701 réponses à ce sujet

[Nightwriter]

Reading this thread, it occurs to me that I've never called anyone on these forums an idiot before, per se.

Does this mean I am not a fully fledged forumite?

[Goodwood]

Nightwriter wrote...

Reading this thread, it occurs to me that I've never called anyone on these forums an idiot before, per se.

Does this mean I am not a fully fledged forumite?

Hahaha, don't worry about it mate.

Goodwood's Law: As an internet discussion grows larger, the probability of an analogy to 9/11 and/or the events thereunto approaches 1.

[TuringPoint]

kraidy1117 wrote...

Nor are they evil. Evil would be just feeding the colony for no reason. Cerberus wanted to see how much damage a Maw could do and so far. Was it wrong? Yes, was it evil? Not realy because Cerberus was trying to find out stuff, I highly doubt it went like this.

TIM: Resercher, I want you to feed a colony to a Thresher Maw.
Resercher: Why?
TIM: Just for fun

If anything TIm wanted information and the reserches part of that cell thought that feeding a cololny was the best descion.

Well, that might be good because at least it's for fun.

What stuff were they trying to find out?  Do you think the tests **** scientists ran on jews were somehow less evil because they were done to find out stuff?  I'm not accusing you of thinking that, just curious.

[lastpawn]

I was going to make a comment on this thread since it seemed interesting, but it looks like the trolls have gotten to it good already.

[TuringPoint]

Shandepared wrote...

Internet Kraken wrote...


Then I'm going to assume that nothing productive did come out of it.

As long as you are willing to admit that your assumption is a baseless one.

I think Kraken just understands common sense.

Suspending your assumptions is one thing, but if your opinion requires apathy to what facts you *are* aware of for certain, it is most certainly a baseless opinion.

[Goodwood]

Shandepared wrote...

Goodwood wrote...

I can respect a person who is at least consistent in their morality and/or viewpoint even if I disagree with it vehemently, or one who admits that they have issues with their own moral compass. Your morality isn't complex, it's FUBARed. And worse, you don't even realize this.

You have piqued my curiosity. Please give me a detailed analsys of my morality and exactly which positions I hold which you feel are inconsisent or even contradictory.

For starters, your behavior in this thread and the "Why were the quarians kicked out of the Council" thread are very different, or at least they appear so from my point of view. In some threads you are able to make valid points, even if I disagree with them, while in others, to paraphrase Lord Coake, you throw out these half-baked strawmen and red herrings without any semblence of attempting to forward the debate.

If you want anything more detailed, seek out a therapist. I am not one.

Modifié par Goodwood, 28 mars 2010 - 04:47 .

[Lord Coake]

Shandepared wrote...

Lord Coake wrote...

Thats not an "ends justify the means" argument.  That weighing numbers of lives lost for numbers of lives saved.  In a crisis, leader figures have to make hard decisions like that.

That's exactly what "ends justify the means" is about.

No, it's not.  Ends justifying the means is willingness to take any action, embrace any methods, ignore any and all laws, codes or ethics that may impede you in order to acheive some goal.  Thats what Cerberus does.  It cloaks itself in a supposedly good cause, and declares that the fruits of it's actions will far outweigh any crimes they've comitted to acheive them.

By the way, Goering, Himmler and Spier thought the same thing all the way up to Nuremburg.  They got proven wrong.

Being forced to choose to save one group of people over another from death, and choosing the larger number of people, is the kind of soul-wreching choice leaders have to make, and they face the consequences head on afterwards.  Were the President, or some poor bastard of a Colonel that just had command dropped on his shoulders, to face such a choice, I'd expect them to shoot that plane down.  A few hundred to save a few thousand.  A sorrowful choice, but one that will not be forgotten, even after those than forced it are brought to justice.

Modifié par Lord Coake, 28 mars 2010 - 04:53 .

[TuringPoint]

Shandepared wrote...

Alocormin wrote...


