Imperials or Stormcloaks, what one?

[Moris]

Yes, as in communication between the two.

Whether it was willing or not, it states Ulfric proved his worth as an asset and was of use to the Thalmor. And seeing as how contact was established after the war, when Ulfric had escaped, I hardly see how he could unwillingly communicate with them unless he was blackmailed. Likely over the fact he was led to believe the information he gave up was crucial in the taking of the Imperial City.


I'm sure he knew who he was talking to seeing as how he broke off communication himself following the Markarth Incident.

There's no reason to believe that he knew who they were. You simply cannot demonstrate that.

 

[Moris]

Military governors are temporary rulers of territories in times of war. Temporary being the operative word.



Taxes or Imperial jurisdiction do not apply to Windhelm, Ulfric has forfeited any representation he has within the Empire and Windhelm is more or less a rogue state.

Rogue states don't have Civil Wars with other states. If you have a Civil War it's because you have a faction who is fighting for independence but has not yet achieved it.

 

[Mr.Self Destruct]

There's no reason to believe that he knew who they were. You simply cannot demonstrate that.

You're appealing to ignorance right now, given how Ulfric broke off contact himself and how he proved to be an asset all point towards the fact that Ulfric knew who he was in contact with. Unless you can supply me with any evidence that challenges this or contradicts this I'm not going to hold "You can't prove it enough" in high regard.

 

[Mr.Self Destruct]

Rogue states don't have Civil Wars with other states.

Windhelm does not comply with the White Gold Concordant and it's terms and thus renounces it's Imperial representation.

If you have a Civil War it's because you have a faction who is fighting for independence but has not yet achieved it.

The definition of a Civil War is one between citizens of the same country within the same borders. Windhelm may have no Imperial representation yet it's still located within Skyrim's borders and is thus still part of the province.

 

[Moris]

You're appealing to ignorance right now, given how Ulfric broke off contact himself and how he proved to be an asset all point towards the fact that Ulfric knew who he was in contact with. Unless you can supply me with any evidence that challenges this or contradicts this I'm not going to hold "You can't prove it enough" in high regard.

No. You are appealing to ignorance.

I am saying that you cannot demonstrate a thing. That the thing may be true, or it may not be true. But you cannot prove it one way or the other.

You are stating something must be true because its opposite cannot be proved. That's what appealing to ignorance is.

And you accuse us of bringing up arguments that have already been refuted?

Imperials or Stormcloaks, what one? | Page 276 | Skyrim Forums

 

[Moris]

Windhelm does not comply with the White Gold Concordant and it's terms and thus renounces it's Imperial representation.


The definition of a Civil War is one between citizens of the same country within the same borders. Windhelm may have no Imperial representation yet it's still located within Skyrim's borders and is thus still part of the province.

That's what I said. Windhelm is part of Skyrim. Not a rogue state. But still subject to Imperial rule. You were the one who said it was a rogue state outside of Imperial jurisdiction.

 

[Mr.Self Destruct]

No. You are appealing to ignorance.

Falling back on "you can't prove it" without bringing any solid evidence is appealing to ignorance.

I am saying that you cannot demonstrate a thing. That the thing may be true, or it may not be true. But you cannot prove it one way or the other.

Ulfric willingly broke off contact and unless he knew whom he was speaking to for the months between the end of the war and the Markarth Incident he'd have no reason to cut off direct contact.

You are stating something must be true because it's opposite cannot be proved. That's what appealing to ignorance is.

I'm stating all the facts point towards something, yet you persist in arguing against it with no contradicting evidence whatsoever.

Imperials or Stormcloaks, what one? | Page 276 | Skyrim Forums

There was not enough information to land on a single conclusion with Igmund's orders, yet here there is.

 

[Mr.Self Destruct]

But still subject to Imperial rule.

If it was subject to Imperial rule it'd have to comply with it's laws and creeds when it in fact doesn't.

You were the one who said it was a rogue state outside of Imperial jurisdiction.

Because it is.

 

[Moris]

If it was subject to Imperial rule it'd have to comply with it's laws and creeds when it in fact doesn't.

Because it is.

If it doesn't have to comply with Imperial laws, then when Ulfric is in Windhelm, he's not a traitor. He's an enemy. But he can't be accused of treason for assassinating the head of a different nation.

