How to become a Freeholding Lord?

[Richard_Chilton]

Again, you presume that the measure of possibility is history; that if it would ever be possible, then it has already come to pass.

No, I don't.  I'm citing evidence from the books that, even under peace time, the White Council is circled by predictors who want to destroy it.  Who will set up inexperienced wizards in "rock vs hard place" situations in an effort find a way to shatter the White Council.
Which is why Bianca was the pawn used to start the war - her death cost the Red Court almost nothing and opened the way for the strike they had ready to take out Archangel.  Then ask for a cease fire, maneuver for position, and in 20 years time wipe out the White Council - a plot only foiled when McCoy kept Harry of being stripped of his wizard status.

The Accords didn't stop the Black Court from being reduced to maybe 20 elders.  The Accords didn't stop the Red Court from working on a way to promote more Love in the world to cripple the White Court.  The Accords didn't stop Summer from adopting and using a White Council level wizard. 

Are you saying that White Court aren't good enough at scheming to exploit a hole in the Accords? That the nickelheads aren't diabolical enough to do so?

We have heard about a freak that was trying to splinter from the freak faction.  Kemmler did many things that were thought to be impossible and was so influential that he started WWI.  He wanted to ignore the Laws of Magic (at least one of them) and he didn't get a seat at the table.

And if it is possible, but has yet to be realized (due to nigh-incomprehensible convolutions in the Unseelie Accords, successful diplomacy averting the necessity, simple preemptive overwhelming force, or any other cause), then your entire argument falls to pieces.

Oh, that's an easy one.  That "if" you started your argument with? The answer to that is no.  Present one scrap of evident, one "well based on this then that might be true then this might possible" chain of weakness that implies the answer to that is yes.  Any evidence at all.

Personally, I can't wait for the next book - because in that book serial killer Harry (who targets schoolgirls) will be taken to task for not making his victims suffer enough before he kills them.  That is, he will "if" he really is a serial killer and "if" someone will take him to task for not doing it right.

Richard

[Richard_Chilton]

I suspect that you fail to realize that this is, in fact, a comparatively potent argument against your declared stance on the matter.

And you saying that doesn't make it so.

No, seriously, explain why you feel that looking at something from multiple sides is wrong.  Go through those points I ended my post with and explain which of them are incorrect.  Meanwhile, I'll stop posting on this thread long enough to write one about serial killer Harry.

Richard

[Tedronai]

And you saying that doesn't make it so.

No, seriously, explain why you feel that looking at something from multiple sides is wrong.  Go through those points I ended my post with and explain which of them are incorrect.  Meanwhile, I'll stop posting on this thread long enough to write one about serial killer Harry.

Richard

Point 2 is a fallacy.
Point 3 is an argument against attempting, not against being able to succeed.
Point 4 seems to be a restatement of point 1, the universality of which is precisely the question being debated, here
Point 5 is an argument against being able to survive your own success, not against being able to achieve that success in the first place.

[Richard_Chilton]

Point 2 is a fallacy.
Point 3 is an argument against attempting, not against being able to succeed.
Point 4 seems to be a restatement of point 1, the universality of which is precisely the question being debated, here
Point 5 is an argument against being able to survive your own success, not against being able to achieve that success in the first place.

Again, just because you say something doesn't make it true.  Calling something a fallacy doesn't make it so.
Point 2:  I strongly disagree with your statement that the White Court has been unable to seduce a single wizard into attempting to start a second Accord recognized entity and that Fallen Angels are not diabolical enough to attempt it.  That with all the centuries since the first Merlin formed the Council those groups have lack the ability to do something that is possible - implying that it isn't possible.

Point 3: If there is no long term gain achieved by accomplishing something then why (barring the actions of predators - see above) even attempt it? And if there is no point in attempting then how could anyone argue that it could happen?

Point 4: While this reiterates that is an internal matter, it expands on that point by pointing out how they would deal with it .

Point 5: No, it explains why they would no survive making the attempt.  That the attempt to do it using the White Council's laws (as opposed the Accords themselves) is doomed to fail because the Senior Council can exempt themselves from those law. 

If you want to try to refute something else, feel free do attempt to do so with more than throwaway lines - but why bother? You've accepted point one (or at least been unable to argue against it).

