Talk:Weepers/@comment-149.159.125.109-20121012163318/@comment-75.37.3.130-20130222012926

"I'm going to stop you right there, because in my mind, you've already lost the argument."

You have no power to stop me. Please tell me whoever told you your mind slash OPINION has an evidenciary value work a flying fork and tell them you want your money back, because an opinion is an opinion is an opinion. It carries no inherent logical or evidenciary value, no matter whether it is mine or yours. What matters is the proofs upon which it is based and the arguments that support it. That is what determines the worth of an argument; if you cannot realize that you have already lost the argument in fact and not just in my mind.

"The developers themselves have said that it is not a system of morality, but because you think it is, they're wrong? That's literally just brushing aside evidence that goes against your point. "

I feel like the young Greek philosopher who was mocked by his peers for asking why people didn't stop circle-jerking around and just count the number of teeth in a horse's mouth. What matters is not that I think so, it is WHY I think so, and the evidence and facts I can use to present the case, which I have recounted above and elsewhere, and which I recounted in brief in the reply you're responding to.

I am well aware what the developers said. It's just that I do not believe what the Developers say in a news release well before the finalization of the game outweighs the facts that actually are in the game. Are you suddenly going to argue that we should accept claims from a developer that this or that game is "Revolutionary" or "Epic" and treat them as given facts just because they were said?

Of course not. So there is no reason anything the Developers say should outweigh proven evidence in the game.

"Because the guards are part of the problem for civilians, and being attacked is part of their line of work. Most of them are criminals who are said--and seen--to regularly harass the citizenry. Killing them does increase chaos because, yes, they do keep the order, but they also cause chaos in a way that citizens don't. W hich is going to scare John Q. Public more: someone who goes around attacking criminalistic guards, or someone who goes around killing sick people? Guards being attacked is a sign of trouble--innocent people being murdered in the streets is a sign of the end times. "

Illogical on the face of it, and contrary to a lot of the evidence we see in game.

The guards aren't just acting as agents of terror, they're literally the only thing keepiing the quarentine, which is the only thing keeping Dunwall inhabited by humans. They aren't just keeping "Order" in some abstract sense, they are literally the first and last line of defense against apocalypse like we see in the High Chaos ending.

Likewise, the Weepers aren't just come down with a bad case of the common cold; they're avatards of said apocalypse, even if they aren't the main ones (which would be the rats).

Also, have you even seen how John Q Public reacts to the killing of guards versus the Killing of Weepers in game? Go on, check it out. I'll wait. Hell, kill some of Slackjaw's men and then see the difference with the reaction to when a Weeper dies. Also, see how John Q Public and especially John Q Aristocrat react to the Plague as a whole versus you cutting up guards, and the difference isn't even remotely close. The former is vastly more feared and hated than the latter, in large part because in most cases they don't know any better about the Weepers.

For all your claims about me ignoring evidence that doesn't support my position, you are remarkably guilty of doing so yourself. In fact, the only sort of person who could write something like this is a pampered, historically illiterate individual who has no idea what the plague was or what it was like to the people that actually had to suffer through it. I know this because you complain about the (admittedly accurate) criminality and monstrosity of the guards while diminishing the Weeper threat to just bieng "sick people."

Which completely ignores the fact that to just about all of humanity, corrupt guards and injustice were a fact of daily life, the Plague was the annihilation of daily life both in yourself and in your small hamlet, but in the entire region you were in. People absolutely did not view oppression as the greater of two evils when up against something that would kill more people than any human tyrant has (and for a longer part of time). That's why the Empress's stance is so radical, and why we see in the game that even the normal John Q Public of Dunwall have acquisted to a regime in which Weepers are just one of many groups that are murdered. Because the Plague has already killed half of Dunwall; the Lord Regent can barely keep up with that if he tried (and even if we allow overlap given his intention).

That is reality, not the fantasy of some pampered person with a keyboard and internet time to spare (*knocks on wood from recognizing the self-reference*) who thinks the Plague is something other than it is. Please do some actual, objective research.

"No. I am not convinced of your argument here. Therefore, the rest falls apart because you have failed to prove this critical component.

ETA, because why not:

"

I am sorry, but you have zero credibility here. You've all but revealed some ludicrously skewed perspectives of the situation by even *thinking* that the local tyrant is anywhere near the same level (much less an even bigger concern) than a plague that has tallied over 50% and climbing.

What you are or are not convinced of is something that has zero relevance to the actual issue or validity.

"Miriam-Webster defines murder as such:

 1. to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice.

2.  to slaughter wantonly.