Moreover, if this is the case, what business does the Empire have invading an independent and foreign power. Are you saying they are engaging in a war of aggression and colonial occupation when they attack Windhelm?

 

[Ozan]

Seeing as how Tulius is but a general and really has very little political power over his respected faction I consider comparing him to Ulfric unfair. Both Ulfric and the Emperor are the leaders of their factions both politically and militarily, and that is why I compare Ulfric and the Emperor rather than Ulfric and Tulius.

((Final post for the day on my part))

We do not compare politicians and generals, but rivals. Ozan feels comfortable with Ulfric's attempt to save lives. Yet, you brought it up when Tullius mentioned surrender. You compared first, no Emperor being mentioned.

Then Windhelm was called a rogue state after one claimed that he compared Ulfric to the Emperor. Consistency is lacked, comparisons are questionable.

What you seek is not being mentioned. Khajiit could compare Ulfric to the Emperor, as you have, but Ozan wishes not to disrespect the man as he is quite busy freeing his nation from those who seek nothing but demand everything.

 

[Mr.Self Destruct]

If it doesn't have to comply with Imperial laws, then when Ulfric is in Windhelm, he's not a traitor. He's an enemy. But he can't be accused of treason for assassinating the head of a different nation.

He was accused of treason because he was an Imperial official and ruler until he murdered another and broke off Windhelm from Imperial jurisdiction and laws. If a traitor flees to another country, he is still a traitor and guilty of treason.

Moreover, if this is the case, what business does the Empire have invading an independent and foreign power. Are you saying they are engaging in a war of aggression and colonial occupation when they attack Windhelm?

I honestly don't even know what you're trying to argue here, I've merely stated the facts in that Ulfric has broken off Windhelm from Imperial jurisdiction and laws and is now a rogue state operating on it's own terms outside the Empire.

 

[Mr.Self Destruct]

We do not compare politicians and generals, but rivals. Ozan feels comfortable with Ulfric's attempt to save lives. Yet, you brought it up when Tullius mentioned surrender. You compared first, no Emperor being mentioned.

I brought it up when Ulfric mentioned surrender, actually.

Then Windhelm was called a rogue state after one claimed that he compared Ulfric to the Emperor. Consistency is lacked, comparisons are questionable.

Because it operates outside of Imperial jurisdiction and laws and is operating on it's own terms?

 

[Moris]

Falling back on "you can't prove it" without bringing any solid evidence is appealing to ignorance.

No. It's a slightly more specific fallacy than that.

Ulfric willingly broke off contact and unless he knew whom he was speaking to for the months between the end of the war and the Markarth Incident he'd have no reason to cut off direct contact.

There you are stating that he willing did this and willingly did that, when you simply cannot know what was in his mind.

I'm stating all the facts point towards something, yet you persist in arguing against it with no contradicting evidence whatsoever.

I don't need to bring contradictory evidence when you keep contradicting yourself. You are stating something as fact, but you won't show me where in the lore it exists. Please, just show me where it says that Ulfric willingly gained contact with the Thalmor or that he knew he was talking to Thalmor.

There was not enough information to land on a single conclusion with Igmund's orders, yet here there is.

The Bear of Markarth explicitly states that Ulfric engaged in certain acts, witnessed by others, and offers motivations for his actions. The Thalmor dossier simply states that agents were in contact with Ulfric and they found what he did useful to them. It doesn't say anything more than that.

In any case, you seem to be making the case that being in willing contact with the Thalmor is some kind of terrible crime.

 

[Moris]

He was accused of treason because he was an Imperial official and ruler until he murdered another and broke off Windhelm from Imperial jurisdiction and laws. If a traitor flees to another country, he is still a traitor and guilty of treason.


I honestly don't even know what you're trying to argue here, I've merely stated the facts in that Ulfric has broken off Windhelm from Imperial jurisdiction and laws and is now a rogue state operating on it's own terms outside the Empire.

If Windhelm is not part of the Empire any more, what right do they have to invade it?

I mean, I am sure Ulfric sees Windhelm as being legitimately independent -- only as soon as it is joined by all the other holds -- but the Empire most certainly does not. Otherwise they wouldn't be fighting.

 

[Mr.Self Destruct]

There you are stating that he willing did this and willingly did that, when you simply cannot know what was in his mind.

