New CG Cinematic for The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt Shows Geralt “Killing Monsters”

[GuyNwah]

What can be an evidence in support of his lying FROM THE TRAILER OR PREVIEWS GAMES? What is the evidence due process wasn't followed? Nilfgaard is very strict concerning following laws, that much we know. To claim that the verdict is forged, that it was a quick hanging, and that the girl is just an innocent victim, is not based on anything we know either from a trailer, or from the games. These are positive claims that require justification, but real life examples are irrelevant here. Just because it happened often in many places does not demonstrate that this is happening here as well.

No evidence that the commander is lying is needed. It is never presumed that a party to a trial is telling the truth; it is a question that any observer may decide for himself, based on all the circumstances known and the observer's impression of the party. The only evidence that the commander is not lying appears to be a strongly-held belief that Nilfgaardian field commanders are paragons of truth and justice. Maybe you will be vindicated when the full context comes out in the game. In the meantime, it does not matter. Only what Geralt may believe, out of his experience alone, justifies or condemns his actions.

Absent proof that the commander is not lying, anybody may have reasonable doubt that the verdict is authentic at all. In particular, Geralt is unlikely to believe that the commander is not lying.

 

[Agent_Blue]

Then OK. Thanks for taking some minutes to explain me this point. />/>/>/>/>

I am going to sidestep here a bit. Wichat if you're interested in these philosophical and epistemological issues, I recommend you watch a show. First let me be cristal clear about it: I am not promoting nor endorsing the show's point of view and I certainly do not want to start a debate on the topic here on this thread nor on the forum for that matter.

Its called The The Atheist Experince
(you can also watch it on Youtube)


It spends a great deal of time exposing logical fallacies, burden of proof, positive claims, the sort of stuff we've been discussing. it's also great fun at times.

Enjoy!

 

[vivaxardas2015]

If you want some free classes, and have enough money to buy things (or simply do not consider pirating morally impermissible), go see The Great Courses web-site.

http://www.thegreatcourses.com/greatcourses.aspx

They publish university level courses from NA Universities on a lot of subjects, including history, philosophy, sciences, arts, and so on.

 

[wichat]

I am going to sidestep here a bit. Wichat if you're interested in these philosophical and epistemological issues, I recommend you watch a show. First let me be cristal clear about it: I am not promoting nor endorsing the show's point of view and I certainly do not want to start a debate on the topic here on this thread or on the forum for that matter.

Its called The The Atheist Experince
(you can also watch it on Youtube)


It spends a great deal of time exposing logical fallacies, burden of proof, positive claims, the sort of stuff we've been discussing. it's also great fun at times. />/>

Enjoy!

Oh! Thank you, really. But my handle with English is with the writen form. As I have nobody who to pratice spoken English with I have big troubles with the comprehention of oral conversations.

@vivarxardas Nice detail, Thanks.

 

[Senteria]

Oh! Thank you, really. But my handle with English is with the writen form. As I have nobody who to pratice spoken English with I have big troubles with the comprehention of oral conversations.

I'm sure quite some people here wouldn't mind practising your english skills while talking about the Witcher. Skype is pretty handy for that.

 

[Agent_Blue]

The only evidence that the commander is not lying appears to be a strongly-held belief that Nilfgaardian field commanders are paragons of truth and justice.

Amazing. You actually attempted to turn this on its head.

So we're supposed to to go with real life presumption of innocence when it comes to the girl, but until someone can demonstrate the commander is not lying, we are to assume he is.

I see.

The party is set to hang her. Time they spend tormenting is relatively short, the girl is already being hoisted when Geralt decides to turn back. This suggests they're goal is to punish her, sadistically, not just use her for their sick demented recreational purposes. For if it were the case they would have tormented her extensively, which they didn't.

As for the claim the party might have tortured her before the reading of the sentence, it is quite a shaky thesis. What kind of extended abuse would have left no marks except for a faint redness in the neck and some shrivelled clothes? Both are far better explained by the girl resisting arrest, as suggested by the fact she offers resistance throughout the trailer.

 

[username_3682323]

Amazing. You actually attempted to turn this on its head.

So we're supposed to to go with real life presumption of innocence when it comes to teh girl, but until someone can demonstrate the commander is not lying, we are to assume he is.

