Board Thread:Lore Discussion/@comment-209.7.3.188-20160303204000/@comment-26893431-20160323174202

Bronkiin wrote: Because that argument isn't some kind of God argument that instantly nullifies the opposition. I've pointed out above that this division is due to religion, and that the divide between Skyrim and the Empire happened at the White-Gold Concordat, not because of the rebellion. The rebellion was a symptom of those already existing divisions. The damage was already done. The only way to galvanise Skyrim to any sort of effective resistance against the Thalmor is if it is independent. This was all addressed in previous threads, Jauffre, an argument you had to drop out of because you couldn't keep up.

The reason there are still Stormcloaks is because the reasons for each side were designed to be equally compelling. An answer to this debate is likely never to be found, and if it is, will occur at a far higher level of discussion. You need to start addressing points people make at face value instead of sarcastic and dismissive one sentence replies. I will admit, however, that "Everybody's heard this particular argument before, you don't have to bring it back up." is equally non-constructive. My country exists because of a civil war over religion, you act as if you know when it is justified, in Skyrim it is not. The Stormcloaks are the cause of the entire ban being enforced, prior to the Markarth Incident there weren't any Thalmor in Skyrim.