I think Kraken just understands common sense.

I really doubt that.

He assumes that the experiments Cerberus did were unnecessary and produced no results. All I state is that Cerberus likely didn't do it for no reason. Perhaps they were careless and gained nothing, or perhaps they felt it was the best way and they did gain something. I don't know. However I don't think they're stupid.

It's not whether they had a reason.  It's whether their reason made any sense that matters.

An example someone else put up of evil is, "sick that thresher maw on them because it'll be funny."  That is evil because the reason is flimsy.  If the reason Cerberus caused Akuze was flimsy, the Illusive Man might as well have been doing it for kicks.

Your assumption that Cerberus had good reasons for doing this is quite baseless.  
Kraken was voicing common sense, not that common sense is always right.

Some interesting opinions you have, though.  I just choose to disagree with them

Modifié par Alocormin, 28 mars 2010 - 04:52 .

[Lord Coake]

Alocormin wrote...

Shandepared wrote...

Alocormin wrote...


I think Kraken just understands common sense.

I really doubt that.

He assumes that the experiments Cerberus did were unnecessary and produced no results. All I state is that Cerberus likely didn't do it for no reason. Perhaps they were careless and gained nothing, or perhaps they felt it was the best way and they did gain something. I don't know. However I don't think they're stupid.

It's not whether they had a reason.  It's whether their reason made any sense that matters.

An example someone else put up of evil is, "sick that thresher maw on them because it'll be funny."  That is evil because the reason is flimsy.  If the reason Cerberus caused Akuze was flimsy, the Illusive Man might as well have been doing it for kicks.

Your assumption that Cerberus had good reasons for doing this is quite baseless.  
Kraken was voicing common sense, not that common sense is always right.

Some interesting opinions you have, though.  I just choose to disagree with them

TIM/Cerb can tout their "good reasons" all they want.  Akuze was a monsterous act of murder and betrayal perpetrated by an organization of murdering cowards willing to do anything in the name of their power grab.

[Goodwood]

Shandepared wrote...

Lord Coake wrote...

No, it's not.

Yes, it is. It means doing whatever you need to based upon the goal. If you are in the crisis then that might mean doing something that you would otherwise not do. What are you arguing is that I should be willing to kill to get a hamburger or stealing one as opposed to just paying for it. I would say that killing or stealing for food would only be justified if I was unable to acquire it otherwise.

It could be said that an attitude of "ends justify the means", if applied to everyday situations, is indicative of sociopathic tendancies. But then, that would be uncharitable.

[Nightwriter]

kraidy1117 wrote...

Only a couple of experiments have
failed and they where not rouge. The one on Azuse (spelling) was a
succes because Cerberus got there reserch on Maws and had a a life
subject matter. It is wrong? Yes it is, but it still had vital reserch.
As for the Rachni, no one knew what would happen with them, it was a
huge risk and it failed. The husk project was a succes because Cerberus
studied how a human became a husk and what happens. It is disgusting,
but it is for the greater good. The Thorian creepers failed because
Shepard broke into that base. Jack and the Acension project failed
because of betrayal. The Lazarus project did not realy fail, even if
Shepard destorys the base. They still defetaed the Collectors and that
was the point of that project.

They are not good, but not evil
because they are doing stuff for the greater good.

Hmm.

I might define evil, in this case, not as the intent to hurt people without cause, but as not caring that they are hurt so long as it helps achieve the goal of power.

When we say something is evil, we do not always mean that it is evil for evil’s sake, do we? I certainly don’t. The concept of an absolute Satan in this regard can be... naive, sometimes.

I don’t see Cerberus as being evil for evil’s sake, either. I see them as wanting power. What is evil, and corrupt, to me, is that that power is their own personal godhead, the idol which they worship above all others and will sacrifice anything to achieve.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 28 mars 2010 - 05:07 .

