1013 réponses à ce sujet

[Nightwriter]

People object to Cerberus because of their actions and their motives. We object because we’ve seen the small picture of what they do, and it’s nasty.

We see a project disaster and we say, “That’s wrong. Look at all the people they killed and didn’t care that they were killing – and for what? To mark a check next to, ‘No, it turns out we can’t experiment on mind control of murderous rachni without killing a load of people needlessly’ on their little clipboards?”

Then the Cerberus supporters come along and try to justify Cerberus with liberal helpings of the “big picture” argument.

But the problem with this is the greater good and the big picture can only be determined after the fact – you’re trying to justify their actions with a complete intangible. We only know whether it was worth it once it’s over and we’re looking back at history. You can’t as of this moment say that all the grizzly evils Cerberus commits are worth it, or that their actions are going to advance humanity or secure a stronger position for us. As of now, they haven’t. They have the potential to, but it is wrong to cause such great suffering and waste so many innocent human and alien lives on the “potential” of a possible gain that might have been achieved anyway through better means.

Humanity has advanced itself in the few short years it’s been in galactic space, and it wasn’t because of Cerberus. First human Spectre, a seat on the Council – Cerberus didn’t achieve these things. Which means the goal for which Cerberus claims to commit its atrocities remains unjustified. The implication that one must be evil to achieve political success remains unfounded.

It’s not that Cerberus hasn’t done good things or that there aren’t good people there. They brought Shepard back and they’re the only ones who are doing anything about the Reaper threat. They deserve credit for that. But now that Shepard is back, and the Collector threat is passed, we have to look at Cerberus realistically again, and see them for what they are – an organization that is completely and totally motivated by power, and is willing to do anything to achieve it.

[Pacifien]

I object to Cerberus because my views do not align with theirs. But if they're willing to give me any resource I want, hey, that's their call. Just don't expect me to fall in line and become a Cerberus lapdog.

Plus, I view the Illusive Man as a psychopath. Dangerous to ever trust or underestimate.

[Nightwriter]

Then I daresay he is a functioning psychopath.

I'd agree with him if his goals were only protective in nature. And if he didn't hurt so many damn innocents.

I just feel like I would in this day and age if someone asked me to support a group dedicated solely to the advancement of whites - I'm white, but I care about everybody.

Or perhaps a better example would be a rogue group dedicated to American world domination.

[CaptainZaysh]

You'd really see Americans striving for American dominance as a "rogue group"? To me that's just called patriotism.

[Wildecker]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

You'd really see Americans striving for American dominance as a "rogue group"? To me that's just called patriotism.

Patriotism ends at your border. Beyond that line starts imperialism/colonialism.

[KalosCast]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

You'd really see Americans striving for American dominance as a "rogue group"? To me that's just called patriotism.

American dominance over what, exactly? The world? I wouldn't call that a rogue group, I'd call that cartoonish supervillainy... and Cerberus has even loftier goals.

[Mouton_Alpha]

Oh nice, we discussed Hitler and now we got to America. Perhaps someone wants to bring up Israel as a metaphor for Cerberus as well? Sure will make this thread more fun.

[Wildecker]

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

Oh nice, we discussed Hitler and now we got to America. Perhaps someone wants to bring up Israel as a metaphor for Cerberus as well? Sure will make this thread more fun.

Basically we're still hitting each other with more or less well thought arguments whether the ends justify the means or not. With one side backing Cerberus because" you're always free to wash your hands and feel sorry when you're the last man standing".
Of cause, if you subscribe to this point of view a lot of things are a-okay that are commonly regarded as crimes against humanity ... starting with torture, ending at genocide (for the time being, as we're still limited to a single planet).
And of cause, the "wimps" that show restraint are decried as born victims. Who wouldn't even be around if their ancestors hadn't left ideals and ethics back inside their lockers before going to war.
For some odd reason, however, it's patriotism if your side is involved while it's a danger to world peace if, for example, North Korea, Iran or the former U.S.S.R. grow these ambitions.

