1013 réponses à ce sujet

[drunken pyromaniac]

Shandepared wrote...

I find it hard to believe that a paragon would have any "conservative" leanings towards foreign policy. That or you're just a fool.

Ah, that's a great view-point. You're really convinced of your own superiority aren't you? Do you think to insult me? Yes, in fact , people with paragon leanings can be just as cynical as anyone else.

[ObserverStatus]

Shandepared wrote...

I find it hard to believe that a paragon would have any "conservative" leanings towards foreign policy. That or you're just a fool.

No seriously, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say nothing.

[Vaenier]

bobobo878 wrote...

Shandepared wrote...

I find it hard to believe that a paragon would have any "conservative" leanings towards foreign policy. That or you're just a fool.

No seriously, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say nothing.

Dont say anything.

You were just telling him to continue saying unnice things with your double negative.

[Sajuro]

Shandepared wrote...

You're in the minority, Nightwriter. Or at least the vocal anti-Cerberus, anti-human, anti-Renegade crowd.

ooh generalization, how fun!

[Nightwriter]

Hmm. Well you've got me sitting here with a quandary, Shand.

You object to the Council because of specieism, you say they elect only members of their own races to rule.

And yet the Council's operations are founded (however much they'd like to deny it) on the principle that power is rule, might is right - only the races who are strong enough may have a ruling seat.

Yet the concept that power is rule and might is right seems to be one you support (please correct me if this is wrong). So why are you opposed to them, if I might ask?

Is it the pretense? That they operate this way, yet under the guise of fairness?

[FourSixEight]

Shandepared wrote...

FourSixEight wrote...

Only Velarn is speciesist.

They are all speciesist; it is the foundation of their government. Otherwise Councilors would be elected from any species that is officially linked to the Citadel by an embassy.

Sorry, but if you want a non-speciesist organization to turn to in Mass Effect then I don't know who to direct you to... 'cause they're pretty much all like that. Well, actually, the Blue Suns and Eclipse seem to be equal opportunity with no particular affiliation with any one race. So there you go, give the base to the Blue Suns or Eclipse.

I find picking the least of all evils to be an acceptable compromise. This is in no way related to the fact that my in-game MaleShep wants to boot Velarn off the council personally and that my FemShep has a crush on Velarn.

[Vaenier]

Shandepared wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Yet the concept that power is rule and might is right seems to be one you support (please correct me if this is wrong). So why are you opposed to them, if I might ask?

I'm not part of them, durr, and if humanity can assume power that eclipses their own then I support it. There's no contradiction here. I don't claim not to be speciesist. I've never said that I wouldn't do to the rachni or krogan what the Council did (I might even do worse). I bring up the Council's genocidal and neglectful history as a warning to humanity that they should not allow the Council to control them.

It is good you are in your own personal universe away from mine.
You ever think that its people like you of other races that screwed up in the first place? All you wish to do it further perpetuate the cycle of hate...

[ObserverStatus]

Vaenier wrote...

Shandepared wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Yet the concept that power is rule and might is right seems to be one you support (please correct me if this is wrong). So why are you opposed to them, if I might ask?

I'm not part of them, durr, and if humanity can assume power that eclipses their own then I support it. There's no contradiction here. I don't claim not to be speciesist. I've never said that I wouldn't do to the rachni or krogan what the Council did (I might even do worse). I bring up the Council's genocidal and neglectful history as a warning to humanity that they should not allow the Council to control them.

It is good you are in your own personal universe away from mine.
You ever think that its people like you of other races that screwed up in the first place? All you wish to do it further perpetuate the cycle of hate...

What? The Firt Contact War and Krogan Rebellion were caused by extranet trolls? I must have missed that codex entry.

[Sajuro]

Vaenier wrote...

Shandepared wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Yet the concept that power is rule and might is right seems to be one you support (please correct me if this is wrong). So why are you opposed to them, if I might ask?

I'm not part of them, durr, and if humanity can assume power that eclipses their own then I support it. There's no contradiction here. I don't claim not to be speciesist. I've never said that I wouldn't do to the rachni or krogan what the Council did (I might even do worse). I bring up the Council's genocidal and neglectful history as a warning to humanity that they should not allow the Council to control them.

It is good you are in your own personal universe away from mine.
You ever think that its people like you of other races that screwed up in the first place? All you wish to do it further perpetuate the cycle of hate...

can you blame the councilors for not believing his shepard?

