originally posted by Lyssabits
You don't have to prove damages? Interesting. Seems like that would be sort of crucial to the whole exercise, since otherwise what would be your (legal) motivation? I mean, generally there aren't laws against hurting people's feelings. Or are you saying you don't have to *prove* damages, just the possibility that there could have been damages?
Not sure what's up with the university professor thing… I mean, you don't have to be a professor to like to think about these things. I'm a scientist. I like hypothetical situations, thinking about how something in a system interacts with all the other parts of that system. It's proving it that's tough in my line of work – nature is so messy. It rarely does what you think it should. But I never want to be a professor, I'd have to spend all my time writing grant proposals and that's so boooring.
originally posted by Clansman
RE: damages for defamation. You simply have to prove that the comment was untruthful and defamatory. The assessment of damages is based on what courts have previously determined the particular kind of defamation, or damage to the reputation, was worth. It is very difficult to quantify these kind of damages.
In addition to the reputation damage, if you claim additional damages, they have to be proven. Such as "I lost my job because you said I was a WoW hater". If my job was with the company that produces WoW, that might be provable. If it was with a rival, that's a tougher sell. If the employer said "I fired him because you said he hates WoW", and if the comment about hating WoW was not true, then there would be additional damages, which must be proven, for the loss of employment.
All of the above being said, a defamation action is one of the hardest to prosecute, because of the nature of speech, the nature of truth (there is some perspective involved), and the difficulty of the damages argument. They are way easier to defend.
The university professor thing comes from the scenario you proposed. It was an excellent exam question, because in law school examinations, one of the main things asked of the student is to identify the different issues. You posed a defamation scenario, but there were other torts in there as well. A lot of students miss higher grades by not picking up on the minor issues.
Simply put, your example was an excellent hypothetical, and law school professors are notorious for devising these nasty hypotheticals that could have you writing for days, when all you have is 3 or 4 hours (that exam time always goes at warp speed). The hardest exam I ever wrote was in Evidence. We received one hour to read it, and 4 to write, for a total of 5 hours. Not one person left the room before time was up.
So, you would be good at setting these exam questions, which is why I made the university professor comment.
originally posted by Jeffrey L Watson
The other reasons for not continuing this discussion here are:
1) It is waaaay off topic.
2) The moderator (moi) has to wade through the lengthy posts and carefully evaluate if anyone has gone over the 'edge' of what I will allow on this board (as I once pointed out, I consider this Chat Area to be an extension of my living room and so expect all visitors to be on their best behavior… which everyone usually is). AND, some of what has been said has been very close to the edge. Fortunately the people involved are not thin skinned (for which I applaud them) and so a flamewar has not erupted… but I've been standing by with a fire extinguisher just in case.
So, can we let this discussion die?
Jeff
originally posted by Dirdle
To go back (briefly, with luck) to your EB questions, Angus:
quote:I think that I will attempt as you suggest. However, who decides when something proven wrong? Who has that authority, and how did they obtain it? Also sounds like the decisions have already been made in evilbible forum. Should I try to argue with those who don't even want to try to understand the nature of faith? Or are there people there with truly open minds? I like brick walls to build with, not to hit my head against.
Who decides when something is proven wrong? Well, anyone has the authority to say they've proven something, and naturally to try and demonstrate their proofs. I suppose you could say the rest is peer review.
To answer the next two questions: rule two, rule two, rule two. I ought to have made it rule one. It's the only fundamental principle that everyone on the forum shares, really. Accept with grace the times when you are proven wrong. It's like the James Randi Prize - if anyone can prove it, then gratz to them and you've beaten us all. The fact that no one has proven it is very easy to interpret as meaning that we don't really hold true to that, but I think it says a lot more about the (lack of) proof for many religious claims. After all, I changed my views on the content of the bible within a few minutes of being introduced to the EB website. I always followed the herd with "well, it's a guide to morality if not truth" before then. The same for the VHEMT website. The same for the proof that 0.9999…=1. The same for G’del's Theorem. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. I read a convincing argument in 'the End of Faith' for how moral relativity fails. I stopped seeing morality as purely relative and subjective. I could go on. I'm almost tempted to level the same not-quite-accusations of defamation, just for saying that the people on EB have 'made their minds up and won't change them for anything.' But I don't think I will. After all, it's normal when you think of your view as being 'right' to see everyone else as ignorant and close-minded. I'm guilty of it myself.