Now feel free to add Israel.

[Sajuro]

Shandepared wrote...

KalosCast wrote...

American dominance over what, exactly?

Global markets, political influence, military power.

Which is an entirely unrealistic goal in this day and age. Hence the cartoonish villainy

[KalosCast]

Shandepared wrote...

KalosCast wrote...

American dominance over what, exactly?

Global markets, political influence, military power.

Yeah, that's definitely cartoonish supervillainy. Evil Empirism at the least.

[Wildecker]

Sajuro wrote...

Shandepared wrote...

KalosCast wrote...

American dominance over what, exactly?

Global markets, political influence, military power.

Which is an entirely unrealistic goal in this day and age. Hence the cartoonish villainy

Not if you're the People's Republic of China.

[CaptainZaysh]

Wildecker wrote...

Patriotism ends at your border. Beyond that line starts imperialism/colonialism.

Ridiculous.  What nations do you think belong to this American Empire?

[CaptainZaysh]

Sajuro wrote...

Shandepared wrote...

Global markets, political influence, military power.

Which is an entirely unrealistic goal in this day and age. Hence the cartoonish villainy

Are you joking?  The US is (easily) the world's biggest economy and also (easily) the world's strongest military.  In terms of political influence, it's commonly considered to be the world's sole superpower.

[CaptainZaysh]

Wildecker wrote...

For some odd reason, however, it's patriotism if your side is involved while it's a danger to world peace if, for example, North Korea, Iran or the former U.S.S.R. grow these ambitions.

So you don't think the former USSR was a danger to world peace?  You seem to be implying that only a propagandised hick would support the USA over the Soviets.  But in fact there are more than 50,000,000 reasons why a moral and well-informed person should favour the USA over the USSR.

[Sajuro]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Wildecker wrote...

Patriotism ends at your border. Beyond that line starts imperialism/colonialism.

Ridiculous.  What nations do you think belong to this American Empire?

The territories of the united states

[Wildecker]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Wildecker wrote...

For some odd reason, however, it's patriotism if your side is involved while it's a danger to world peace if, for example, North Korea, Iran or the former U.S.S.R. grow these ambitions.

So you don't think the former USSR was a danger to world peace?  You seem to be implying that only a propagandised hick would support the USA over the Soviets.  But in fact there are more than 50,000,000 reasons why a moral and well-informed person should favour the USA over the USSR.

Ah well ... you're really in love with Stalin's programs. Go and ask a Sioux or Cheyenne about the Indian wars. Have a tour to the Japanese American Internment camps. Read a book or two on the Ku Klux Klan. Oh yes, the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave ... racked up an impressive bodycount over the years. And let's have a small talk about Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction while we're at it. That was a very clear message, and it was well understood: get a few nukes, and fast, or Uncle Sam will rub your face in the dirt before you can cry "United Nations!" three times ...
Being" the sole superpower" has gone to your patriotic head. If the Chinese and/or the Saudis call for their money the U.S. A. are broke, plain and simple. Your military resources are stressed to their limit and beyond - just ask a few soldiers who have been to the warzones, again, and again, and again. The Chinese Army can match the U.S. in about any category short of aircraft carriers, and they're working hard to catch up.

And it doesn't really take much to show the whole world that neither aircraft carriers nor Predator drones can prevent a guy from planting a bomb in the heart of New York. How lucky you've all been that he didn't want to be around for the Bang.
Superpower my butt, lad.

[CaptainZaysh]

I'm not American, I'm British.  I support the Americans because without a USA, there wouldn't be a Great Britain anymore.

Wildecker wrote...

Ah well ... you're really in love with Stalin's programs. Go and ask a Sioux or Cheyenne about the Indian wars. Have a tour to the Japanese American Internment camps. Read a book or two on the Ku Klux Klan.