1) Any group of empowered mortals trying to get a seat at the Accords table is viewed an internal matter for the White Council to handle.

Thus conceding the point.  Why debate the other reasoning involved when you've accepted the thrust of the argument?

Richard

[Pbartender]

I think, Richard, that we're both inadvertently arguing the same side of the argument, and not realizing it.

Previously, it sounded like you were simply saying, "They can't do it."

But, what you seem to really mean is, "The current supernatural political situation is such that it makes it extremely improbable that they would succeed, and even if they could there may not any advantages for doing it."  That I can agree with, but it's also a very different statement from "They can't."

The thing is, when a new country comes into being it's with international good will.  When South Sudan broke away from Sudan you didn't have the US, Russia, China, and various European powers calling Sudan a wimp for letting it happen.  You didn't see them circling like sharks on a blood trail, working out how they could occupy and annex both nations.

Palestine's current situation regarding the U.N. might be a more apt comparison to this scenario (though, with unintended and unfortunate correlations to the factions within the novels)...  Without delving further into politics, look up "Palenstine 194" for more info.

To make a long story short, it's unlikely to actually happen, but Palestine is submitting the application as a polical statement and to make its allies and enemies commit to a stand one way or the other, and to force the issue past stalled negotiations.

There U.N members that recognize Palestine as a state, but do not support their membership.  There are members that don't yet recognize them as a state, but support the case for membership. And each member has their own reasons for doing so.

Hilarity ensues.

But let's look at this from another angle - what would any other group of mortal spell casters gain from signing the Accords? They are already "protected" from supernatural predators by the White Council being members so what would be the benefit?

Independence and autonomy from the White Council and their laws.

And don't say "protection from the White Council".  The Accords regulate the peaceful interactions between the nations and help define how wars are fought - the new group wouldn't be protected from the White Council any more than the Red Court Vampires were protected from the White Council declaring war on them.

You're right, but...

If successful, the new group would now have a recourse for lawful retaliation and recompense from the White Council, when the White Council, for example, sends Wardens to summarily execute a Warlock for breaking one of the Seven Laws (a terribly good reason for the White Council to oppose the proposition).***

The Warlocks would cease to be a troublesome faction of the White Council that the White Council could deal with in any manner they see fit, and become an independent power that's a rival and an equal within the Accords, who must now be treated with diplomatic respect, because they can openly have allies of their own to help defend them from the White Council.



***Which brings up a larger issue...  Just what is the White Council's jurisdiction with regards to the Seven Laws?  They seem to have assumed authority over all mortal magic, at least, but what if someone or some group decides to challenge that authority?

[Tedronai]

Again, just because you say something doesn't make it true.  Calling something a fallacy doesn't make it so.
Point 2:  I strongly disagree with your statement that the White Court has been unable to seduce a single wizard into attempting to start a second Accord recognized entity and that Fallen Angels are not diabolical enough to attempt it.  That with all the centuries since the first Merlin formed the Council those groups have lack the ability to do something that is possible - implying that it isn't possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability

[/quote]Point 3: If there is no long term gain achieved by accomplishing something then why (barring the actions of predators - see above) even attempt it? And if there is no point in attempting then how could anyone argue that it could happen?[/quote]

Sometimes people do stupid things.

Point 4: While this reiterates that is an internal matter, it expands on that point by pointing out how they would deal with it.

How an attempt would be dealt with is not an argument for that attempt's impossibility.

Point 5: No, it explains why they would no survive making the attempt.  That the attempt to do it using the White Council's laws (as opposed the Accords themselves) is doomed to fail because the Senior Council can exempt themselves from those law.

How an attempt would be dealt with is not an argument for that attempt's impossibility.

If you want to try to refute something else, feel free do attempt to do so with more than throwaway lines - but why bother? You've accepted point one (or at least been unable to argue against it).Thus conceding the point.  Why debate the other reasoning involved when you've accepted the thrust of the argument?

I have conceded no such thing.

point 1, the universality of which is precisely the question being debated, here

[Richard_Chilton]

Previously, it sounded like you were simply saying, "They can't do it."

I am saying they can't - I merely added "look at it from another side - why would they try" for those who don't accept that statement.

