Originally posted by Beniboybling
Neph if stating the obvious equates to getting philosophical in your books then I really worry about your IQ.If your are forced into doing something against your will, the fact that you disagree with the act is implicit. And overruling your ability to decide (via in this case mental domination) doesn't change the fact you remain in disagreement, only circumvents your opinion and intentions.
So no, if they agreed to the ritual they evidently were wilful participants, and any other reading through whatever mental gymnastics is indeed, disingenuous.
The point is that arguing about whether or not an agreement can exist without free will is irrelevant sophistry.
As I showed, whether or not you're willingly agreeing doesn't matter. The definition of an agreement is clear and it does not preclude a forced agreement. All that an agreement requires are the factors I provided. Regardless of their original opinions, if Vitiate dominated them, they would still share his own afterwards. Regardless of what they said previously, if they said they would participate after Vitiate's influence, they would still be agreeing to participate.
Nope. As shown, you can agree to something against your will. Vitiate's mental control has once again failed to be contradicted. Try try again.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Neph, how well do you think your "they technically agreed to it because I forced them to agree to it!" would work in court?You're playing mental gymnastics with the language to support a clearly misleading, if not grammatically incorrect, conclusion, all so that you can justify the arbitrary opinion of Nyriss one thousand years after the fact.
I'm not in court and neither was Vitiate. We don't need to worry about legalities. An agreement exists even if it was forced. Whether or not it would be upheld doesn't change the fact that it existed in the first place.
LOL! The whole argument is based around a single word, of course we're going to argue around how that word can be interpreted. As I have shown the strict dictionary definition doesn't take into account anything that would contradict Nyriss' version of events. You're just trying to dismiss a feat that you don't like regardless of how flimsy of a contradiction you can get.