[TuringPoint]

Shandepared wrote...
I would say that killing or stealing for food would only be justified if I was unable to acquire otherwise. 

I share this view... although it's still immoral to steal food if someone needs it, and in the real world the only reason hunger exists is that the food doesn't get to where it needs to be.  Possibly because others are getting fat off their own greed... and I would say Cerberus displays some greed in how it tries to further humanity's goals.

I could believe that Cerberus' goals were good if he worked to make sure humanity, all of humanity, benefited.  If he made sure the people he recruited weren't convicts or worse.  If he could convince people to do the "right thing" rather than just threatening or punishing them if they ever stray.

He is a bit of a thug.  In some ways this works out quite handily, at other times... not so much.  

I believe we saw the nice side of Cerberus, because TIM had no reason to alienate Shepard, and needed Shepard to do his/her thing.

[TuringPoint]

Cerberus does some things the Alliance or council won't, but it also goes further than necessary. It does more than just try for survival. It goes for the power of the human race - survival is just a sub-issue.

[TuringPoint]

Shandepared wrote...
Cerberus needs to worry about humanity as a whole, 

A little confused?  You go from saying they can't help all of humanity to saying they're not doing that in order to help all of humanity.

I understand that tactical choices need to be made.  It is a fairly limited organization and that involves desperate measures.  But why is it such a hush-hush, limited organization?

The Alliance makes tactical choices too, I imagine.  But if you could prove that every tactical choice made by Cerberus helped humanity, that would be fine.  

However, we don't have enough information to say that, and we have implications from TIM himself that Cerberus will go much, much farther to achieve human dominance in the galaxy.

Human dominance.  

Not just survival.  

Even if they were just out for human survival, they would be the equivalent to people who live a life expecting their death at all times in real life - meaning, they don't get a lot done, and they're a lot more likely to end up in dire situations because of their own stupidity.  If you transfer that quality into an organization... I don't really like where that would lead humanity.

Modifié par Alocormin, 28 mars 2010 - 05:16 .

[Internet Kraken]

Shandepared wrote...

Alocormin wrote...


I think Kraken just understands common sense.

I really doubt that.

Gee, thanks.

He assumes that the experiments Cerberus did were unnecessary and produced no results. All I state is that Cerberus likely didn't do it for no reason. Perhaps they were careless and gained nothing, or perhaps they felt it was the best way and they did gain something. I don't know. However I don't think they're stupid.

You know, if you're so confident that something productive that advanced human interests came out of this, then tell me, what could it possibly be? Because I'm really struggling to think of anything you can learn from feeding an entire colonies population to thresher maws, other than assessing their destructive capabilities. But that would be like tying up a bunch of people and then feeding them to sharks. It shows you the destructive capabilities of the species, but using humans is completely unnecessary. Would you approve of this asinine test as well?

Maybe calling Cerberus stupid isn't the right thing. It's more appropriate to call them reckless and amoral.

Modifié par Internet Kraken, 28 mars 2010 - 05:13 .

[Goodwood]

Alocormin wrote...

Shandepared wrote...
Cerberus needs to worry about humanity as a whole, 

A little confused?  You go from saying they can't help all of humanity to saying they're not doing that in order to help all of humanity.

In other words, Cerberus.  It does not worry about the people who comprise it.  It worries about its own.

I understand that tactical choices need to be made.  It is a fairly limited organization and that involves desperate measures.  But why is it such a hush-hush, limited organization?

Thank you, Alocormin.

See Shand, this is the kind of thing I was talking about earlier. You can't have it both ways; either you co-operate with others and work toward a greater goal, or you try to dominate and impose. Both have their benefits, and both have their flaws, but trying to mix them is a recipe for disaster.

[Booglarize]

Hmm... if some of the arguments made in this thread are to be believed, I guess a group like, say, Unit 731 can't really be considered "evil" either. After all, they were just conducting research, and if the postwar immunity deal is any indication, it looks like they actually made some useful discoveries too.