Both of those definitions are equally "correct." "

Miriam-Webster is not the law. It is not even anywhere approaching the law. It has nothing to do with the maintenence or disintregation of order, or the system that attempts to do the former like a Legal System is. You cannot convict anybody or run a country based on the definition of Miriam Webster, and nobody has ever tried.

Take a look at the actual, Legal definition of murder. Especially those held in the Medieval era to the 18th century, and see what their policy for plague victims is. In case you haven't noticed, by and large it isn't recognized as murder except under the narrowest of circumstances.

Your Citation Is Worthless And Childish.

"Why? This is a fictional world. The Empress sure seemed to think it constituted murder, and that is actual evidence from this fictional world"

This is a ficitonal world based on the real world, mate. The fact that the Empress would believe it constituted murder is amazing and remarkably progressive (even if not exactly the most pragmatic) even for something based on Age of Englightenment-Victorian SteamMagiPunk (which was lightyears ahead of the Medieval era, the Renaissance, or China).

And even that proves more or less unsustainable, because when the Lord Regent obtains power and promptly throws that enlightened policy out the window, nobody really gives a damn if they aren't actively happy about it. That is what the evidence from the game says.

"And that...is bad. Virtually everything the Regency Government does increases chaos. "

Yes, it is bad, amongst other things (and it's not hard to say that justifying gratuitous violence against the Weepers helped justify gratuitous violence against everything and anyone else). But your argument is false.

Virtually everything the Regency Government does increases chaos. Really? Including:

1. Maintaining the (horribly brutal and oppressive) quarentine (admittedly largely of the rich districts) that is the only reason the rat plague doesn't obliterate everything else?

2. Commissioning Sokolov to find a cure to the plague? Yes, Slavic Shiro Ishii does it through horribly unehthical means, but that IS still a key factor behind why the Low Chaos ending is as happy as it is and why the Weepers *can even be cured in the first place.*

I could go on, but those seem to be enough. Yes, the Regency government is a totalitarian, murderous, unjust nightmare that does not deserve to exist. Yes, it does help sow the seeds of chaos. But that doesn't give you or anyone else the right to wipe it all away with one hand and ignore the clear evidence from the game that shows how said policies are key to the Low Chaos ending.

"They make a huge point about how things were bad before the Empress died, but they absolutely went to shit afterwards. Lydia and Cecelia both make comments to that affect, as well as many NPCs Corvo encounters."

Agreed, and not disputed. However, actions speak louder than words, and many of the other NPCs speak plenty. Lydia and Cecelia are hardly unbiased witnesses or John Q Public; they're active conspirators in the resistance to the Regency Regime. Many of the other NPCs on the street- the more representative John Q Public- are passive and accepting of it.

They may hate the Lord Regent, but they aren't exactly rising up. For one reason or another, they accept his misadventures such as the mass slaughter of Weepers and the draconian and oppressive quarentine. Now THAT says a lot about how John Q Public views the world, a lot more than the Empress and what she does or does not say (even if she was beloved).

"Where did you see characters saying they were okay with this? They basically have no say in how the Regency government behaves, so there isn't really any implied consent going on there. They are just more interested in staying alive themselves, by and large."

You're sort of missing the point.

For one, ask around the bloody game. You can get the cue more or less fine. They don't outright come out and say "SEIG HEIL THE LORD REGENT" (ok, some of them do, especially if you're using The Heart), but you can get the gist.

And there is implied consent by the fact that the Regency Regime actually survived until the conspiracy, and is able to keep effective Order (of their own sickening brand) in the uninfected areas. If the regime were so odious and its' actions so inexcusable and outside the norm, it would not exist. There would be no need to hatch a small conspiracy to overthrow the system, because there would have already been resistance and chaos in the uninfected areas.

There isn't, unless you plunge the situation into even worse straits.

So in effect, the implied consent *is* in the fact that they are more concerned about staying alive; because that concern is what excuses abominations like the butchery of Weepers, anybody infected with the Plague, and dissidents. Sad, but that is how Totalitarian (and even authoritarian) systems in a state of seige function. Just take a look at how the rural population of the Soviet Union (who hated Stalin with a passion) acted when the Reich invaded with its' agenda of completely cutting and burning across the country.

"Yes, we all agree that overall, Weepers are a nonfactor compared to the rats in terms of plague spread and how it happens[...] Therefore, killing them and burning the bodies would hardly be a great tragedy to most of them (especially not the nobility and what have you) and would help SERIOUSLY diminish the plague's spread."

"Contradiction."

Only if one has no concept of or understanding of how disease control works. Or even simple sentence structure. Obviously, the number of infected humans around must be a ludicrously small percentage of the number of rat carriers around for a number of reasons that I am too lazy to list off just now (difference in breeding, the fact that Weepers are easier for the regime to kill off than rats, etc).

