3478 réponses à ce sujet

[STG]

Hey Catt, you might want to change your avatar. That current one doesn't suit you.

[heretica]

STG wrote...

Hey Catt, you might want to change your avatar. That current one doesn't suit you.

 
Hahaha  

[LorDC]

Catt128 wrote...
Ceberus, as explained by Miranda, has an armed side of the organization (we found those in ME1. UNC quest) The Alliance sent Shepard, the Council didn't want to risk a war with the Terminus System if they stepped in. There is a reason why Cerberus is a cover-ops organization. It's like the IRA or Al-Qaeda of Mass Effect. 
They are terrorists, they do not follow any laws or rules. 

No one knew about upcoming attack on Eden Prime. Shepard only got there to secure beacon not fight Geth. So this case is nothing about Cerberus not wanting to help humanity.

Catt128 wrote...
So, the reason Cerberus tossed and Alliance Major in a pool with rachni is to advance humanity. Do not pay attention to the fact that Major Kyle was going to send the info he collected on Cerberus to The Shadow Broker. 
What about Ascension project, or Subject Zero? Torturing kids to advance humanity? Is it really worth it?

You surely messed something up in your head. Major Kyle hae nothing to do with Cerberus. And yes torturing kids is totally worth it looking at Jack.

Catt128 wrote...
When did Cerberus save ANY colonies? I don't remember the Ilusive Man saying something about "Focus on finding survivors". First colony we encounter, Freedom's Progress, he sends you to investigate something he ALREADY knew. Who knows if he knew beforehand that the Collectors would go there? Who knows if he just let all the people get kidnapped just to have something to show Shepard? He only uses the "Human colonies are being wiped off" argument only to get Shepard's attention.

Cerberus stopped Collectors thus saved colonies from further abduction. About TIM's intentions when he sent you to Freedom's Progress just replay first mission. He explains everything clearly answering all your questions.

Catt128 wrote...
Collector's Base. Let's see. It seems that the only thing he ever wanted is the technology. The Colelctors are very advanced. He's a fanatic. He says things like "Cerberus IS humanity" How arrogant is that? By saying that he obviously says a lot about what kind of person he is, shows he doesn't accept any other view than his own. 

Problem is that he not only says that but acts like that. And his actions benefit humanity. He earned right to speak for humanity.

Catt128 wrote...
To put it this way. Let's take a pro-[insert here race]. Let's take the example of ****sm. Pro-arian race "organization"/political party/whateveryoufancy. 
Self centered. Fanatical. They would do anything in defense of their identity (or what they belived to be it). 
Imagine if Hitler had discovered a mass destruction weapon, biotic weapon.. Or the blueprints to build it. What would he say? "I only want it to defend my people" He wouldn't think twice before using it.

There is difference between nationalism and racism. TIM is nationalist not racist.

Catt128 wrote...
Same as Cerberus. They say it's for humanity best interests. Bull****. He would glady destroy the Alliance, destroy anyone who is against him or thinks different. And i'm not even mentioning Aliens. 

The thing is, this guy is ****ing nuts, you can put all that unlimited power on his hands. **** will happen.

Why didn't he put a bomb in Shepard's head when he resurrected him and didn't blow it up when Shepard refused to keep Base.

[STG]

LorDC wrote...

And yes torturing kids is totally worth it looking at Jack.

I hope that you will never have kids of your own.

[LorDC]

STG wrote...
I hope that you will never have kids of your own.

I am not planning on that. But they were experimenting on orphans so it is not like my kids would have anything with that.

[squigian]

So, torture is OK on someone else's kids but not on your own?

[LorDC]

Of course. They are not mine. Or did you sell your house to help those poor African kids? You know, they are dieing without your help. You are killing them. And given quality of their life you are torturing them too.

[squigian]

That would only be valid if I was a consequentialist; it's also irrelevant seeing as you have not done that either, at least to my knowledge. Even if I did, how am I to know my money won't actually go to propping up a dictatorship or prolonging a civil war? Both foreseeable consequences.



Anywy, assuming you are a consequentialist, your "I wouldn't torture my own kids" reasoning runs head-first into violating agent neutrality; you have to take actions from the viewpoint of a neutral observer or self-justification get a whole lot more complicated. Why is your viewpoint more important than someone else's perspective?

[LorDC]

This discussion goes completely off the rail. It is about Cerberus actions and philosophy not mine.