[Nightwriter]

Shandepared wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Yet the concept that power is rule and might is right seems to be one you support (please correct me if this is wrong). So why are you opposed to them, if I might ask?

I'm not part of them, durr, and if humanity can assume power that eclipses their own then I support it. There's no contradiction here. I don't claim not to be speciesist. I've never said that I wouldn't do to the rachni or krogan what the Council did (I might even do worse). I bring up the Council's genocidal and neglectful history as a warning to humanity that they should not allow the Council to control them.

Haha, I meant that you were condemning their unfairness as if from some moral high ground. As if to say you disapprove of unfairness itself.

Now I see what you disapprove of is that they were unfair first.

The bastards.

[Nightwriter]

I'm sure.

[lovgreno]

Shandepared wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Haha, I meant that you were condemning their unfairness as if from some moral high ground. As if to say you disapprove of unfairness itself.

Now I see what you disapprove of is that they were unfair first.

The bastards.

Exactly. Of-course their hypocrisy irritates me too.

Some hypocrisy is uninevitable in politics. In this world you cant get anywhere without getting your hands dirty now and then. It's not a question about good or evil, it's about competent or incompetent. Competent people like the council don't have to get their hands dirty often and when they do they manage to keep the controversy down and even make themselves the hero in the public opinion (atleast the bigger and more important part of the opinion).
Incompetent people like Cerberus on the other hand manages to make themselves so untrusted that they have to hide.

Modifié par lovgreno, 09 juin 2010 - 07:28 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Nightwriter wrote...

Hmm. Well you've got me sitting here with a quandary, Shand.

You object to the Council because of specieism, you say they elect only members of their own races to rule.

And yet the Council's operations are founded (however much they'd like to deny it) on the principle that power is rule, might is right - only the races who are strong enough may have a ruling seat.

Yet the concept that power is rule and might is right seems to be one you support (please correct me if this is wrong). So why are you opposed to them, if I might ask?

Is it the pretense? That they operate this way, yet under the guise of fairness?

Pretense is just an annoyance and double speak on their part, contrasting what they say with how they act.

The Council bases it's legitimacy as a group of powers. But that is not a reason to submit to them outright and not challenge them: humanity, to, is a power. Humanity will have a seat when it claims one, not when it begs for one.

But the legitimacy of power only sustains you as long as you maintain it. The Council bases it's authority on it's power over other races. When they lose those levers of power, such as if Humanity seizes the Citadel and makes a new Council, or if Humanity gets the Reaper base technology, their right to rule is removed.

The right to rule by power is a fickle thing: you have that right as long as you can claim it. But others have no imperitve to obey you if you don't have that power, and have no reason not to advance their own power instead of yours.

If the Citadel Council had sincerely been an organization about cooperation amoung unequal-equals, akin to the nature of the widly varying states in the US Congress, then it could claim a legitimacy besides strength alone. But it isn't, wasn't, and deserves no rites of submission past it's ability to deserve them.

[JohnnyBeGood2]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Hmm. Well you've got me sitting here with a quandary, Shand.

You object to the Council because of specieism, you say they elect only members of their own races to rule.

And yet the Council's operations are founded (however much they'd like to deny it) on the principle that power is rule, might is right - only the races who are strong enough may have a ruling seat.

Yet the concept that power is rule and might is right seems to be one you support (please correct me if this is wrong). So why are you opposed to them, if I might ask?

Is it the pretense? That they operate this way, yet under the guise of fairness?

Pretense is just an annoyance and double speak on their part, contrasting what they say with how they act.

The Council bases it's legitimacy as a group of powers. But that is not a reason to submit to them outright and not challenge them: humanity, to, is a power. Humanity will have a seat when it claims one, not when it begs for one.

But the legitimacy of power only sustains you as long as you maintain it. The Council bases it's authority on it's power over other races. When they lose those levers of power, such as if Humanity seizes the Citadel and makes a new Council, or if Humanity gets the Reaper base technology, their right to rule is removed.

The right to rule by power is a fickle thing: you have that right as long as you can claim it. But others have no imperitve to obey you if you don't have that power, and have no reason not to advance their own power instead of yours.

If the Citadel Council had sincerely been an organization about cooperation amoung unequal-equals, akin to the nature of the widly varying states in the US Congress, then it could claim a legitimacy besides strength alone. But it isn't, wasn't, and deserves no rites of submission past it's ability to deserve them.

