701 réponses à ce sujet

[Urazz]

Weskerr wrote...

InHarmsWay wrote...

Anyone completely lose it when they heard Kelly say "Cerberus' methods are extreme, but they have noble objectives"?

I felt like there should have been a dialogue option with something along the lines of:

-mentioning rachni experiments
-turning two colonies into Thorian creepers and husks
-two occasions of using thresher maws against a squad of marines (one of which Sole Survivor Shepard was involved with)
-killing Khahoku
-more rachni experiments

She says that line with a straight face that made me want to yell, "Get the f*ck out of here!"

There are plenty of other times when Shepard should say something, but doesn't have the option to, like right after Shepard, Jacob, and Miranda escape the Project Lazarus Faciility in that small FTL vehicle. Jacob says something like "Soldiers under your command died on Akuze in a Thresher Maw attack. Must have been hard for you." The fact that Cerberus is responsible for that is not available as a response in Shepard's dialogue wheel.

Question is, do we know that Cerberus is responsible for the thresher maw attack on Akuze?  All we really got is Tomb's assertation that they were and the proof that they experimented on him along with us knowing they manipulated Kahoku's men into another Akuze type incident.  I'm not saying they didn't cause the attack on the marines on Akuze, but we got no real proof other than that of a man who has been tortured and experimented on.

[Lord Coake]

Shandepared wrote...

Speakeasy13 wrote...

What is humanity to you?

An intelligent organism that has its own needs which need to be met and its own interests which need to be guarded and advanced.

"Better to live in contradiction than to decay righteously."

Considering what humanity is up against in Mass Effect ethics need to take a back-seat to survival.

Fine then.  You and your family have been volunteered to be subjects in the next thresher maw experiment.  Don't worry, it's for the betterment of humanity.  Now, now, don't thrash around so much and please quiet down.  After you get strapped to the table, we can get started.

What? You said the ends justified the means *readies syringe* this won't hurt a bit.

People who tout "end justify the means" are perfectly welcome to put their money where their mouths are and be the next ones thrown into the grinder.

Modifié par Lord Coake, 28 mars 2010 - 04:01 .

[TheLostGenius]

In summary: Cereberus is run but a deranged maniac named Timothy. Timothy wants to take over the galaxy using magical alien technology. Timothy tells whoppers sometimes, but its for the greater good of goodness that he does it. You should believe everything Timothy tells you, even if its a whopper, because its what you need to hear. Timothy does not run an evil organization. Just because some people have morality and believe in ethical standards does not mean that Timothy is bad. Timothy is good, he saved you and brought you back to life and gave you a space ship. Timothy is your friend, even when he lies.

[Speakeasy13]

Shandepared wrote...

Speakeasy13 wrote...

The only reason you think Cerberus is not worse than the Council is because you are human and Cerberus is human. And that makes you all the more ethnocentric yourself. How ironic.

I don't try and portray myself as being some unbaised and fair bringer of justice and harmony to the galaxy like the Council does. Anyone who buys into their propaganda is a fool. The Council is there to keep non-Council races down, and even to keep newcommers like humanity out of their club.

You don't think the American government is there to keep developing counrties down, and even to keep mewcommers out of their club? Don't give me the "But the Middleeast is threatening our security", the same can be said about the Batarians. If you can justify what the US is doing to Iraq, then I can justify the Council in the same logic.

The Council is nothing like the American government and the CIA is
nothing like the Spectres. The CIA comes under scrutinty and their
members can be punished. The CIA can only take action that their
superiors tell them to; they don't have individual autonomy like the
Spectres do.

You see how contradictary you logic is? The CIA can only take faulty orders, thus they are not at fault, yet they should be scrutinized and punished. Shouldn't the ones giving the order be scrunitized and punished instead?

A CIA agent justifying himself as following orders is no better than a SPECTRE saying "I'm above the law". At least the latter is only one person not an entire agency acting on behalf of an entire govenment. I mean, it's not like the CIA never did anything against the law right?