[Ieldra]

Here's my short version of things. Consider the worst-case scenarios:



(1) If TIM gets the base and has his way, we may be on the way to the Evil Empire.

(2) If we destroy the base and it was the only chance of getting the intel we need, we may be on the way to a galaxy-wide extinction event.



Forgive me if I won't risk (2) whatever the alternative. Of course, meta-knowledge says we'll win in any case, but I take my roleplaying seriously and won't take meta-knowledge into account.

[heretica]

Oh Sorry. I mean ADMIRAL KAHOKU. No need to get cocky, tho.

Either way, Alliance member. Cerberus killed him and his men. Probably because of the info. He appears dead in a pool with a Rachni. There are a lot of Cerberus/rachni quests in the game.

masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/UNC:_Cerberus
http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/UNC:_Hades'_Dogs 

It's okay to have your own opinions. I think the Illusive Man is very dangerous, powerful and a lier. Nothing justifies what he's been doing. He only looks after himself. Shepard is just a tool. He's not Santa. 

I don't like it when I'm being treated as if my opinion had less value than yours just because we don't agree. 
 
 

(And yes, torturing kids is unfair because they can't defend themselves. So that's a bit of a coward thing to do. Besides being totally wrong in my book )

[squigian]

LorDC wrote...

This discussion goes completely off the rail. It is about Cerberus actions and philosophy not mine.

It is relevant: if people have to die to maximise utility from the base, you should decide who it is based on the opportunity cost of losing that person, not on your relationship to them.

Modifié par squigian, 25 juin 2010 - 11:46 .

[Dean_the_Young]

squigian wrote...

LorDC wrote...

This discussion goes completely off the rail. It is about Cerberus actions and philosophy not mine.

It is relevant: if people have to die to maximise utility from the base, you should decide who it is based on the opportunity cost of losing that person, not on your relationship to them.

Nonsense. Your relationship is an opportunity-cost. It might not be one shared by others, but that's the nature of humand identity and perspective. Simply because we can not easily adhere to a good principle when it applies to us does not mean the principle is flawed or we are liars: it simply means that personal perspective outweighs objectivity. We as a culture understand that and accept that, and expect that of people: we ask jury candidates to excuse themselves if they have a personal connection with a case, we don't like it when two people in an organization heirarchy of lower and higher are in a relationship, and we all but demand that parents love their own children far more than some stranger's child. Personal relationships are a factor of opportunity-cost.

[lovgreno]

LorDC wrote...
Problem is that he not only says that but acts like that. And his actions benefit humanity. He earned right to speak for humanity.

But what is TIMs definition of "the humanitys best"? He doesn't trust anyone but himself to understand the details. Only he is able to say what is best for humanity. He doesn't ask anyone to read his plans to see if there is something important he have missed.
How does his actions benefit humanity in the long run? He never realy answer that question as lesser creatures like all other sentient life can not understand his infailiable logic. All he basicaly says is: "Trust me, I always knows best" That is kind of hard to do since he manipulates, lies and if not ordering assasinations directly he doesn't stop his organisation from doing it.
He is certain that he can controll the base that only Harbringer could controll before. He dreams of it containing a Deus EX Machina that makes him the saviour of the human race. He constantly underestimates reapers and collectors as he is obsessed by controlling them.
TIM sounds like he have a fascistoid messiah complex to me. A bit like Saren actualy, wich was what made him being controlled by Sovereign.

[Dean_the_Young]

STG wrote...
And if I wouldn't like something be done to me, I can't support that same thing being done to anyone else.

Now this is just false. Noble, but almost certainly false unless you are a psychological deviant beyond any known to history and believe that anyone should be punished.

Heck, you're playing a game of a career soldier who goes around killing people for a paycheck. I sincerely doubt you would like to be shot, hit, or any Renegade interrupt you almost certainly do. Yet you're relaxing to a game in which you do just that.

[STG]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

STG wrote...
And if I wouldn't like something be done to me, I can't support that same thing being done to anyone else.

Now this is just false. Noble, but almost certainly false unless you are a psychological deviant beyond any known to history and believe that anyone should be punished.

Heck, you're playing a game of a career soldier who goes around killing people for a paycheck. I sincerely doubt you would like to be shot, hit, or any Renegade interrupt you almost certainly do. Yet you're relaxing to a game in which you do just that.