You are hopelessly out of touch with the real world if you think the US and the USSR are moral equivalents.  50,000,000 citizens executed, Wildecker.  If you can't see the difference between the two I feel sorry for you.

Wildecker wrote...
Being" the sole superpower" has gone to your patriotic head. If the Chinese and/or the Saudis call for their money the U.S. A. are broke, plain and simple.

Meanwhile, in the real world, that's not going to happen since both those economies are highly dependent upon exports to the US.

Wildecker wrote...
Your military resources are stressed to their limit and beyond - just ask a few soldiers who have been to the warzones, again, and again, and again.

I know plenty of soldiers.  Not one I've spoken to describes the situation in Afghan as being close to breaking point.  You know different?

Wildecker wrote...
The Chinese Army can match the U.S. in about any category short of aircraft carriers, and they're working hard to catch up.

US military budget per year: $607bn.  Chinese: $61bn.  In a war between the two, which army would you honestly rather have a loved one serving in?  I heard that a PLA officer described (a theoretical) symmetrical war with the US as like "throwing an egg at a rock".

Wildecker wrote...
And it doesn't really take much to show the whole world that neither aircraft carriers nor Predator drones can prevent a guy from planting a bomb in the heart of New York. How lucky you've all been that he didn't want to be around for the Bang.
Superpower my butt, lad.

Your definition of superpower is a country that cannot be attacked with a bomb?  Sounds about as useful as your definition of an empire.  I guess if you're going to make up your own meanings for words I can't stop you but it does make it awfully hard to communicate.

[Peer of the Empire]

Sajuro wrote...

Shandepared wrote...

KalosCast wrote...

American dominance over what, exactly?

Global markets, political influence, military power.

Which is an entirely unrealistic goal in this day and age. Hence the cartoonish villainy

We should be glad to live in a great superpower, and strive to maintain and grow that civilization.

The monastic, guilty, self-flagellating tendency has no place in public discourse.  We in the real world are rightly concerned with the affairs of the world, not some magical construct in your mind or even the hereafter.

[Wildecker]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

I'm not American, I'm British.  I support the Americans because without a USA, there wouldn't be a Great Britain anymore.

Wildecker wrote...

Ah well ... you're really in love with Stalin's programs. Go and ask a Sioux or Cheyenne about the Indian wars. Have a tour to the Japanese American Internment camps. Read a book or two on the Ku Klux Klan.

You are hopelessly out of touch with the real world if you think the US and the USSR are moral equivalents.  50,000,000 citizens executed, Wildecker.  If you can't see the difference between the two I feel sorry for you.

Where's that number coming from?
How much of this is attributed to famines?
http://en.wikipedia....mber_of_victims tells me that historians are not quite sure about the numbers and maybe never will be, but currently - after the collapse of the USSR - many think 20 million victims a realistic number.
Which still is a huge number. Nonetheless, it does not match your "50 million executions". Not even by half.

[Wildecker]

Peer of the Empire wrote...

We should be glad to live in a great superpower, and strive to maintain and grow that civilization.

You know, this sounds exactly like the Politburo about the "Worker's paradise". Be glad, and do not question authorities. Believe your domestic, state-approved radio/TV and stay clear of the dirty lies of foreigners, as they're either afraid or jealous.

[Wildecker]

Shandepared wrote...

Wildecker wrote...

Where's that number coming from?
How much of this is attributed to famines?
http://en.wikipedia....mber_of_victims tells me that historians are not quite sure about the numbers and maybe never will be, but currently - after the collapse of the USSR - many think 20 million victims a realistic number.
Which still is a huge number. Nonetheless, it does not match your "50 million executions". Not even by half.

You're right, only 20 million.

If one's moral "high ground" is based on the numbers that others have killed, those numbers should be true. Right?
There are historians that claim Ireland had lost about 50% of its inhabitants due to war, plague and famine due to looting soldiers after the British conquest of Ireland under Cromwell was complete. In absolutes it does not compare, but "one out of two" is a significant dent in the population.