[Goodwood]

Something to consider in this debate: the Gray Fallacy.

This occurs when people assume that, when two opposing viewpoints are voiced, the truth must be somewhere in between, since neither side can be trusted to tell the truth. The reason why this is a fallacy is that it dismisses out of hand the possibility that one viewpoint is correct while the other is not, and assumes that, because the two sides are in direct opposition, they must always be manipulating the truth for their own ends. This violates the charity principle of logic, which states that one must assume that an argument made in honest debate has been put forth in good faith, and only discounted when evidence to the contrary is discovered.

TL:DR version: Just because the pro- and anti-Cerberus crowds are so vehement and vocal, that doesn't automatically mean that the (in-universe) reality is somewhere in the middle.

Given the evidence put forth in full explorations of both games, it can logically be determined that Cerberus is, at best, a rogue entity that engages in often unnecessary and brutal experiments and activities. Whatever good comes from Project Lazerus (meaning, that this ends up being the difference between victory against the Reapers or the continuation of the cycle) cannot justify the liberties taken by the various cells of Cerberus. The Illusive Martin Sheen Man himself states categorically and unequivically that he is intent on promoting humanity at any cost, and that he believes that he knows best.

What that means for us and our visions of Shepard is, of course, in each of our own hands. However, we should not be so quick to dismiss the facts of the case based on our individual leanings and mindsets.

[Lord Coake]

Shandepared wrote...

Lord Coake wrote...

What? You said the ends justified the means *readies syringe* this won't hurt a bit.

An unpleasant fate, but what does that prove?

A virulent disease has broken out in your city. It is extremely lethal and spreads quickly. The military has quarantined the city and will shoot on sight anyone attempting to leave. You and your family are barricaded in your house but none of you are infected. The military is preparing to drop a bomb on the city to wipe out the virus and prevent its spread.

Don't worry, it won't hurt a bit.

Then the people blokading the city have a fight on their hands.  I repsect that a authorised, legitimate military establishement has legal orders given by proper authorities to do their job.  I, however, also have the right to fight for my own.  Game on.

Because the ends don't justify the means.

BTW, said scenario is hollywood BS.  Quarentines work by cutting off travel and segregating the populace of infected areas.  Nuking the plague zone does more harm than good, since the doctors won't have anymore cases to study so they can make a cure.

Ends justifying the means is the call of those too stupid and lazy to sack up for the long haul and would rather just use a string of ****ty short term solutions (if even that).  It also enables said people to attempt to paint themselves as some sort of grim, misunderstood heroes when they're really nothing more than  a pack of murdering sociopaths with a self-importance complex.

Modifié par Lord Coake, 28 mars 2010 - 04:10 .

[Goodwood]

Lord Coake wrote...

Shandepared wrote...

Lord Coake wrote...

What? You said the ends justified the means *readies syringe* this won't hurt a bit.

An unpleasant fate, but what does that prove?

A virulent disease has broken out in your city. It is extremely lethal and spreads quickly. The military has quarantined the city and will shoot on sight anyone attempting to leave. You and your family are barricaded in your house but none of you are infected. The military is preparing to drop a bomb on the city to wipe out the virus and prevent its spread.

Don't worry, it won't hurt a bit.

Then the people blokading the city have a fight on their hands.  I repsect that a authorised, legitimate military establishement has legal orders given by proper authorities to do their job.  I, however, also have the right to fight for my own.  Game on.

Because the ends don't justify the means.

BTW, said scenario is hollywood BS.  Quarentines work by cutting off travel and segregating the populace of infected areas.  Buking the plague zone does more harm than good, since the doctors won't have anymore cases to study so they can make a cure.

Ends justifying the means is the call of those too stupid and lazy to sack up for the long haul and would rather just use a string of ****ty short term solutions (if even that).  It also enables said people to attempt to paint themselves as some sort of grim, misunderstood heroes when they're really nothing more than  a pack of murdering sociopaths with a self-importance complex.