I think that ties up all the loose ends. My apologies for having pushed this discussion. Maybe this thread can go back to topic now?
As I recall, we were talking about Lysaer. Hmmm. Unlucky guy. I blame society.
originally posted by Clansman
I'm lettin' it die! I'm lettin' it die!
Could we blame Lysaer's parents? The controlling father and the emasculating mother? Talk about abandonment issues. I recall Talith using them quite painfully in FP just before she got locked up. I remember a b-side song called Blame Your Parents by a band whose name escapes me.
Society, Parents, The Man. Does it amount to another way to avoid responsibility? This being said, we are at least partially the products of our environment. (I think that it would be prudent of me to avoid morality arguments at this juncture.)
Lysaer's hope lies in Arithon, according to the wonderful teaser that I will read again later today.
I do have sympathy left for Lysaer. His parents messed up royally (no pun intended). The F7 messed up at Ithamon (to be fair, that was only determined in hindsight), and Lysaer was cursed as a result. He remains cursed, as did Arithon. But Arithon had several advantages, such as knowledge of Dakar's prophecy before he was cursed, his mage-trained talent, and his self-awareness. Now, he also has the gruelling winnowing of his guilt thanks to Fire Hands (I like that bit) Davien and Kewar.
Lysaer does, however, believe that the means justify the ends, and has messed up a fair bit himself. That may be curse-borne, but there it is.
originally posted by skeoke
Can't blame his mother, she was refusing to knuckle under to s'Illesid's desire to squash s'Ffalenn in an unfair, lopsided, baseless battle using her offspring. After seeing light and shadow work together to bottle the mistwraith, can you image what it would have done to Karthan?
'Course, Arithon wouldn't've been mage trained. He'd've been s'Illesid trained, stunted, and weak. Might've made a difference.
Might blame the grandfather. Didn't he arrange the dowry, and curse s'Illesid with temptation? No inordinate power, no ability to abuse it. Or, did Mac just give him a rope; the use he put it to was his choice. (I'd've made a hammock, not a noose - at least, I'd like to think so.)
originally posted by Matthew
SPOILERS
Ok not really, i just want to say… i'm glad i tried to sway the public to give Lysaer a chance =D what do you think now huh!
originally posted by Meredith Lee Gray
I think that my opinions on Lysaer haven't changed through the entire series…
Mer
originally posted by Lyssabits
The latest book makes me happy because while my opinion of Lysaer hasn't changed, I once again have hope. 
My anger at him and hatred of him was less of him specifically and more a reaction to the way you can see, for lack of a better phrase, someone's powers for good being turned to evil. Also because he's incredibly stubborn. The Curse only worked with what's there. I thought he was annoying and sort of narrow-minded in the first book, but I could see him expanding his horizons. The Curse cutting that off and dooming him to his petty attitudes was perhaps one of the cruelest parts of the situation for me.
originally posted by BILLEEBEE
Nup Lysar's got the thumbs down from me!! His self centred vanity is only being magnified by the curse. I agree with Lyssabits when they said that character flaw was already present before being infected with the curse. He is pompus and ignorant (cursed or not) and actually uses his gifts (light and charm) as weapons to obtain HIS moral justice as he see it and not a balanced Social justice as nature intended.
originally posted by Meredith Lee Gray
I guess I should have specified more about what my opinions on Lysaer have always been.
Yes he had flaws before he was Cursed. I would feel hypocritical in JUDGING him for that, because I have flaws and prejudices that, if I were suddenly cursed, could easily have been manipulated in just the same way. BILLEEBEE, I don't think there's any dispute that he had his issues before he was struck with the Curse. But you can't tell me that you don't also have numerous 'character flaws', perhaps a lot more destructive than mere vanity, that could be twisted by a curse into a destructive weapon for wreaking havoc on an innocent populace!