Because it's a bloody video game. So what if I play as a fictional soldier? So what if I am "killing" fictional characters that stop existing the moment I turn the game off?

Maybe you should step away from the computer for a moment and realize that fictional world doesn't matter.

[Dean_the_Young]

STG wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

STG wrote...
And if I wouldn't like something be done to me, I can't support that same thing being done to anyone else.

Now this is just false. Noble, but almost certainly false unless you are a psychological deviant beyond any known to history and believe that anyone should be punished.

Heck, you're playing a game of a career soldier who goes around killing people for a paycheck. I sincerely doubt you would like to be shot, hit, or any Renegade interrupt you almost certainly do. Yet you're relaxing to a game in which you do just that.

Because it's a bloody video game. So what if I play as a fictional soldier? So what if I am "killing" fictional characters that stop existing the moment I turn the game off?

Maybe you should step away from the computer for a moment and realize that fictional world doesn't matter.

Defensive, much?

One would think that if you were so far removed, you wouldn't have made the argument that you did. What does it matter then if we consign the game universe to destruction or enslavement or anything? It's just a game. You can justify doing things to others you wouldn't do to yourself because it's just a game. There is no moral element at all because it is just a game. TIM is not a horrible person, it's just a game. Kohaku doesn't matter, it's just a game.

Yet, here you are, making arguments on principles you presumably claim in the real world. If you intend to argue on those, be prepared to be countered by real world realities.

[squigian]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

squigian wrote...

LorDC wrote...

This discussion goes completely off the rail. It is about Cerberus actions and philosophy not mine.

It is relevant: if people have to die to maximise utility from the base, you should decide who it is based on the opportunity cost of losing that person, not on your relationship to them.

Nonsense. Your relationship is an opportunity-cost. It might not be one shared by others, but that's the nature of humand identity and perspective. Simply because we can not easily adhere to a good principle when it applies to us does not mean the principle is flawed or we are liars: it simply means that personal perspective outweighs objectivity. We as a culture understand that and accept that, and expect that of people: we ask jury candidates to excuse themselves if they have a personal connection with a case, we don't like it when two people in an organization heirarchy of lower and higher are in a relationship, and we all but demand that parents love their own children far more than some stranger's child. Personal relationships are a factor of opportunity-cost.

It does make the agent hypocritical, though.  It's all fine and good to make grand speeches about how the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few but if you drop that as soon as YOU are one of the few, the whole concept falls apart.

[STG]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Defensive, much?

One would think that if you were so far removed, you wouldn't have made the argument that you did. What does it matter then if we consign the game universe to destruction or enslavement or anything? It's just a game. You can justify doing things to others you wouldn't do to yourself because it's just a game. There is no moral element at all because it is just a game. TIM is not a horrible person, it's just a game. Kohaku doesn't matter, it's just a game.

Yet, here you are, making arguments on principles you presumably claim in the real world. If you intend to argue on those, be prepared to be countered by real world realities.

My statement wasn't about video games but real life, because that is what I base my opinion on. You were the one who brought in the idea that thinking one thing while doing the oposite in a fictional world is somehow "wrong".

[Dean_the_Young]

squigian wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

squigian wrote...

LorDC wrote...

This discussion goes completely off the rail. It is about Cerberus actions and philosophy not mine.

It is relevant: if people have to die to maximise utility from the base, you should decide who it is based on the opportunity cost of losing that person, not on your relationship to them.

Nonsense. Your relationship is an opportunity-cost. It might not be one shared by others, but that's the nature of humand identity and perspective. Simply because we can not easily adhere to a good principle when it applies to us does not mean the principle is flawed or we are liars: it simply means that personal perspective outweighs objectivity. We as a culture understand that and accept that, and expect that of people: we ask jury candidates to excuse themselves if they have a personal connection with a case, we don't like it when two people in an organization heirarchy of lower and higher are in a relationship, and we all but demand that parents love their own children far more than some stranger's child. Personal relationships are a factor of opportunity-cost.

It does make the agent hypocritical, though.  It's all fine and good to make grand speeches about how the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few but if you drop that as soon as YOU are one of the few, the whole concept falls apart.

It would be malevolent hypocricy if the person thought others shouldn't do it as well at the same moment we believe they should do it to others. Recognizing why we ourselves would not do something, would not follow a general policy under various circumstances, is recognizing the human condition, and its limitations. Knowing your limits is critical to human development.

