and I was wrong there. You did however attempt to discredit the lore presented and thus you did try to go against it, so my main point stands."

#3 is based around what i asked about Kyne.

#2 I don't have to present other lore to discredit that's not how that works.

#4 i didn't ask for evidence refer to #3

 

Your 2nd mistake was this

"I feel like figuring out who is "right" would be difficult at best, but I do feel that at the very least if your going to "discredit" something and or attempt to do so, then you should have the lore to do so when it is lore you are attempting to discredit.

I also feel like that if you make a request that you should be able to meet the requirements of your own request because if the other side accommodates that request and you're unable to do so, then you are no longer on equal footing.

That being said, it isn't that it doesn't make sense to doubt something, only that it doesn't make sense to believe that opinion to hold the same amount of weight as another if it fails to support itself. This isn't a declaration of right and wrong, just a declaration of the state of the debate.

Just because someone is ruled not guilty in the court of law, it doesn't mean that it is believed that they were not guilty, but it definitely means that their guilt wasn't sufficiently proven.

In this case, right or wrong, fifteenspades hasn't provided any lore to counter the lore provided, so regardless as to who is actually right (if that is even possible here), fiteenspades would have the weaker argument.

This can easily be rectified by providing links to lore that contradict what was provided by S9000."

You assumed this was a debate of Right or wrong. no where had anyone even implied this was about what is right or wrong. I did not say previously 9000 was wrong about anything. i did not say his links were wrong ( except that shor one ) i did not say the lore was WRONG. i simply stated it's not credible enough to be the one truth because it was quite biased.

 

Now your third and final mistake is assuming that i have to prove anything to YOU. I just have to show people who are interested in reading up about this thread/lore that what 9000/others are saying isn't necessarily true. I don't have to show an alternate reality of lore, that's not my intention. You said it yourself "Just because someone is ruled not guilty in the court of law, it doesn't mean that it is believed that they were not guilty, but it definitely means that their guilt wasn't sufficiently proven." The defendants don't have to prove he's not guilty to get the verdict they just have to show that the prosecutions side isn't credible enough to be accepted as true. That doesn't make what the prosecution is saying any less true or more so though.

Give me time to edit this before you reply. probably messed up all my spoilers :C

edit: just going to color code this entire thing to make it easier to read for anyone intrested.

edit2: i put way too much effort into this lol ~ shows my passion for TES? :S

Edited August 11, 2013 by fifteenspades

[rattlemebones]

How did this degenerate from a question saying "Anyone else disappointed with the stormcloak storyline" to "let's pick apart the Nordic legends". That kinda feels like a new thread.

[fifteenspades]

Well back on topic then :P

 

Do you think ulfric really wants the best for skyrim? or just the best for himself?

Meaning do you think he even cared about Nord beliefs or even Talos that he just wanted power and what better way to motivate an army then through their beliefs.

 

"Nice bit about the Moot there"

"yeh i know"

[rattlemebones]

This entire event (except the High King assassination bit) can be compared to the American Revolution. A tax on something which one party has no say about. An empire that is trying to secure its interests. A rebel faction that contests, in their opinion, a corrupt political faction

 

In the case of the Americans the tax was actually a lot less then their British counterparts. Even though they didn't have a say, it wasn't until a small group of people agitated that the British Parliament started cracking down and the Continental Congress declared a rebellion. Granted that was after King George III refused the Olive Branch Petition. The Stormcloaks made no such offer.

 

In the case of the British they fought the French and Indian War to protect their Colonies. They expected their Colonies to help pay for the war that was fought for them, which was reasonable. The British, when the Sons of Liberty started violently protesting the taxes, treated the Americans like an unruly child and punished them as such. The Empire when Ulfric agitated they were forced to take action to prevent further rebellions.

 

Both sides had a reason to fight, but at the same time neither of them were entirely correct.

[TheObstinateNoviceSmith]

I just can't ignore your post when it is so wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

"I could be wrong about this, not really familiar with her"

This is what i call twisting my words. You are completelty leaving out the part where i said

Before i asked for the links to Kyne. Here i will present how i see this and what i mean by just "connecting the dots"

Then you should have connected the dots first because that isn't what you said when you asked for links. You said it was for a different reason and then argued against what was presented later so it doesn't support your claim of being unsure and that being why you asked when that clearly is not what you said when you asked.

 

Well... pretty sure i am. i asked for straight to the point just like i do.

You actually don't get straight to the point as you took attempts to mention irrelevant aspects as well as take cheap shots at me about lacking the ability to connect the dots as well as the style of my posts.

 

See that's the thing i don't have to present anything to discredit. that's the mythical wonder of discrediting.

Yes you do or else you aren't discrediting anything. You're only trying to do so. If I say I worked till 12, but you claim that I didn't but then I present 3 witnesses that say I did work till 12 while you produce none, you have failed to discredit me despite attempting to do so.

 

1. Doesn't make the rumor not true

But your attempt to discredit does mean that you are trying to say that it isn't true. It is the very definition of trying to discredit something. It is to try to say that it is false and to try to say it isn't wrong. If you're now saying that you aren't saying that it is wrong, then you can't be discrediting it in anyway.

 

2. Still doesn't make the theory not true no matter how much people don't believe it

But since it doesn't make it true or non true, then your attempt to discredit it makes even less sense. If you aren't saying the lore is wrong, you defeat your own attempt to try and discredit it.

 

 

Again no clue where you are getting this idea that Discredit = false/wrong.

If something is successfully discredited, then it is wrong/false so the act of trying to discredit something is the act to try to prove that something is wrong or false.

You want to win that aspect of the argument? Give several examples of where something is both discredited AND correct/right/true.

