^"Asheluned also understood by what I was saying that "Individual Wardens may be as devout as anyone.""

I -also- said that. This is what I originally said:

"The wardens don't strike me as being very religious. I mean, they allow blood magic and demon summoning for crying out loud. Granted, our only interaction has been with southern wardens. At the very least, the order itself seems to be far more concerned with dealing with the blights and darkspawn than with enforcing religious rules. What individual members believe will of course vary. Who knows, maybe the FW is fairly devout and would object to the DR on purely religious grounds?"

Which is no different from what Asheluned said. It seems that your issue is less about what was written on this topic than who the writer is.

"It is personal by me saying "your stuff?""

Of course! Unless you meant "your" in a generic sense. Which couldn't have, as that would make no sense.

"Feel free to make your accusations, every point and reasoning I've made is based on DA lore. If I'm wrong, I open to discussing it."

That's really all beside the point. Delving into this area further will summon the wrath of the mods down upon us. Let it go.

"Agree to disagree."

Really? Seriously? Literally every person ever is a hypocrite? You realize in order to completely destroy that argument all I have to do is find one non-hypocrite that existed at some point between now and the dawn of history?

"Unless the Darkspawn are the Maker's children. It isn't breaking religious law for Grey Wardens to use whatever magic against darkspawn."

The issue is not about using blood magic against darkspawn, it's about using blood magic at all. In order to cast a blood magic spell, someone must shed blood. According to the southern Chantry, that act constitutes "using magic against his children".

""Your stuff.""

So it's "my stuff" to just point out that religion and practicality are opposites? Um, no. That's just a simple truth. It's "your stuff" that is causing you to classify this truth as "my stuff".

"It isn't my law, brother."

That's irrelevant. It's Bioware's world, they get the final say. Even if what they say makes no sense, it is always true (unless said truth is later retconed by them). You can chose to ignore that if you wish. But that simply means that you would be wrong.

"Which is no different from what Asheluned said. It seems that your issue is less about what was written on this topic than who the writer is."

Eh, that got lost in all of this nonsense, my bad.

"Really? Seriously? Literally every person ever is a hypocrite? You realize in order to completely destroy that argument all I have to do is find one non-hypocrite that existed at some point between now and the dawn of history?"

Yes. Seriously. Me being a Christian, *drink,* the obvious exception would be Jesus. If you got someone else in mind that has never been non-hypocritical, lets hear it.

"The issue is not about using blood magic against darkspawn, it's about using blood magic at all. In order to cast a blood magic spell, someone must shed blood. According to the southern Chantry, that act constitutes "using magic against his children".

Agree to disagree.

The Grey Wardens and the Chantry have been around each other for what, nearly a thousands years. There is no record ever of the Chantry either telling the Grey Wardens not to use blood magic, the Chantry compelling the GW's to surrender their blood mages to the Chantry. Nor has there been any arrests or guilty verdicts to Grey Wardens from the Chantry for GW's using blood magic against darkspawn/blight.

"So it's "my stuff" to just point out that religion and practicality are opposites?"

That isn't what you said.

"The wardens are extremely practical. Religion is anything but."

I reject the very notion that people who are religious can't act or think practically.

"That's irrelevant. It's Bioware's world, they get the final say. Even if what they say makes no sense, it is always true (unless said truth is later retconed by them). You can chose to ignore that if you wish. But that simply means that you would be wrong."

Okay, so I'm "wrong." I'd rather be "wrong" then accept and promote their their "logic."

^"Yes. Seriously. Me being a Christian, *drink,* the obvious exception would be Jesus. If you got someone else in mind that has never been non-hypocritical, lets hear it."

Never been non-hypocritical would mean hypocritical. I think you meant to say hypocritical. Anyway, simply being hypocritical once or twice is not the same thing as being a hypocrite. Just like how telling a lie once in a person's life doesn't make them a liar.

"The Grey Wardens and the Chantry have been around each other for what, nearly a thousands years. There is no record ever of the Chantry either telling the Grey Wardens not to use blood magic, the Chantry compelling the GW's to surrender their blood mages to the Chantry. Nor has there been any arrests or guilty verdicts to Grey Wardens from the Chantry for GW's using blood magic against darkspawn/blight."

The wardens accept convicts in their ranks. Perhaps the Chantry simply views being a warden as a suitable punishment for blood mages. After all, it is a death sentence, albeit one that can be delayed for a couple decades.