All the evidence points toward the contrary.

I don't need to bring contradictory evidence when you keep contradicting yourself. You are stating something as fact, but you won't show me where in the lore it exists.

I'm stating the evidence shown all point to the fact that he knew whom he was in contact with, he proved to be a viable asset to the Thalmor and once he was arrested by the Empire contact was severed. And seeing as how no other conflicting information has been brought forth I stand by this. I have made no definite decision, yet as I've said, given what we know, everything points to the fact Ulfric knew.

The Bear of Markarth explicitly states that Ulfric engaged in certain acts, witnessed by others, and offers motivations for his actions.

That wasn't the specific topic of the debate, it was whether or not Igmund gave Ulfric such orders which were carried out when there was no information given.

The Thalmor dossier simply states that agents were in contact with Ulfric and they found what he did useful to them. It doesn't say anything more than that.

It also states that Ulfric became uncooperative to direct contact following the Markarth Incident. If direct contact is of no hint, I don't know what is.

In any case, you seem to be making the case that being in willing contact with the Thalmor is some kind of terrible crime.

To someone who builds their reputation on the promise to destroy them it can be pretty scandalous.

 

[Mr.Self Destruct]

If Windhelm is not part of the Empire any more, what right do they have to invade it?

Because they're reclaiming their city? What right did Ulfric have to invade Markarth if it was it's independent kingdom?

I mean, I am sure Ulfric sees Windhelm as being legitimately independent -- only as soon as it is joined by all the other holds -- but the Empire most certainly does not. Otherwise they wouldn't be fighting.

As long as it does not answer to Imperial jurisdiction, it simply cannot be represented by the Empire. Who it belongs to and why is a different story.

 

[Moris]

All the evidence points toward the contrary.

No. It doesn't. Repeating your opinion over and over won't convince me either.

I'm stating the evidence shown all point to the fact that he knew whom he was in contact with, he proved to be a viable asset to the Thalmor and once he was arrested by the Empire contact was severed. And seeing as how no other conflicting information has been brought forth I stand by this. I have made no definite decision, yet as I've said, given what we know, everything points to the fact Ulfric knew.

Yes, you're stating that you have evidence to show it. But you aren't showing the evidence. The dossier does not demonstrate that Ulfric was necessarily aware of whom he was speaking to.

It also states that Ulfric became uncooperative to direct contact following the Markarth Incident. If direct contact is of no hint, I don't know what is.

Direct contact tells you nothing about Ulfric's state of mind. It merely means that there were no intermediaries.

To someone who builds their reputation on the promise to destroy them it can be pretty scandalous.

Does it matter who does the destroying? Can we just leave the Thalmor alone and live peacefully? Does the Empire not also have a stake in the destruction of the Thalmor?

 

[Moris]

Because they're reclaiming their city? What right did Ulfric have to invade Markarth if it was it's independent kingdom?

As long as it does not answer to Imperial jurisdiction, it simply cannot be represented by the Empire. Who it belongs to and why is a different story.

Markarth was never declared to be a legitimately independent kingdom.

No, who it belongs to and why IS THE WHOLE STORY.

A city or country does not get to just decide its independence. It doesn't work that way. That's the whole reason there are Civil Wars. Because one side rejects the others claim of independence.

 

[Mr.Self Destruct]

No. It doesn't. Repeating your opinion over and over won't convince me either.

Likewise.

Yes, you're stating that you have evidence to show it. But you aren't showing the evidence. The dossier does not demonstrate that Ulfric was necessarily aware of whom he was speaking to.

No, I'm stating the evidence points to it.

Direct contact tells you nothing about Ulfric's state of mind. It merely means that there were no intermediaries.

So either Ulfric was unwilling or he didn't know?

Does it matter who does the destroying? Can we just leave the Thalmor alone and live peacefully? Does the Empire not also have a stake in the destruction of the Thalmor?

...What?

 

[Moris]

So either Ulfric was unwilling or he didn't know?

*sigh* I am saying you cannot say that it is a fact that Ulfric knew or didn't know or was willing or not willing. It can't be established one way or another. But you keep saying that it can.

Let me ask you this:

Ulfric is only equivalent to the Emperor if he attains the title of High King over an independent Skyrim. To assign him equivalency is to admit he's already won the war.