Palestine's current situation regarding the U.N. might be a more apt comparison to this scenario (though, with unintended and unfortunate correlations to the factions within the novels)...  Without delving further into politics, look up "Palenstine 194" for more info.

I don't see Palestine being a more apt comparison - mainly because there are no forces that want to wipe out both sides there.   For an apt comparison we'd have to go back to the Empire Building period and talk about a non-Imperial power splitting into two while the Empire Builders circled, waiting to put an end to native rule.

The Accords aren't a brotherhood, they are a group of groups that are too powerful to fight without a good reason.  Many of them want humanity to be helpless prey.

If successful, the new group would now have a recourse for lawful retaliation and recompense from the White Council, when the White Council, for example, sends Wardens to summarily execute a Warlock for breaking one of the Seven Laws (a terribly good reason for the White Council to oppose the proposition).***

That's a peace time, not a war time, option.  Once war is declared then everything except informing the mortals (or unlawfully involving another signatory) seems to be legal to do.

And going after them wouldn't blacken their name.  The White Council has already declared an unjust on a signatory nation when they ignored a truce (and guest law) to attack a newly ennobled Red Court vampire who was doing what she was legally allowed (by the accords) to do.

***Which brings up a larger issue...  Just what is the White Council's jurisdiction with regards to the Seven Laws?  They seem to have assumed authority over all mortal magic, at least, but what if someone or some group decides to challenge that authority?

Under the Accords (as cite by White Night) they have authority over all humans with power.
Under the laws of the White Council, they have authority over all humans with power.
Based on what been said, one of the main reasons the White Council has for existing is to protect people from the abuses of magic.

If another group wanted what the White Council currently has, they would have to take it.  That would mean a war that ends with the White Council victorious or dissolved.

Richard

[Richard_Chilton]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability

I may not be following the rules for debate here - but that doesn't mean that position has any validity.  You have cited nothing from a published source that supports your position and ignore what I have cited.

Post something that indicate that you are right and I'll look it over.  And if I'm wrong then I'll admit it.

I have conceded no such thing.

Yes you did.  I asked you to point out any issues that you had with what I had posted.  You could not come up with any statement referring to point one - so mentioned in passing that you consider it to be under debate.

It takes more than one person talking to debate something - and you voiced no argument to that point.

So, if you want to refute that the accords give the White Council say over all mortals with power, start with refuting:
"Given their status as members of the magical community, they are, however, within the purview of the White Council's legitimate political concerns, and as such are subject to the stipulations for protection and defense found within the Accords. I am well within my rights to act as their champion."

If they were independents then Harry wouldn't have the grounds to call that duel.

Richard

[Tedronai]

I may not be following the rules for debate here - but that doesn't mean that position has any validity.

You admit, then, that that argument is a fallacy, and that, as such, it does not support your claim?

You have cited nothing from a published source that supports your position and ignore what I have cited.  Post something that indicate that you are right and I'll look it over.

 

I have made no strong claim.  You have.  You have, in fact, made an incredibly strong claim - that of impossibility.  The burden of proof is on you.

And if I'm wrong then I'll admit it.

Given your reticence even to admit the blatant fallaciousness of your own arguments, I doubt that.

Yes you did.  I asked you to point out any issues that you had with what I had posted.  You could not come up with any statement referring to point one - so mentioned in passing that you consider it to be under debate.

I'm sorry, I assumed that you could recognize a fallacy short of being beaten over the head with it.
Again, with bolding added:

Point 4 seems to be a restatement of point 1, the universality of which is precisely the question being debated, here

It takes more than one person talking to debate something - and you voiced no argument to that point.

My stance on the issue is that there is insufficient evidence to declare Accord recognition of a splinter group an impossibility.

So, if you want to refute that the accords give the White Council say over all mortals with power, start with refuting:
"Given their status as members of the magical community, they are, however, within the purview of the White Council's legitimate political concerns, and as such are subject to the stipulations for protection and defense found within the Accords. I am well within my rights to act as their champion."

That statement refers only to a specific group, in a specific instance, where, it would seem, the individuals referenced were not members of a group representing an exception to the general rule of the White Council's authority over mortal practitioners.

[Pbartender]

I am saying they can't - I merely added "look at it from another side - why would they try" for those who don't accept that statement.

Never mind, then...  I was mistaken.  You ARE being unreasonably absolutist.