"I reject the very notion that people who are religious can't act or think practically."

That's not what I said. I said "the wardens", as in the organization itself, not literally every single warden.

"Never been non-hypocritical would mean hypocritical. I think you meant to say hypocritical. Anyway, simply being hypocritical once or twice is not the same thing as being a hypocrite. Just like how telling a lie once in a person's life doesn't make them a liar."

Thanks for clearing up my grammatical error. I could use an editor. The application of the English language isn't my strong point. If a person kills another person. Then they are not a killer then using that logic. If you don't agree with that, fair enough. How many lies does a person have to tell before they can be branded as a liar? How many times can a person act hypocritically before they can be branded as a hypocrite?

"The wardens accept convicts in their ranks. Perhaps the Chantry simply views being a warden as a suitable punishment for blood mages. After all, it is a death sentence, albeit one that can be delayed for a couple decades."

Fair enough, perhaps they do.

"That's not what I said. I said "the wardens", as in the organization itself, not literally every single warden."

Fair enough.

^"If a person kills another person. Then they are not a killer then using that logic."

That's not really a fair comparison. Telling a single lie or being hypocritical once isn't nearly as big a deal as killing someone. Plus most people do not kill other people, whereas basically everyone will lie at some point in their life and/or be hypocritical.

"How many lies does a person have to tell before they can be branded as a liar? How many times can a person act hypocritically before they can be branded as a hypocrite?"

Well, it's not like there's a formula for it. And it depends on how bad the lie and/or hypocrisy is. The problem I have with claiming that everyone is a hypocrite (or a liar) is that it renders the term meaningless. If someone is hypocritical about something very important, that's a big deal. As is someone being habitually dishonest - or being dishonest about something important.

"That's not really a fair comparison. Telling a single lie or being hypocritical once isn't nearly as big a deal as killing someone. Plus most people do not kill other people, whereas basically everyone will lie at some point in their life and/or be hypocritical."

Most people don't kill other people is because the punishment is more severe than a person lying or being hypocritical. If you were to flip the punishments for those. People would do a lot more killin' and a lot less lying and being hypocritical.

Hypothetically, Person A tells a few minor lies, they were hypocritical a couple of times but they spent nearly all of their life being selfless and helping others who were in need. One day, for whatever the reason, (automobile accident, manslaughter, murder, whatever) They ended up unjustly killing a person. Person B tells many lies, of all sorts of varying degrees, is often hypocritical and spends nearly all of their life only doing things that solely benefited them. They never killed anyone. Who is the "better" person?

I appreciate that you answered the question honestly, an hour or so after I posted my last reply. I realized, that newborns and people born with mental illnesses probably have never been hypocritical. I amend what I initially said.

"Well, it's not like there's a formula for it. And it depends on how bad the lie and/or hypocrisy is."

Therein lies the problem. There is no way to accurately quantify it. Most everyone would have a different opinion on who is a liar/hypocrite and who isn't a liar or hypocrite. If a person tells one "big" lie versus a person that tells a 5, 10, 50, 100 little lies. Who is the bigger liar? If a person is hypocritical on an important subject while another person is hypocritical on numerous unimportant subjects, who is the bigger hypocrite? Is there a point system to where a person can tell so many lies and be hypocritical that they won't "count" until it meets some "determined" threshold?

"The problem I have with claiming that everyone is a hypocrite (or a liar) is that it renders the term meaningless. If someone is hypocritical about something very important, that's a big deal. As is someone being habitually dishonest - or being dishonest about something important."

One should be very careful on calling a person or persons a liar(s) and/or hypocrite(s). You can "mean" the same thing by saying "Person A, you are being hypocritical about (whatever) or Person A, you are lying about (whatever.) Telling a person or persons that they are a liar or a hypocrite. You aren't recognizing anything else about that person. It dehumanizes them.

^"Most people don't kill other people is because the punishment is more severe than a person lying or being hypocritical. If you were to flip the punishments for those. People would do a lot more killin' and a lot less lying and being hypocritical."

Yes, and no. Yes, increasing the punishment for lies and hypocrisy would result in less lies and hypocrisy. And yes, decreasing the punishment for killing might result in slightly more killing. But only very slightly. Most people do not murderer people because they don't want to go to jail. Most people do not murderer people because they are simply psychologically incapable of it.