Dean, I really don't agree. the "power to rule" is not the premise of deserving power. The councils jurisprudence is, in my view, what makes them deserving. A hegemony or portense at hegemony like the Citadel Council is entirely deserving of power if they are both judicious - reasoned - and preserve order (as a baseline) for the majority - equating in general terms to popular rule.

Nothing I have seen so far, would indicate the Council is not judicious or committed to maintaing effective order. (tbh, they're not even incompetant which is even better.)

[Arijharn]

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...
Dean, I really don't agree. the "power to rule" is not the premise of deserving power. The councils jurisprudence is, in my view, what makes them deserving. A hegemony or portense at hegemony like the Citadel Council is entirely deserving of power if they are both judicious - reasoned - and preserve order (as a baseline) for the majority - equating in general terms to popular rule.

Nothing I have seen so far, would indicate the Council is not judicious or committed to maintaing effective order. (tbh, they're not even incompetant which is even better.)

I know I'm not Dean, but what 'jurisprudence' do the Council have? They only maintain their power because they have the largest navy in the known galaxy (Council 'sabre rattling.') If no-one recognized this, then the Council wouldn't have nearly as much pull as it does. Ergo, the Council rules via 'fear,' although it's rather sly and isn't an 'iron fist.' On the surface.

The Council does obviously try to rule in the interests of galactic 'stability,' but they enforce that galactic 'stability' through such things as the Treaty of Farixen(?). Captain Anderson himself says in the first game to effect: 'If the Council makes a ruling, we have to follow... we do not have the political will or allies to go against them.'

Also, what does deserving power mean? Remember it's formed by the three most powerful races in the galaxy (now the four).

I think I'm getting slightly off topic, but the Council has a past of catering to their species first and foremost beyond 'galactic stability.'

[Dean_the_Young]

Remember the Krogan Rebellions!

[Barquiel]

Arijharn wrote...

I think I'm getting slightly off topic, but the Council has a past of catering to their species first and foremost beyond 'galactic stability.'

No species is forced to open an embassy on the citadel. The batarians closed their embassy, nobody declared war on them.

[JohnnyBeGood2]

Arijharn wrote...

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...
Dean, I really don't agree. the "power to rule" is not the premise of deserving power. The councils jurisprudence is, in my view, what makes them deserving. A hegemony or portense at hegemony like the Citadel Council is entirely deserving of power if they are both judicious - reasoned - and preserve order (as a baseline) for the majority - equating in general terms to popular rule.

Nothing I have seen so far, would indicate the Council is not judicious or committed to maintaing effective order. (tbh, they're not even incompetant which is even better.)

I know I'm not Dean, but what 'jurisprudence' do the Council have? They only maintain their power because they have the largest navy in the known galaxy (Council 'sabre rattling.') If no-one recognized this, then the Council wouldn't have nearly as much pull as it does. Ergo, the Council rules via 'fear,' although it's rather sly and isn't an 'iron fist.' On the surface.

The Council does obviously try to rule in the interests of galactic 'stability,' but they enforce that galactic 'stability' through such things as the Treaty of Farixen(?). Captain Anderson himself says in the first game to effect: 'If the Council makes a ruling, we have to follow... we do not have the political will or allies to go against them.'

Also, what does deserving power mean? Remember it's formed by the three most powerful races in the galaxy (now the four).

I think I'm getting slightly off topic, but the Council has a past of catering to their species first and foremost beyond 'galactic stability.'

A number of points there. With regard to Council catering to their own species, I think it's really hard to show that's a result of direct bias as opposed to those species utility / intelligence / savvy etc (which is partly their reason for collaborating to rule in the first place as is given in the codex).

Where jurisprudence often comes in, (as it can in RL) in regard to perceived cultural bias by the Council is that in light of incomplete evidence a decision can be made on the basis of a status quo without moral hazard.... and that decision will be accepted on the basis of it's logic if it is reviewed. If new evidence comes to light then it can be changed. One way or another decisions have to logically digestible (which equates to moral) to the population if they are scrutinised.

Degree of scrutiny is a different story...  OT

[JohnnyBeGood2]

Shandepared wrote...

JohnnyBeGood2 wrote...

A number of points there. With regard to Council catering to their own species, I think it's really hard to show that's a result of direct bias as opposed to those species utility / intelligence / savvy etc (which is partly their reason for collaborating to rule in the first place as is given in the codex).

You might be right but I wonder what people would think of me if I tried applying that logic to real-life.

haha Shand. They're called judges and politicians and public servants and public relations consultants and business execs... and they are loved by their supporters and hated by their critics.