The evidence indicates that he was not unaware of his biases, but was willing to work on overcoming them, in order to be the best ruler he could be. He had resolved to undertake that task.
And, under the circumstances of his life and upbringing, all the 'character flaws' he had were completely understandable, and perhaps even inevitable (distrust of magic/mages, sheltered upbringing, etc.)
And then he was cursed, and all those little personality flaws became grossly magnified.
Under the influence of the curse, he was even prevented from being allowed to believe anyone that said he was cursed, refused to admit there was a problem.
I don't think you can really say that Lysaer is pompous. Almost every single person he comes into contact with is put at ease by him, and struck by his GENUINE warmth and caring, and thoughtfulness even to the little pages and servants.
I think calling him ignorant is also REALLY stretching it. He's a very intuitive and intelligent guy. He doesn't miss much. But his mistrust of mages and clansmen and Arithon has become a tool of the Curse to keep him doubting every piece of honest advice or input coming from those quarters. So if he does disbelieve those parties, you can't state for certain that it's not a product of the Curse.
Narrow-minded, possibly. I would call it the product of a sheltered upbringing. He was a little shocked and dismayed at the clansmen's way of life in CotM, but I would probably have been to, if I'd been just thrown in the midst of them. Honestly I would have been uncomfortable around those rough and rowdy clanspeople! And I certainly haven't had the plush and privilaged royal upbrining that Lysaer had. And at the time, Lysaer didn't have all the facts about what drove the clansmen to their thieving, murdering ways, and probably couldn't reconcile it with his sense of Justice.
I posted some more regarding how you could possibly begin to differentiate between Curse-driven actions, and actions that he makes of his own free will. If there can even be a distinction. Anyhow, it's in the Stormed Fortress Spolier Topic: Sulfin Evend. And there are of course Spoilers there if you haven't read SF.
So my opinion of him was not completely negative. I found his motivations and actions to be very understandable, given his circumstances. Not that I agreed or condoned what he did! But I just find his character to be interesting and well-written. And it's fun to defend him. Although, we've been doing it since the series started Matthew. It's always a fun topic. For me at least. ():-}
Mer
originally posted by Hunter
To me, the primary failure of Lysaer is not his upbringing, not his father's madness, his hatred of women nor his distaste of the lives of the clans of Camris.
His signal failure, and I believe the message Janny is thumping us with a bit of 4x2, is that here we have a ruler with large power who has based *all* his decisions on his limited viewpoint and steadfastly refused to expand his awareness to encompass alternate points of view. What the Curse did was merely (?) lock in and magnify somewhat those rather narrow and limited points of view.
Specific examples of Lysaer's failure of vision:
1. The Rauven mages wouldn't train his gift - where was his introspection to understand why they mightn't have done so?
2. Arithon taking from Lysaer's memory of when Talera left Amroth never to return - Why did Lysaer take his father's side or at least, when prompted by Arithon's rifling, pause to at least consider the relative merits of his mother's treatment at the hands of his father versus that of Avar s'Ffalenn.
3. In the Red Desert, Arithon's usage of magecraft to drive Lysaer on - Why would Arithon bother?
4. Early after their arrival on Athera and Asandir keeping Lysaer somewhat uninformed - Should Lysaer not have known the secretive nature of mages and gain some degree of perspective of what the mages were actually about and whether the lack of information, or direct communication, might actually have had a point and a good reason?
5. With Maenelle and the clans of Camris - If the Gift of Justice was strong in Lysaer, although how the clans lived and their predation affronted his prejudices, surely his Justice should have been telling him, with big ringing bells and red flashing lights, that for a proud people to live in such appalling conditions should be a transgression of the very notion of Justice. IMHO, Lysaer's inability to properly understand the plight of the clans of Camris is his principle failing as it coloured all of his subsequent actions. Asandir charged Lysaer to watch and learn. Lysaer failed badly.