Note that I said murder, not kill. Accidentally killing someone, or doing so in self-defense or defense of someone else, or killing someone in a fit of rage, is different. But those kinds of things don't happen intentionally, so they would not be affected by changes in how killing is punished.

It's also physically much more difficult to kill someone than to lie or be a hypocrite. People tend to fight back when being killed.

"Hypothetically, Person A tells a few minor lies, they were hypocritical a couple of times but they spent nearly all of their life being selfless and helping others who were in need. One day, for whatever the reason, (automobile accident, manslaughter, murder, whatever) They ended up unjustly killing a person. Person B tells many lies, of all sorts of varying degrees, is often hypocritical and spends nearly all of their life only doing things that solely benefited them. They never killed anyone. Who is the "better" person?"

That depends on if person A murdered someone or if it was an accident.

"Therein lies the problem. There is no way to accurately quantify it."

There's no way to easily quantify it. That doesn't mean that it's impossible to do so.

"If a person tells one "big" lie versus a person that tells a 5, 10, 50, 100 little lies. Who is the bigger liar?"

Are these lies spread out over the course of a lifetime, or within a single day? But generally speaking, a big lie is much worse than a bunch of little lies.

"If a person is hypocritical on an important subject while another person is hypocritical on numerous unimportant subjects, who is the bigger hypocrite?"

Obviously the former.

"Is there a point system to where a person can tell so many lies and be hypocritical that they won't "count" until it meets some "determined" threshold?"

That would be kinda silly. It has to do with how a person's lies/hypocrisy affects other people. If the negative impact on others is negligible, then it's not a big deal. If the negative impact is severe, then it is.

"One should be very careful on calling a person or persons a liar(s) and/or hypocrite(s). You can "mean" the same thing by saying "Person A, you are being hypocritical about (whatever) or Person A, you are lying about (whatever.) Telling a person or persons that they are a liar or a hypocrite. You aren't recognizing anything else about that person. It dehumanizes them."

Certain people can do with some dehumanization. If someone lies or is hypocritical in a way that significantly harms a person or person, they deserve the title of liar or hypocrite.

"Most people do not murderer people because they don't want to go to jail. Most people do not murderer people because they are simply psychologically incapable of it."

Agree to disagree. Humanity needs boundaries and those boundaries need to be enforced when humans cross them. Otherwise, there is no limit to our depravity.

"Note that I said murder, not kill. Accidentally killing someone, or doing so in self-defense or defense of someone else, or killing someone in a fit of rage, is different. But those kinds of things don't happen intentionally, so they would not be affected by changes in how killing is punished."

Depends on the self-defense laws in a particular state. Accidentally killing someone or killing someone in a fit of rage. That is manslaughter. Which is a punishable crime.

"It's also physically much more difficult to kill someone than to lie or be a hypocrite."

That is a good point. Although, I believe that if there was no punishment for people murdering each other, the effort it takes to murder a person wouldn't be much of a factor of hindering a person from committing murder.

"There's no way to easily quantify it. That doesn't mean that it's impossible to do so."

It seems fairly impossible.

"Are these lies spread out over the course of a lifetime, or within a single day? But generally speaking, a big lie is much worse than a bunch of little lies."

Whatever the period of time, it would be the same for both. There is an argument for both. The one big lie is worse because it could be more damaging and the numerous lies could be worse because that shows a repeated behavior while the one big lie might have just been a mistake or an outlier.

"That would be kinda silly. It has to do with how a person's lies/hypocrisy affects other people. If the negative impact on others is negligible, then it's not a big deal. If the negative impact is severe, then it is."

So a person can lie and be hypocritical all the want, as long as they don't hurt other people in a severe way?

"Certain people can do with some dehumanization. "If someone lies or is hypocritical in a way that significantly harms a person or person, they deserve the title of liar or hypocrite."

Agree to disagree.

^"Humanity needs boundaries and those boundaries need to be enforced when humans cross them. Otherwise, there is no limit to our depravity."

For most crimes, I agree. But murder is something else. Human psychology prevents most people from being able to commit cold blooded, premeditated murder.

Do you honestly believe that there would be a significant increase in the number of premeditated murders if the legal consequences for that weren't as harsh? That's an awfully pessimistic view of humanity you have.

"Depends on the self-defense laws in a particular state."