I see.

The party is set to hang her. Time they spend tormenting is relatively short, the girl is already being hoisted when Geralt decides to turn back. This suggests they're goal is to punish her, sadistically, not just use her for their sick demented recreational purposes. For if it were the case they would have tormented her extensively, which they didn't.

As for the the claim the party might have tortured her before the reading of the sentence, it is quite a shaky thesis. What kind of extended abuse would have left no marks except for a faint redness in the neck and some shrivelled clothes? Both are far better explained by the girl resisting arrest, as suggested by the fact she offers resistance throughout most of the trailer.

uh if I walked up on three guys in the middle of no where doing that I can't say I would not try to stop it (if I could work up the courage) sorry but from what gerald had to go one few people would think ah he is telling the truth no reason to question what they are doing. also how is her struggling meaning the soldiers are right. also the reason they didn't show her tortured or looking like she is beaten is because it is bad publicity and would likely not go over well.

 

[wichat]

What kind of extended abuse would have left no marks except for a faint redness in the neck and some shrivelled clothes?

A lot, the punches in the liver are the most used and just by avoiding leave marks they are more sadistics, the more of them can not be identified at first sight but after a thorough medical check. And I'd rather not go into details here.

 

[Agent_Blue]

uh if I walked up on three guys in the middle of no where doing that I can't say I would not try to stop it (if I could work up the courage) sorry but from what gerald had to go one few people would think ah he is telling the truth no reason to question what they are doing. also how is her struggling meaning the soldiers are right. also the reason they didn't show her tortured or looking like she is beaten is because it is bad publicity and would likely not go over well.

I think Geralt is perfectly justified in acting. I'd say 98% of all mankind would act if it were filling Geralt's shoes. I know I would, but all that's completely beside the point.

I guess you too do not agree with said basic principle.


So now we're claiming CDProjekt didn't show her badly bruised because it would be bad publicity?!

Great. I can now claim they didn't show the blood on her hands, face and clothes brought about by her cannibalism because it would be bad publicity as well.

Do you see where this tactic leads us onto? Do you now understand we must agree on said principle, otherwise we just drift off and away to wherever it's rhetorically convenient for each one of us?

 

[Lahiri.308]

Best trailer ever. Period.

 

[Agent_Blue]

A lot, the punches in the liver are the most used and just by avoiding leave marks they are more sadistics, the more of them can not be identified at first sight but after a thorough medical check. And I'd rather not go into details here.

No, Wichat. No.

We have no reason whatsoever to believe that the preliminary beating - if ever there were one - was qualitatively different from the one we witness in the trailer. And the one we witness does leave a mark. Ergo, she would have been badly bruised had she been severely beaten prior to the reading of the sentence. Since she is not, one is justified in deducing she has not been tormented extensively prior to the reading of the sentence.

Therefore, it seems the party was indeed set on hanging her swiftly. Which implies the party was convinced of her guilt.

 

[GuyNwah]

Amazing. You actually attempted to turn this on its head.

So we're supposed to to go with real life presumption of innocence when it comes to the girl, but until someone can demonstrate the commander is not lying, we are to assume he is.

Exactly. Only a defendant is entitled to a presumption of innocence. There is no such presumption in favor of the accuser. It is not an unfair argument at all to presume that the commander is lying until proof is offered that he is not lying. It is what passes for justice in this world and Geralt's.

Justice may require that a person who is as a matter of fact guilty be allowed to go free. A lack of belief in the truth of the charges is one good reason. A belief that the punishment to be exacted is unconscionably cruel is another.

 

[alextyc1]

*looking at the comments*
*eating popcorn*

 

[Agent_Blue]

Exactly. Only a defendant is entitled to a presumption of innocence. There is no such presumption in favor of the accuser. It is not an unfair argument at all to presume that the commander is lying until proof is offered that he is not lying. It is what passes for justice in this world and Geralt's.

You're framing of this as something equatable with a real life scenario is both bewildering and utterly inadequate. All the reasoning here is to get to the bottom of this, not a check-list on whether this has been due process - I'd guess it hasn't. Presumption of innocence is a necessity that functions when all legal formal procedures are in place. Now, usually, sentences are preceded by evidence review. Since the trailer starts off at the end, at the reading of the sentence, the viewer never gets to hear the accusation's case, if there ever was one, something he definitely would in a real life scenario. That alone shatters any real life inspired legalistic takes on this ordeal.