6. In Etarra before the failed coronation when he finds Arithon amusing street urchins in slums - Lysaer's upbringing in similar tasteless merchant lead surrounds in Amroth showed him completely capable of manipulation of merchant guilds, what it should have also lead in his Gift of Justice was that underbelly such organization might have created. Lysaer's derisory jibe to Arithon that Arithon judged the unwashed waifs equal or better than the merchant guilds showed clearly Lysaer's prejudices and his failure to comprehend that wider picture
Arithon has grown and changed as the books have gone on, Lysaer has stayed, since the failed Coronation, almost a caricature that has been in very bad need some adjustment and, thankfully, some light at the end of that tunnel started to emerge towards the end of Stormed Fortress.
Lysaer's failure to address his flaws is inexcusable, whether he is both capable and willing to address them and similarly evolve, is his key challenge in Arcs IV and V. What frightens me here is a quote from Janny many years ago that stated "Arithon is the more self-aware at this point in the narrative". Which can bode bad things for Arithon, but equally it will not be good should any such self-awareness for Lysaer become another vanity le parade of self-pity and self-loathing. My opinion of Lysaer will be based on his actions in Arcs IV and V where he now has his chance to plot his own course basically for the first time in the entirety of this series.
Mer - I would disagree completely that Lysaer has *any* genuine warmth or caring for anyone around him. He has charisma in spades and the ability to rouse those around him into a fever pitch. These people are all simply tools to help Lysaer achieve his desired ends. A leader with one iota of genuine warmth would not have spent lives with such disdain as Lysaer has.
originally posted by Meredith Lee Gray
All I'll say is that it's nigh on impossible to seperate out what in Lysaer is untainted by the Curse. If you, anyone, think you can go point by point through the entire series from CotM onward and decide what was Lysaer himself, and what was the Curse (if there even can be considered a distinction), then… be my guest. You're a more intuitive reader than I.
Hunter, you chose points that were all pre-Curse. Yes Lysaer was a human person with real prejudices and biases (well, okay, he's just a written character, but still…). He did have to work to overcome that. But ultimately he acknowledged his short-comings and where he was being prejudiced, and committed himself to overcome those. Traithe himself was grieved that someone with so much potential to be an exceptional ruler was all-but destined to be twisted by the Curse.
Regarding your point #6, well, Lysaer had a point, from his point of view. He just didn't realize that Arithon was planning on dealing with the guilds in his way as well. He thought Arithon was completely ambivalent to his rulership responisibilities, preferring to abandon them for playing in the sewers to amuse and comfort those street urchins. If I thought that, I would have gotten on Arithon's case in exactly the same manner. But Arithon set him straight on his intentions and (I'm trying to recall from memory, as I don't have the book at hand) Lysaer was satisfied.
Oh, and I continue to disagree about Lysaer's genuine caring. You can know how to politically maneuver people and situations, and still be able to sincerely care about people at the same time. I think Lysaer was sincere, and Janny made a point of writing about how the recipients were often struck by the depth of his sincere attention. However, this aspect of Lysaer's personality would be under influence of the Curse, so is up for manipulation to further those machinations.
Mer
originally posted by Lyssabits
I think you're missing Hunter's point – he chose points that were all pre-Curse to demonstrate that he has non-Curse related problems because, as you say, no one will be able to separate out his Curse-driven/non-Curse-driven actions.
Personally I'm sensitive to Lysaer's plight… but I still don't like him. You can acknowledge that someone has a lot working against them without letting that excuse their behavior. Some people use it as an excuse for why they'll never become better. Lysaer, I think, ultimately would have become a good ruler if he could have learned to overcome his ingrained prejudices… but I don't think he will now. He's caused too much damage. I know it was because of the Curse… but that doesn't make it okay. He wasn't in his right mind, he's not "legally" (for lack of a better term) responsible… but that doesn't make it right. I'm happy he's getting a chance to see what he's done, and hope he'll be able to mitigate the damage… but he's still caused irreperable harm and I can't completely forgive him. Also some of the traits I find distasteful about him now aren't Curse-driven, and unlikely to have ever been overcome.