BUT just because Weepers are dwarfed to the point of irrelevance by rats in terms of NUMBERS and are the minor player in terms of overall effect doesn't mean they are meaningless overall, Yes, there are probably more situations where a rat can get into a place a Weeper cannot, but rats are also cowardly as heck and don't aggressively go after people unless they're in large numbers, while Weepers do anyway (some of them literally, others because they probably are heavily desperate and/or not thinking clearly). On top of that, rats can't exactly swing doors open, even if accidentally.

Rats >>>>>> Weepers in terms of numbers, Rats >>> Weepers in terms of overall effect.

But that doesn't mean that culling Weepers wouldn't help stop the spread of the Plague significantly.

"Yes. Yes it does. Because the Lord Regent's policies adamantly increased chaos in Dunwall. That is a huge point in the story."

As much as I hate to defend GenocidalIncompetentFantasyBismarck, I've been through this before.

This is borderline Guilt by Association. Yes, the Lord Regent was Scum. Yes, he was a monster. Yes, most of what he did helped sow the seeds of the Chaos in Dunwall, and helped fan it. But does that mean that EVERYTHING he did-every one of his policies- only spread Chaos?

No, it does not. Like I said, he was the guy who continued to enforce the Quarentine that allowed Dunwall to continue to exist. He's the guy who commissioned Sokolov to find a cure for the Rat Plague (albiet not for good reasons or in a benign manner) which was the root cause of *the Plague and the Weepers being Cured AT ALL.*

You're using cartoon logic. "The Lord Regent is Evil" (True), "The Lord Regent Did X, Y, and Z", (True), "X and Y helped contribute to the Chaos in the City" (True) "Therefore Z absolutelymustalways Also contribute to Chaos in the City." Which is needless to say, False.

Face it: the man is evil, but more than a bit of what he did helped set the stage for the Low Chaos/Good ending in a very direct way precisely through limiting the spread of the plague and setting it up so eventually, it would be cured.

That doesn't mean he gets excused (again, he and The Outsider are literally the ultimate cause behind these problems), but it is something you should chew on a while.

"Again, there's no implied consent here. You're assuming they're okay with it, because most people are more interested in saving their own skin. "

Unfortunately, you are giving them way too much credit, and divorcing implied consent from "more interested in saving their own skins." In authoritarian societies (especially ones before the advent of Non-Authoritarian societies, which is incredibly recent), unless you are actively working against the government in some way (either through conspiracy, advocacy, or torches and pitchforks) you are giving implied consent to what it is doing, and its' continued existance.

Toxic? Absolutely. But then again, there's a reason why dealing with these things is so difficult, even after the fact.

"Again, no. I am pretty sure if I saw people being murdered in the streets--even the sick and dangerous--I would not feel safer by any stretch."

You are a pampered, rich (by global and historical standards), secure person with a ready internet connection, free time to do this, and a modern Western world with modern Western mores to enjoy in your life in the Pacific Northwest.

As am I, for that matter (excepting deleting the "Northwest" part of that previous sentence). But I at least know history. You've not only never had to deal with a world where infectious disease threatens to wipe out the majority of the people in your geographic region, you've clearly never studied or have any idea what it would be like to live in such a world. Where corrupt and authoritarian or even totalitarian rule is absolutely *secondary* to an enemy that can kill more than the local warlord/king/emperor almost ever can, against an enemy who cannot easily be fought, and where treatment is at best a ways away.

Not everyone is as lucky as we are, even today. That's why you should crack open the legal books and see the actual definition of murder as it was in the 10-18th centuries.

"Return of the ETA: A friend of my just made an excellent point in regard to this discussion, which I feel is worth sharing. This plague is tearing through the city at an incredible rate. Everyone still alive? Knows that if things go wrong, they could be a weeper tomorrow. So how are they going to feel, knowing that not only could they come down with the plague, but there is someone lying in wait to murder them if they do?"

Your friend makes better points than you have, but that is still missing something.

How do you think the people of Caffa or London or China felt knowing this? How do you think they felt knowing that not only could they become a carrier tomorrow and that there is someone lying i wait to murder them if they are, that if someone ISN'T or DOESN'T, they might bring death to an town? City? Those they loved and cared?

Welcome to Pre-Modern Life, everyone. It's unspeakably hard, and in that circumstance people react differently in any number of ways (and i think The Heart actually captures that with the Weeper dialogue). But that doesn't detract from the main point.

If you're a Weeper, you're a carrier of the plague. If you're a carrier of the plague, you are a risk to everyone and anyone who is left. You are one of the reasons why the Lord Regent is allowed to govern as he does. That is one of the lights you have to look at the situation from. Is it the only one? God no.

But you can't ignore it.