But your reasoning is additionally flawed. Say Nilfgaardian martial justice fails to comply with the basic requirements of what we would call due process. Say it allocates all prerogatives to the accusation and none to the defence. That in itself says nothing about the girl's factual culpability or innocence, for it could be the case she'd be indeed guilty while at the same time all checks and balances had been forsaken in favour of the accusation. And one is here to establish the facts, to the best of one's abilities.

On a minor side note, the two statements are not actually irreconcilable. Hypothetically, it is possible for both the party to be persuaded of her guilt and at the same time for her to be innocent - which would of course congeal all the seemingly contradictory hints into one cohesive truth.

I shall not pass comment on the last sentence in that quote.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

You're framing of this as a real life scenario is utterly inadequate to get to teh bottom of this, which is what the thread is about.

Even in RL is does not work like this. Say I am an American traveling in some foreign country. I see some soldiers read a verdict to a woman, and in general it is a situation exactly as in the trailer (Mind you that NML is under Nilfgaardian control, and under their laws). This country is also known for some mistreatment and abuses. I have no evidence that the woman is not guilty. I have no evidence soldiers are lying. So what, is it warranted to claim that they should demonstrate to me the verdict is not forged? And if they can't demonstrate it to me (why a hell should they do it to begin with, it is not like you have a right to claim it anyway, but it is another matter), I can assume they were actually lying, and the woman was innocent? I don't think so.

 

[GuyNwah]

Even in RL is does not work like this. Say I am an American traveling in some foreign country. I see some soldiers read a verdict to a woman, and in general it is a situation exactly as in the trailer (Mind you that NML is under Nilfgaardian control, and under their laws). This country is also known for some mistreatment and abuses. I have no evidence that the woman is not guilty. I have no evidence soldiers are lying. So what, is it warranted to claim that they should demonstrate to me the verdict is not forged? And if they can't demonstrate it to me (why a hell should they do it to begin with, it is not like you have a right to claim it anyway, but it is another matter), I can assume they were actually lying, and the woman was innocent? I don't think so.

No, absolutely not. Nilfgaard has no standing as sovereign in this territory, only the status of an invader. They have a name for people who acquiesce in the rule of an invader. It's "collaborator".

As for the evidence, no evidence that the woman is not guilty is needed, and no evidence that the soldiers are lying or the verdict is inauthentic is needed. The burden of proof is the other way around. The truth of the charges must be proved, even if that proof should extend only to satisfactory demonstrations of the soldiers' good faith. But here there is no such demonstration; in fact, the face of the situation is that they are torturing a civilian in disregard of her guilt.

Geralt is bound by his belief in doing what he sees to be justice, not by what passes for justice under Nilfgaardian martial law. Anybody with the power to act against an apparent injustice being perpetrated by an invader has a duty to act, one that he may or may not choose to carry out.

 

[username_3682323]

I think Geralt is perfectly justified in acting. I'd say 98% of all mankind would act if it were filling Geralt's shoes. I know I would, but all that's completely besides the point.

I guess you too do not agree with said basic principle.


So now we're claiming CDProjekt didn't show her badly bruised because it would be bad publicity?!

Great. I can now claim they didn't show the blood on her hands, face and clothes brought about by her cannibalism because it would be bad publicity as well.

Do you see where this tactic leave us? Do you understand we must agree on the said principle, otherwise we just drift off and away to wherever it's rhetorically convenient for each of us?

touche. also I said before I think people are looking into this trailer a bit much

 

[kitta]

also I said before I think people are looking into this trailer a bit much

I believe the whole effort here is to materialize a problem which doesn't exist simply to create controversy or doubt. The same thing with the size of Novigrad (which may or may not be Novigrad in the first place).

 

[username_3682323]

I believe the whole effort here is to materialize a problem which doesn't exist simply to create controversy or doubt. The same thing with the size of Novigrad (which may or may not be Novigrad in the first place).

did they ever say it was gonna be in novigrad

 

[vivaxardas2015]

did they ever say it was gonna be in novigrad

That is part of the controversy.