For example… I think he does genuinely care about people… but that caring does not translate into a willingness to not resort to war. The Curse drives him, but if he didn't already have the willingness to needlessly spend thousands and thousands of lives in a cause he feels is just, and more tellingly, in a cause he KNOWS IS FALSE (argue all you want about the Curse, he knows Arithon isn't the demon he pretends he is and he knows he's not the Avatar he's pretending to be) the Curse would have no foothold to motivate that behavior.
originally posted by Jeffrey L Watson
We are treading dangerously close to Stormed Fortress spoilers. Please be careful or move this thread to the SF Spoiler topic. Thanks.`
originally posted by Meredith Lee Gray
No, I didn't miss his point. I've acknowledged many times that he had flaws, prejudices and/or biases pre-Curse. In almost all my posts here I've acknowledged that he had those flaws pre-Curse. No, he wasn't a perfect person.
You can't claim that YOU don't have any such flaws that couldn't be twisted to a Curse as well. We all do. And because of that fact, I have sympathy for him. He's no more or less a tool of his shortcomings than any of us would be in such a situation. Even Arithon was to an extent he didn't even realize.
You may have a problem with Lysaer, but who would you substitute as a better candidate to be cursed than he? There really isn't anyone that would improve on the situation. And a LOT of people who would be worse.
I've not ever said that I "like" him. But I do have sympathy for his situation. I don't condone his actions, but I understand that his flaws are being manipulated, and it makes me more aware that I have flaws that (were I in his shoes) could also be freely used.
Trys, was I? I thought I was being really careful to not post anything SF Spoilerish here… 
Mer
originally posted by BILLEEBEE
Meredith Mate… I'm a reader who reads for the pleasure of a story and allows the author to invoke emotion in me. I'm not one to sit and cut it up and critically analyse the characters and plot!!
Cheers
originally posted by Trys
Mer,
There have been no specific spoilers but there have been references to events in SF. I was just reminding… and I wasn't singling anyone out. 
Trys
originally posted by Hunter
My apologies master Trys, i was trying to be deliberately vague enough to not contain any real spoilers or unSpoiler commented SF happenings in my comments. Should I mention Lysaer riding the unicorn across the Cildein to Los Lier? Guess not…
(peek to see who sat up then!)
Lyssabits - regarding your comments on Lysaer's legal liability for his actions, surely he would be judged on the facts of his actions, not his intent or mount a tenuous case of "possession". Action is a matter of fact and evidence, intent is irrelevant.
Just having re-read Curse, it did occur to me to wonder why Arithon, Steiven or perhaps Dania might not have appealed to the Fellowship for protection just prior to Lysaer's immolation of the Deshir clan women. For surely under the Law of the Major Balance, being burnt to a crisp by Lysaer - who was, to give him some sense of Justice, "saving" them from a fate worse than a fate worse than death - is a transgression of the fundamental tenets of that Law and a clear opening for the Fellowship to enact a defense of some proportion - should one of the clanborn simply ask. Kevor was saved by just such a cry for help. Elaira's need was met by a Riathan Paravian.
Mer - Lysaer may have acknowledged his short comings, but I felt (my opinion - not sure there is a right or wrong answer, just an opinion) he did not act sufficiently on those acknowledged short comings. As Kharadmon told Dakar on the slopes of Rockfell, Desh-thiere worked with what it could find, it didn't make anything up.
Also, find someone worse? Anyone without the fearful charisma of Lysaer and political skills - like Dakar… if a half-wit had been cursed, he would have been sent to an asylum and harmed no one but himself. Lysaer had great power and great potential, which became the double edged sword.
originally posted by Blue
With regards to Lysaer and his APPARENT, yes, only apparent sincerity, I offer the following, which I believe was attributed to Groucho Marx:
The key to success is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you've got it made.
[Sarcasm/] Really, Hunter? Lysaer rode a UNICORN? I thought only virgins could, which means Morriel would be eligible, but Lysaer definitely not. [/Sarcasm]