701 réponses à ce sujet

[TheLostGenius]

I thought the use of "mutated protheans" was a stroke of sheer genius!!

[DPSSOC]

Alocormin wrote...

Did Cerberus get its super soldier?

 
Good question I'm kinda curious myself.

Alocormin wrote...
Wouldn't it be possible to test acid on human blood or body matter without torturing someone with it?

 
Possible, yes.  Safe, yes.  Effective, yes.  Sensible, yes.  Heck they could have tested it on pigs.  However testing it on blood or non-living tissue samples (cuts of skin, cloned organs, arteries, etc.) requires a lot more testing to weed out fluke events.  It also only gives you half the equation, how does the acid react to human tissue in order to determine how tissue reacts to the acid you need a living subject.  So yes they could have done it without tormenting another human being (and probably should have) but testing it on a living human is faster and gives more accurate results.

[Internet Kraken]

DPSSOC wrote...

but testing it on a living human is faster and gives more accurate results.

And you're saying that because of this, horrific and cruel experiments are acceptable?

[GothamLord]

DPSSOC wrote...

Alocormin wrote...

Did Cerberus get its super soldier?

 
Good question I'm kinda curious myself.

Alocormin wrote...
Wouldn't it be possible to test acid on human blood or body matter without torturing someone with it?

 
Possible, yes.  Safe, yes.  Effective, yes.  Sensible, yes.  Heck they could have tested it on pigs.  However testing it on blood or non-living tissue samples (cuts of skin, cloned organs, arteries, etc.) requires a lot more testing to weed out fluke events.  It also only gives you half the equation, how does the acid react to human tissue in order to determine how tissue reacts to the acid you need a living subject.  So yes they could have done it without tormenting another human being (and probably should have) but testing it on a living human is faster and gives more accurate results.

Now while I dont condone Cerberus' practices and torture on human test subjects... Has anything actually been said to imply that they didnt do this type of testing BEFORE moving onto human subjects? Or atleast steal research from some other source that had been testing it prior to the events you come across in ME??

[Collider]

It's more than a hundred years in the future, they don't need to be testing on live humans.

[DPSSOC]

Internet Kraken wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
but testing it on a living human is faster and gives more accurate results.

And you're saying that because of this, horrific and cruel experiments are acceptable?

Not at all.  I'm saying they're expedient.  My post was merely intended to point out there is a reason (not the best reason but a reason) for what they did.  Maybe that was their reason, maybe their reason was Corporal Toombs had stolen the project directors girlfriend in College I don't know but it's not like there's no rational reason for it.

[Sherana]

Internet Kraken wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
but testing it on a living human is faster and gives more accurate results.

And you're saying that because of this, horrific and cruel experiments are acceptable?

Of course not!  Because after all, that's exactly what the ****'s did.

There, I godwin'd it.  Can we shut up now?

[DPSSOC]

GothamLord wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

Alocormin wrote...

Did Cerberus get its super soldier?

 
Good question I'm kinda curious myself.

Alocormin wrote...
Wouldn't it be possible to test acid on human blood or body matter without torturing someone with it?

 
Possible, yes.  Safe, yes.  Effective, yes.  Sensible, yes.  Heck they could have tested it on pigs.  However testing it on blood or non-living tissue samples (cuts of skin, cloned organs, arteries, etc.) requires a lot more testing to weed out fluke events.  It also only gives you half the equation, how does the acid react to human tissue in order to determine how tissue reacts to the acid you need a living subject.  So yes they could have done it without tormenting another human being (and probably should have) but testing it on a living human is faster and gives more accurate results.

Now while I dont condone Cerberus' practices and torture on human test subjects... Has anything actually been said to imply that they didnt do this type of testing BEFORE moving onto human subjects? Or atleast steal research from some other source that had been testing it prior to the events you come across in ME??

That's a possibility too.

[DPSSOC]

Sherana wrote...

Internet Kraken wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
but testing it on a living human is faster and gives more accurate results.

And you're saying that because of this, horrific and cruel experiments are acceptable?

Of course not!  Because after all, that's exactly what the ****'s did.

There, I godwin'd it.  Can we shut up now?

If you look back you'll notice this thread has been godwin'd numerous times, it just refuses to die.