[SunlessNick]

Since this thread is now available, would it be possible for this one to go back to being a bit less ranty?  Because the actual idea is an interesting one - even if you don't think it could happen, a good story could come out of the attempt.


Edited to add... a couple of legal points occurred to me:

Under the Accords (as cite by White Night) they have authority over all humans with power.
Under the laws of the White Council, they have authority over all humans with power.

Despite what Harry said, the White Council has effectively conceded that it does not have jurisdiction over all humans with magical power.  Consider the Winter and Summer Knights, who are gifted with Unseelie and Seelie magic respectively, but are also under the authority of Mab and Titania respectively, not the Council.  The question would become whether the Council officially sees itself as having jurisdiction over the Knights but doesn't press it, whether it recognises a specific exception in the case of the Faerie Knights, whether it recognises some exceptions in the case of magic sponsored by another entity, or whether it recognises some exceptions in the case of magic sponsored by another signatory.

I don't think the stories have provided sufficient evidence for which it is - except for ruling out the first, because Mab would obviously never stand for that.  If it's the second, then the status quo assumed in this thread remains the case (barring my next point below).  If it's the third, then a powerful sponsored practitioner or group of same might be able to turn this into a signatory status - in the case of the warlocks from the OP, they would need a potent sponsor of course - and probably a lot going for them besides magic.  If it's the fourth, then it's their sponsor they need to get recognised as a lord, with themselves as its ambassadors - in that case, they need a sponsor that's not in an existing nation (eg a non-Denarian fallen, powerful demon from Downbelow, or a genius loci for somewhere that's majorly important but no one else's HQ) - if they can find such a sponsor, then it's probably a simpler matter than getting themselves recognised in their own right.

Note that that's just about them getting recognised as something separate from the White Council.  They'll need something else to prevent the Council from going after them anyway - something that makes the Council think that trying to stop them is more trouble and loss than it's worth (bearing in mind that "worth" includes preventing anyone else from trying this, so they'd be well advised to present evidence that they're a very special case, and probably that recognition as signatories would lead them to do less harm to innocent people; such evidence needn't be correct, but it ought to be there).

If they can achieve all that, then I think they just need three existing signatories to say yea.  Though their position would still be tenuous.

As much as has been said about other factions possibly liking this because it divides and weakens the human magical population, it also lays potential groundwork for factionalisation within those nations.  I doubt Lara Raith would be happy at the idea of other White Court Houses thinking they can secede.  (Although it also presents another reason why one of those other Houses might be willing to help the recognition along).

My other thought was that the White Council only lets full wizards through the door.  By claiming authority over all human practitioners, they are effectively claiming jurisdiction over those they do not otherwise acknowledge or allow as members.  I'm not just thinking of walocks here - also the members of Paranet, and the Asian groups mentioned in Our World.  How secure or tenuous is that claim under the Accords?  Because every other nation I can think of only includes those who work directly for it - freely or enslaved - not those whom it would otherwise have nothing to do with.  Again there's a difference there between what the Accords might say and what the Council would try to enforce, but it's a point that would probably come up if any practitioner attempted recognition as a freeholder.

[Richard_Chilton]

You admit, then, that that argument is a fallacy, and that, as such, it does not support your claim?

I do not.

Please re-read my reply and point out anyplace where I implied I did.  What I said was I was not treating this as a formal debate.

But that doesn't matter - you were unable to challenge the first point and in so doing so conceded it.  Why are you still debating?
 

I have made no strong claim.  You have.  You have, in fact, made an incredibly strong claim - that of impossibility.  The burden of proof is on you.

No, I did not.  Please re-read this thread, the entire thread, and you will see another come up with the idea that a group of Warlocks could become an Accord nation.  I have replied to that assertion, offering evidence taken from the books.

You sir have offered no evidence.

Given your reticence even to admit the blatant fallaciousness of your own arguments, I doubt that.

Ah, so since there is nothing you can say about the argument you have decided to attack your opponent.  Saying that I will not listen to your side doesn't mean that you don't have to present a side - it means that you are unable to do.

I'm sorry, I assumed that you could recognize a fallacy short of being beaten over the head with it.
Again, with bolding added:My stance on the issue is that there is insufficient evidence to declare Accord recognition of a splinter group an impossibility.