True, I forgot about the "stand your ground" laws that exist in some states. To clarify, I meant legitimate self-defense (or defense of someone else), not a person abusing a self-defense law to murder someone.

"Accidentally killing someone or killing someone in a fit of rage. That is manslaughter. Which is a punishable crime."

Killing in a fit of rage is manslaughter or second degree murder, depending on how harsh the particular prosecutor decides to be. But accidentally killing someone isn't necessarily manslaughter. If it's due to negligence, it might be manslaughter or some form of homicide. But if it's truly an accident, that isn't even illegal.

Anyway, that's all beside the point. My point is, since all of those things are unintentional, their frequency would not be affected by legal repercussions.

"Although, I believe that if there was no punishment for people murdering each other, the effort it takes to murder a person wouldn't be much of a factor of hindering a person from committing murder."

Perhaps, but at least some potential murderers will fail, and possibly wind up dead because of the attempt. Whereas if someone wants to lie or be a hypocrite, they are very likely to succeed.

"Whatever the period of time, it would be the same for both."

The period of time matters for a bunch of little lies a lot more than it does for one big lie. Lying 100 times in a day is practically pathological. Lying 100 times in a lifetime is so infrequent it's actually fairly impressive. That's less an two lies a year, on average. If someone can pull that off, they're an extremely honest person.

"So a person can lie and be hypocritical all the want, as long as they don't hurt other people in a severe way?"

Lying constantly shows that a person cannot be trusted, even if those lies aren't over anything important. So for lying no, even little lies matter. They just might not matter all that much.

If a personal is hypocritical over things that don't matter, and no one is hurt, who cares? People are not machines. Excepting consistency out of human beings is a sure fire way to guarantee you'll be disappointed.

"For most crimes, I agree. But murder is something else. Human psychology prevents most people from being able to commit cold blooded, premeditated murder."

I somewhat agree with that. Though I think that most people don't commit murder is due to the fear of punishment for doing so.

"Do you honestly believe that there would be a significant increase in the number of premeditated murders if the legal consequences for that weren't as harsh? That's an awfully pessimistic view of humanity you have."

We are both Americans. How did slavery end in our country? Because the winning side put laws in place that punishes people who use slavery. Lynch mobs aren't a thing anymore either. In the frontier, whites killed other whites, whites killed Indigenous people, Indigenous people killed whites and Indigenous people killed other Indigenous people. Those numbers have dramatically decreased because our country put laws in place to stop that and enforce the law if people broke them. Why don't people from Scandinavia raid other European countries? Because those Scandinavian countries wouldn't condone their people for raiding other nations the exception being if those countries were at war with each other.

We go off-topic all the time. What happens when we do? We are told to stop and that is it. We don't get banned or suspended. If it was a guarantee that one of those two things would happen every time we went off-topic. We probably wouldn't go off-Topic would we?

"True, I forgot about the "stand your ground" laws that exist in some states. To clarify, I meant legitimate self-defense (or defense of someone else), not a person abusing a self-defense law to murder someone."

If murder wasn't a punishable crime. Killings by self defense would increase, because I think more people would be attempting to murder people.

"But accidentally killing someone isn't necessarily manslaughter. If it's due to negligence, it might be manslaughter or some form of homicide. But if it's truly an accident, that isn't even illegal."

Maybe? If a person causes an automobile accident and kills someone. They will definitely be charged with vehicular manslaughter. One cannot cause an accident though without being negligent to some degree.

"Perhaps, but at least some potential murderers will fail, and possibly wind up dead because of the attempt."

If murder was legal. The murders that would occur would most likely come from a larger group of people murdering a single person or group less in numbers than them. Humans don't like to fail or be hurt.

"The period of time matters for a bunch of little lies a lot more than it does for one big lie. Lying 100 times in a day is practically pathological. Lying 100 times in a lifetime is so infrequent it's actually fairly impressive. That's less an two lies a year, on average. If someone can pull that off, they're an extremely honest person."

Fair enough

"Lying constantly shows that a person cannot be trusted, even if those lies aren't over anything important. So for lying no, even little lies matter. They just might not matter all that much."

Fair enough.

"If a personal is hypocritical over things that don't matter, and no one is hurt,"

Indeed.

"who cares? People are not machines. Excepting consistency out of human beings is a sure fire way to guarantee you'll be disappointed."

Agreed.