[Bigdoser]

Shandepared wrote...

Ray Joel Oh wrote...

Who cares what they "stand for."

I care, obviously. If they work towards advancing human interests I'm willing to forgive a lot so long as they do a good job.

cerb doing a good job?

[Zulu_DFA]

Collider wrote...

It's more than a hundred years in the future, they don't need to be testing on live humans.

In the 14th century testing on dead humans was immoral.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 28 mars 2010 - 09:29 .

[Sherana]

Bigdoser wrote...

Shandepared wrote...

Ray Joel Oh wrote...

Who cares what they "stand for."

I care, obviously. If they work towards advancing human interests I'm willing to forgive a lot so long as they do a good job.

cerb doing a good job?

C'mon, at least do the REAL facepalm... 

Modifié par Sherana, 28 mars 2010 - 09:32 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Alocormin wrote...

Did Cerberus get its super soldier?

They brought Shepard back from the dead. And he can now use firearms like the Widow sniper rifle, that are meant for vehicle/mech mount...

So they kinda do.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 28 mars 2010 - 09:32 .

[Bigdoser]

[quote]Sherana wrote...

[quote]Bigdoser wrote...

[quote]Shandepared wrote...

[quote]Ray Joel Oh wrote...

Who cares what they "stand for."
[/quote]

I care, obviously. If they work towards advancing human interests I'm willing to forgive a lot so long as they do a good job.

[/quote]

cerb doing a good job?
[/quote]

C'mon, at least do the REAL facepalm... http://i.cr3ation.co...pg/facepalm.jpg[/quote

Awesome.

[JamieCOTC]

TIM's humble beginnings.  So, decide for yourself. 

[Collider]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Collider wrote...

It's more than a hundred years in the future, they don't need to be testing on live humans.

In the 14th century testing on dead humans was immoral.

I have no problem with testing on dead humans. Dead people don't feel pain.

[Internet Kraken]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Collider wrote...

It's more than a hundred years in the future, they don't need to be testing on live humans.

In the 14th century testing on dead humans was immoral.

Are you really trying to suggest that preforming fatal tests on living humans is justified?

[Sherana]

Collider wrote...

It's more than a hundred years in the future, they don't need to be testing on live humans.

To be fair, there's plenty that claim we don't 'need' live testing TODAY, and there were plenty claiming the same thing in the past, too.  I'm not so certain they *wouldn't* need to do live tests.

That being said, however, there's a massive gulf between live testing and non-consensual live testing.  One of them being torture and murder and all that jazz.

[Sherana]

Internet Kraken wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Collider wrote...

It's more than a hundred years in the future, they don't need to be testing on live humans.

In the 14th century testing on dead humans was immoral.

Are you really trying to suggest that preforming fatal tests on living humans is justified?

Fatal tests on living, NON-CONSENTING humans.  Don't forget that part.

[Zulu_DFA]

Sherana wrote...

Internet Kraken wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Collider wrote...

It's more than a hundred years in the future, they don't need to be testing on live humans.

In the 14th century testing on dead humans was immoral.

Are you really trying to suggest that preforming fatal tests on living humans is justified?

Fatal tests on living, NON-CONSENTING humans.  Don't forget that part.

Are you sure on this part? Have you read a copy of the contracts they sing with the Exo-Geni or SA Marine Corps? All the fine print?

[ObserverStatus]

Shandepared wrote...

Ray Joel Oh wrote...

Who cares what they "stand for."

I care, obviously. If they work towards advancing human interests I'm willing to forgive a lot so long as they do a good job.

The only problem is, evil TIM won't reveal that this isn't his real goal until it's already too late for Shepard to do anything about it.

[Asheer_Khan]

Shandepared wrote...

Internet Kraken wrote...

Are you really trying to suggest that preforming fatal tests on living humans is justified?

It can be.

Who teach you this crap?

Mengele or Beria?

[Zulu_DFA]

Internet Kraken wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Collider wrote...

It's more than a hundred years in the future, they don't need to be testing on live humans.

In the 14th century testing on dead humans was immoral.

Are you really trying to suggest that preforming fatal tests on living humans is justified?

No, I know, it isn't.

But it's the future. Who knows what'll be the morals in 100 years?