 

Again connecting the dots i assumed people would understand that All/any only applys to the Kyne references.

That is the incorrect use of the word "all" as it would make no sense to assume that "all" was an exclusionary term when it is the opposite of such.

 

That is entirely what happened.

It isn't what happened entirely as you are leaving out where you said "none of what was said" which means you stopped addressing the interpretation and started addressing the lore itself. You know the word interpretation and yet you didn't know how to use it back there?

That doesn't sound right or likely.

 

Now for the main point. You keep asking for links to lore or w/e. and your ENTIRE argument is built around the fact since i am not providing links i am the weaker side of the argument and thus . "arguing that side of the argument is pointless without anything supporting it".

That isn't an argument. It is a fact. On side is supported by lore, the other isn't this obviously makes one side of the argument weaker regardless as to which one turns out to be actually right or not. Th argument is weaker on one side.

 

Your first Mistake was this :

This is your entire argument right here. everything you have said thus far is based upon this.

1. Your #3 is completely wrong. not discrediting it, it's 100% wrong.

To call something wrong is to try to discredit it, but point 3 was not 100% wrong and since it was not the only point and you kind of mixed posts together there to attempt to have an argument, I feel it is important to point out that you did in fact make a request.

You even gave reasons as to why a request was made which is admitting that you made the request. Point 3 doesn't give a reason as to why you made that request so the fact that you mad a request automatically makes that aspect of point 3 right. Doesn't matter why you did it, it did happen and you already admitted to that several times in fact.

You also blatantly and literally stated your attempt to discredit the links which is also the same as attempting to dismiss them so point 3 is right there.

You also failed to comply with my request, regardless as to why, so 3 is right there as well.

This makes point 3 100% right.

 

#3 is based around what i asked about Kyne.

#2 I don't have to present other lore to discredit that's not how that works.

#4 i didn't ask for evidence refer to #3

-Not relevant.

-Actually that is how effective discrediting works otherwise you're not actually discrediting anything, which according to you, you aren't doing anyway because you're not saying it is wrong :/

-You did make a request, that is what 3 stated, what you admitted, and what you explained.

 

Your 2nd mistake was this

You assumed this was a debate of Right or wrong. no where had anyone even implied this was about what is right or wrong.

Actually, I was responding to Anska who definitely said this turned into being about right and wrong, so you assumed wrong about my assumptions. LOL, sorry, that was just hilarious.

 

no where had anyone even implied this was about what is right or wrong. I did not say previously 9000 was wrong about anything.

You attempted to discredit them which is the same as trying to claim they are wrong and false. If you aren't saying they are wrong, you can't even attempt to discredit them. I think, you are using the wrong word my friend for what you mean and this has made you stray from what your intentions might have been.

 

Now your third and final mistake is assuming that i have to prove anything to YOU.

Actually, this is a poor assumption on your part. I just stated the fact that an attempt to discredit without supporting elements of your own would make such an attempt fruitless. It isn't about proving anything to me, it is just a fact. A truth.

With that argument having no or less support, it is weaker. Has nothing to do with me. Look at what I said initially, I was trying to get the argument back even again or resign that there isn't enough to fight the lore presented.

You took it to mean prove to me but I didn't make that up. Things that are supported are often stronger than things that are not. It's like a physical, spiritual, and essential law of the universe.

 

The defendants don't have to prove he's not guilty to get the verdict they just have to show that the prosecutions side isn't credible enough to be accepted as true. That doesn't make what the prosecution is saying any less true or more so though.

Interesting point but the difference is that in court, the defendant is automatically assumed not guilty which is like saying that the assumption is they are right until it is proven otherwise. That is why the prosecution has to present a strong case because they are at a disadvantage. Failure to be able to do so means that their argument was weaker than the defense which is what I am saying about your argument.

 

 

After looking at this, I think that you mean to say that you just wanted to present an alternative point of view that is different. That is not discrediting AND that would be something that wouldn't require proof of any kind to stand. That I can understand, that would make sense and that, again, would require no proof at all.

But it just seems like you are NOT trying to discredit him, but instead present an alternate theory.

If you can't take that olive branch, then you're on your own spades in regards to this part of our discussion. I won't be responding to this aspect anymore as things are pretty clear at this point regardless as to anything else we say. We have said all that we could say on this and we are becoming tediously repetitive.

So if you have more to say on this, I promise to let you have the final word on it. Good show and I thank you for the debate.

--------------

-----------------------

 

Well back on topic then :tongue:

 

Do you think ulfric really wants the best for skyrim? or just the best for himself?

Meaning do you think he even cared about Nord beliefs or even Talos that he just wanted power and what better way to motivate an army then through their beliefs.

 

I think like most people, Ulfric is both a good guy and a bad guy so to speak and thus his actions reflect both a pension for good and evil.

 

So I do believe he genuinely cares about the issues he claims to, but also that he is ambitious and that his intentions are not entirely noble.

 

Now most of my characters don't like him and thus do not side with him as they only really see his ambitious side, but sometimes I've sided with him.

[MidbossVyers]

Since when is ambition evil? Surely, you aren't poisoned by those modern superhero stories where simply wanting domination makes one evil?

[TheObstinateNoviceSmith]

Okay, it isn't something that in/by itself is generous, noble, and is more of a trait of selfishness which isn't heroic.

 

But yeah, I do find wanting domination to be a trait of evil rather than good.

[rattlemebones]

Okay, it isn't something that in/by itself is generous, noble, and is more of a trait of selfishness which isn't heroic.

 

But yeah, I do find wanting domination to be a trait of evil rather than good.

So if I see a nation of subjugated people, is it then wrong to conquer and liberate those people?