Couldn't have said it better. BTW, the movie is Outbreak, starring Mel Gibson and Morgan Freeman.

[DPSSOC]

Speakeasy13 wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

[color=red">In all seriousness I ]My view on the matter is that it's intent that's important not action[/color], so while TIM certainly isn't going to win any humanitarian of the year awards I can understand and appreciate why he does what he does.

Clearly you haven't read through this thread and see 70% of what Cerberus puppies have been saying.

Haven't read the whole thing no, so perhaps my statement was more of a hope than anything else.

Speakeasy13 wrote...
In other words, the end justifies the means. If that's your logic there's really no need for you to be so polite, witty and diplomatic here. Being a d!ckhead usually gets the point across better

Canadian can't help it.

Speakeasy13 wrote...
Mr. "Human > everyone else" not getting a humanitarian award? How ironic.

Not particularly, being humanitarian has little to do with being human it refers to a particular attitude towards your fellow man.

Definition: having concern for or helping to improve the welfare and happiness of people.

another that fits this particular example better: pertaining to the saving of human lives or to the alleviation of suffering:

TIM doesn't care about securing people's welfare and happiness or alleviating suffering.  He's not even conscerned with sacrificing human lives, his sole concern is the strength and security of the species as a whole (at least that's the impression I got).  It's the doctor vs the gate guard; the doctor wants to make sure the people are healthy, the guard wants to make sure the town is safe.

Speakeasy13 wrote...
Your last point explains itself perfectly here. What is humanity to you? What TIM Cerberus is doing is going against everything that makes us human here,

 
Incorrect.  It is our genes that make us human, nothing else.  They may be going against everything that makes us noble (or what we've decided is noble), but nobility's a lot like pride if it's all you've got you've got nothing.

Modifié par DPSSOC, 28 mars 2010 - 04:14 .

[Lord Coake]

Goodwood wrote...

Lord Coake wrote...

Shandepared wrote...

Lord Coake wrote...

What? You said the ends justified the means *readies syringe* this won't hurt a bit.

An unpleasant fate, but what does that prove?

A virulent disease has broken out in your city. It is extremely lethal and spreads quickly. The military has quarantined the city and will shoot on sight anyone attempting to leave. You and your family are barricaded in your house but none of you are infected. The military is preparing to drop a bomb on the city to wipe out the virus and prevent its spread.

Don't worry, it won't hurt a bit.

Then the people blokading the city have a fight on their hands.  I repsect that a authorised, legitimate military establishement has legal orders given by proper authorities to do their job.  I, however, also have the right to fight for my own.  Game on.

Because the ends don't justify the means.

BTW, said scenario is hollywood BS.  Quarentines work by cutting off travel and segregating the populace of infected areas.  Buking the plague zone does more harm than good, since the doctors won't have anymore cases to study so they can make a cure.

Ends justifying the means is the call of those too stupid and lazy to sack up for the long haul and would rather just use a string of ****ty short term solutions (if even that).  It also enables said people to attempt to paint themselves as some sort of grim, misunderstood heroes when they're really nothing more than  a pack of murdering sociopaths with a self-importance complex.

Couldn't have said it better. BTW, the movie is Outbreak, starring Mel Gibson and Morgan Freeman.

I know.  I think I was 10 or so when it came out on HBO.  I was rolling my eyes even then.

[Aedan_Cousland]

No matter what sort of character I play, my Shep never trusts Cerberus and sees them only as a necessary evil. Shep needs them to destroy the Collectors, but after that the relationship ends. Whether Paragon, Renegade, or some shade in between, my Sheps can't wait to ventilate TIM's skull. (He's a a great character, but I always see him as an antagonist, rather than an ally)

Modifié par Aedan_Cousland, 28 mars 2010 - 04:15 .