You saying that does not make it true.  I disagree with your stance and have cited instances in the books where if such a thing had been possible it would have been mentioned.  If you disagree with what I have said then offer your own point or cite where I am wrong.

Are you unable to do so or unwilling to do it?

That statement refers only to a specific group, in a specific instance, where, it would seem, the individuals referenced were not members of a group representing an exception to the general rule of the White Council's authority over mortal practitioners.

Again, if it was possible that a such group could form then the skilled manipulators of the White Court (or at least the subgroup that had spent generations studying the White Council) would have known about that possibility and used it to muddy the water to prevent the duel from being authorised. 

If you want to begin to discuss this topic, that's fine - until then stop trying to make cheep shots.

Richard

[Tedronai]

If you refuse to recognize the fallaciousness of your own arguments, or even that the validity (ie. absence of fallacy) of an argument should matter in this debate, then there is no debate, and we are done, here.
Feel free to step back in if you change your mind.

[Richard_Chilton]

Consider the Winter and Summer Knights, who are gifted with Unseelie and Seelie magic respectively, but are also under the authority of Mab and Titania respectively, not the Council.

Gifted with power.  They have no power of their own.  Their sponsor can stop supporting them.  Hence they are not mortals with power but mortals borrowing  the powers of others.

Grave Peril had an interesting exchange where Micheal gave a position that Harry more or less agreed to - that those who willingly make deals with supernatural creatures are free to experience the consequence of their actions. 

  The question would become whether the Council officially sees itself as having jurisdiction over the Knights but doesn't press it, whether it recognises a specific exception in the case of the Faerie Knights, whether it recognises some exceptions in the case of magic sponsored by another entity, or whether it recognises some exceptions in the case of magic sponsored by another signatory.

I expect that we might learn the answer to those questions within the next few books.

Note that that's just about them getting recognised as something separate from the White Council.  They'll need something else to prevent the Council from going after them anyway - something that makes the Council think that trying to stop them is more trouble and loss than it's worth (bearing in mind that "worth" includes preventing anyone else from trying this, so they'd be well advised to present evidence that they're a very special case, and probably that recognition as signatories would lead them to do less harm to innocent people; such evidence needn't be correct, but it ought to be there).

The White Council defines its existence as the enforcers of the Laws of Magic.  Re-read the exchanges where Harry is told that if the Black Council were to become public the White Council would splinter.  That one of the reasons some wizards are part of the Council is that there is no alternative.

If another group popped into being that offered the security and protection from causal predators that the White Council does, it would have to destroy that group or stop being the White Council.  The same people who would knowingly send an innocent man to a traitor's death would either have to fight to the death to erase the new group or be subsumed by it.

As much as has been said about other factions possibly liking this because it divides and weakens the human magical population, it also lays potential groundwork for factionalisation within those nations.  I doubt Lara Raith would be happy at the idea of other White Court Houses thinking they can secede.  (Although it also presents another reason why one of those other Houses might be willing to help the recognition along).

So we agree that the presented signatories, the peoples and groups who negotiated the Accords, have a vested interest in wording things such that no such subgroup could exist?
From that it's a small step from accepting that they worded things that way.

My other thought was that the White Council only lets full wizards through the door.  By claiming authority over all human practitioners, they are effectively claiming jurisdiction over those they do not otherwise acknowledge or allow as members.  I'm not just thinking of walocks here - also the members of Paranet, and the Asian groups mentioned in Our World.  How secure or tenuous is that claim under the Accords?

If they didn't have a legal claim to that then why was the Duel In The Depths permitted to happen? Harry cited a particular part of the Accords and the only real debate was if the Truce for the Peace Talks counted as Peace.

Richard

[Quasispike]

So here's a thought that could make this plotline all the more interesting and sidestep any issues with 'can a warlock become a freeholding lord?'

What if he sheds his mortal status? In the game I'm running I've got a warlock attempting to become a Lich, as I've set it up, once he's no longer a mortal wizard he's no longer under the umbrella of the White Council (They'll still be hunting him as a monster an abomination to be destroyed) but if after that point he can obtain Freeholding Lord Status he's got the protection of the Accords and the Warlock's he's teaching as part of his retinue being 'nobles of his court' also gain that protection.