There are plenty of things we recognize should be done, but often can't make ourselves do. Things that are necessary, but we do not like. There are things we like, but know we should not do, and so on. People are, by their nature, contradictory in ideals and actions, but that contradiction does not invalidate the ideals and principles that are contrasted: someone who tells polite lies can still value honesty, those who do not give their own food and money away to a bare minimum can value charity and oppose greed. Princples contrast. You rank them, following the best you can when they don't contrast and then picking one or another when they do conflict.

We recognize these contradictions occur, and try and build a system in which they can be avoided or resolved without relying on one person to make every decision. This is the concept behind interlocking checks and balances: far more than tools to prevent abuse, but recognizing the difference between a person's priorities now and in the heat of the moment and planning ahead to deal with it.

You say a system based on the greater good, on the many over the few, falls apart the moment I am part of the few. By logical extension, this should apply to any situation in which success depends on universal impartiality. Modern governance and buisness, however, doesn't collapse so easily, and this is why: we can build systems we can't tear down at a whim.

You asked whether I would support a system when I was the few. Depending on the consequences, I might not, but that wouldn't matter: even if/when I virulently oppose it, I most likely won't be able to overrule the system, and the action goes on ahead without my support when I am a compromised actor. I am not so egocentric to force a system that must agree with me at all times, and so I can support a system I can impartially recognize as greater than not, even if it turns on me and I oppose it later for reasons personal and not of thinking of the greater whole.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 25 juin 2010 - 03:06 .

[Dean_the_Young]

STG wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Defensive, much?

One would think that if you were so far removed, you wouldn't have made the argument that you did. What does it matter then if we consign the game universe to destruction or enslavement or anything? It's just a game. You can justify doing things to others you wouldn't do to yourself because it's just a game. There is no moral element at all because it is just a game. TIM is not a horrible person, it's just a game. Kohaku doesn't matter, it's just a game.

Yet, here you are, making arguments on principles you presumably claim in the real world. If you intend to argue on those, be prepared to be countered by real world realities.

My statement wasn't about video games but real life, because that is what I base my opinion on. You were the one who brought in the idea that thinking one thing while doing the oposite in a fictional world is somehow "wrong".

Your statement was in an argument about morals in a video game, in the context about making a hypothetical dependent about those fictional video game characters, in a thread about choices in a video game, in a forum about a moral-choice video game, on a website run by a video game company.

You were pretty deep in video game territory right then.

I never said it was morally wrong. I was pointing out that you were almost certainlly incorrect in your absolutism, something you haven't even tried to deny. As my other recent post strongly indicates, I think that is a perfectly normal human behavior, and not something to be ashamed of. You stand accussed of the grand insult of being human

[STG]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

STG wrote...
My statement wasn't about video games but real life, because that is what I base my opinion on. You were the one who brought in the idea that thinking one thing while doing the oposite in a fictional world is somehow "wrong".

Your statement was in an argument about morals in a video game, in the context about making a hypothetical dependent about those fictional video game characters, in a thread about choices in a video game, in a forum about a moral-choice video game, on a website run by a video game company.

You were pretty deep in video game territory right then.

I never said it was morally wrong. I was pointing out that you were almost certainlly incorrect in your absolutism, something you haven't even tried to deny. As my other recent post strongly indicates, I think that is a perfectly normal human behavior, and not something to be ashamed of. You stand accussed of the grand insult of being human

So what you're saying is that a ball, in a room filled with squares, becomes another square, got it.

As for your accusation of me being human, well, guilty as charged.

[Dean_the_Young]

STG wrote...
So what you're saying is that a ball, in a room filled with squares, becomes another square, got it.

More like a ball in a basket ball court being thrown into the basketball net and dribbled down the court can be safely called a basketball. But hey, maybe you were using a volleyball.

As for your accusation of me being human, well, guilty as charged.

I must admit, I've had my suspicions about this for some time, but I didn't want to be rude...

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 25 juin 2010 - 03:31 .

[smudboy]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

STG wrote...
So what you're saying is that a ball, in a room filled with squares, becomes another square, got it.

More like a ball in a basket ball court being thrown into the basketball net and dribbled down the court can be safely called a basketball. But hey, maybe you were using a volleyball.

As for your accusation of me being human, well, guilty as charged.

I must admit, I've had my suspicions about this for some time, but I didn't want to be rude...

Hmm.  An argument of blowing something up, and the ethics thereof, become one of identity and geometry.