[Speakeasy13]

Shandepared wrote...

Speakeasy13 wrote...


You don't think the American government is there to keep developing counrties down, and even to keep mewcommers out of their club?

Oh I do, but the American government represents my interests as an American citizen so I honestly don't care that they advance our interests at the expense of others. That's how the world works.

In other words, f**k all foreigners. If you see me in the Gobi desert dying of thirst, you wouldn't give me a drink of water but would instead rob me of my possessions and leave me to rot. Anything for survival right?

I'm afraid the universe is too big for people like you, dear.

[Goodwood]

Shandepared wrote...

Lord Coake wrote...

Ends justifying the means is the call of those too stupid and lazy to sack up for the long haul and would rather just use a string of ****ty short term solutions (if even that).

I'm sure you really believe that. I suggest you read a history book or even just pay attention to the news.

Here's another one and this one isn't Hollywood bullcrap.

Several passenger planes have been hijacked and flown into populated landmarks, killing scores of people. There is one plane left in the sky and you are on it, along with your family. The President has ordered jets scrampled to shoot this plane down before it can be flown into another population center.

Life's a ****, aint it?

Ah, the first side to drag 9/11 into this is the pro-Cerberus meatbags. What fun.

Need I point out the rumors of the passangers of that plane attempting to take it back? If so, then I point you to the fact that all that was supposedly left of Flight 93 wouldn't make enough plane to haul a family of four from Detroit to Grand Rapids. Aircraft do not "vaporize" on impact.

[Speakeasy13]

Shandepared wrote...

No, if I saw a man dying in the desert I would give him water. You are comparing interactions between inviduals to those between entire nations. Not the same thing, kid.

Says the kid comparing the SIMBIOTIC relationship between humanity and Concil space to that of outbreak victims and people around them.

[Lord Coake]

Shandepared wrote...

Lord Coake wrote...

Ends justifying the means is the call of those too stupid and lazy to sack up for the long haul and would rather just use a string of ****ty short term solutions (if even that).

I'm sure you really believe that. I suggest you read a history book or even just pay attention to the news.

Here's another one and this one isn't Hollywood bullcrap.

Several passenger planes have been hijacked and flown into populated landmarks, killing scores of people. There is one plane left in the sky and you are on it, along with your family. The President has ordered jets scrampled to shoot this plane down before it can be flown into another population center.

Life's a ****, aint it?

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.

Now, to make this scenario an "EJTM" setup, that aircraft would be getting shot down under false pretenses, killing everyone aboard, just to incide rage on the part of the population, sympathy for the leadership for having to make such a drastic choice, and spur them to war on the nations and organizations from which those that hijacked the aircraft came from, despite the aircraft not being hijacked at all, and the war being only to expand a nations sphere of influence, wealth, and power.

You have no grasp of what you are arguing, and are doing nothing more than throwing up half-understood strawman arguments in a weak attempt to prove your point.

[Goodwood]

Shandepared wrote...

Goodwood wrote...

Need I point out the rumors of the passangers of that plane attempting to take it back? If so, then I point you to the fact that all that was supposedly left of Flight 93 wouldn't make enough plane to haul a family of four from Detroit to Grand Rapids. Aircraft do not "vaporize" on impact.

Spread the TROOF, Goodwood!

Whether what I say is wild speculation or closer to the truth than you want to admit is irrelevant; you are a disgusting tool and heartless bastard for dragging the events of 9/11 into this thread. More ominously, I get the feeling that you yourself don't even quite realize how juxtaposed your own morality is, at least based on comments you make in the old forums and here. You seem to fluctuate between almost-paragon and cutthroat renegade daily, and from thread to thread depending on the topic.

Makes me pity you, really...

[Goodwood]

Crap, double-post.

Modifié par Goodwood, 28 mars 2010 - 04:37 .

[Goodwood]

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.

Modifié par Goodwood, 28 mars 2010 - 04:37 .