3478 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Captain Jazz wrote...
If you were asked to give a nuclear bomb to terrorists, would you do it?

To make this comparison fitting:

If I were asked to give a facility for making nuclear bombs to a fanatic and ruthless survivalist group allied with me in a total war for our very survival against a technologically superior enemy whose defenses I was hitherto unable to crack without stupidity on their side, would I do it?

Yes, I'd rather keep that facility for myself or give it to more dependable allies, but if the only alternative is not to have it at all, then, yes, I'd give it to them and deal with the consequences after our survival is assured. At this point, with the knowledge I have at that point, it's the only strategically viable option. Anything else means risking extinction for the sake of honor. Death before dishonor is a decision you have the right to make for yourself, but not for your whole group, species etc.. I'd say you have a moral obligation to keep the facility intact.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 juillet 2010 - 07:35 .

[Captain Jazz]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

Captain Jazz wrote...

If you were asked to give a nuclear bomb to terrorists, would you do it?
That's why I destroy the collector base. Sure, Cerberus care about humanity not being wiped from the galaxy, but they're also power hungry terrorist maniacs with absolutely no ethical scruples or sense... and the collector base looks a helluva lot like a nuke to me.

Ok, if anyone needed a perfect example of a strawman fallacy, well, here you go.

Perhaps you need to be reminded what a strawman fallacy is. One of the things it is not is stating facts, the other thing it is not is a brief comment that the author doesn't feel needs to be fully fleshed out because it is a brief comment (as opposed to a thoroughly thought out and formulated argument).

Declared goal: "For humanity to be ascendant over all other species."
****ing about with husks, getting their researchers killed, no viable results.
****ing about with thorian creepers, getting their researchers killed, no viable results.
****ing about with rachni, getting their researchers killed, no viable results.
****ing about with thresher maws, getting alliance soldiers killed, no viable results.
****ing about with biotics, getting all subjects but two and most scientific staff killed, highly unstable results.
Unsanctioned assaults on foreign territory.
Murder of at least one alliance officer and at least one human politician.
Resurrection of Commander Shepard.
Fringe involvement in saving the citadel council from an assassination attempt.

Granted, Cerberus have done two good things that we're aware of and they're interested in saving humanity from extinction which makes three, but what are their motivations in these actions?
For saving humanity it's clear self interest - Cerberus is a human organisation which would suffer from human extinction.
Resurrecting Shepard is self interest again - they need Shepard in order to fight the Collectors in order to save humanity.
As for saving the citadel council, as far as I know, Miranda was no more than an informant in those events and Jacob did not join Cerberus until afterward, so it seems likely that any Cerberus involvement was geared toward recruiting Jacob rather than their having a real interest in saving the council.

So what can we assume from these things?
1) That Cerberus is power hungry.
2) That Cerberus have no scruples or sense when it comes to the pursuit of technological advances that would help them attain their power - a fact which leads to many of their scientific pursuits ending in total failure.
3) That Cerberus is a terrorist organisation.

I admit that maniacs is not necessarily supported as they could be sociopaths or mere incompetents, so I will drop that accusation, leaving us with the assertion that they are power hungry terrorists with no scruples or sense.

Modifié par Captain Jazz, 01 juillet 2010 - 10:06 .

[lovgreno]

Captain Jazz wrote...
I admit that maniacs is not necessarily supported as they could be sociopaths or mere incompetents, so I will drop that accusation, leaving us with the assertion that they are power hungry terrorists with no scruples or sense.

They might not be all those things but we only have TIMmys word that they are not. And his word is worth nothing as he lies and manipulates everyone.

[Captain Jazz]

lovgreno wrote...

They might not be all those things but we only have TIMmys word that they are not. And his word is worth nothing as he lies and manipulates everyone.

True, Jacob is certainly not a terrorist and Miranda is not incompetent. It could also be argued that the scientific cells really are just scientists researching dangerous materials with maybe poor management (because seriously, controls, people, controls! Otherwise your findings are not going to be very useful even if the subjects don't eat you.)

The group as a whole has certainly been involved in terrorist actions and badly mismanaged scientific endevours though, which still points me toward the decision of no way in hell am I putting that level of technology into their fumbling hands.

Modifié par Captain Jazz, 01 juillet 2010 - 10:40 .

[lovgreno]

Captain Jazz wrote...
True, Jacob is certainly not a terrorist and Miranda is not incompetent. It could also be argued that the scientific cells really are just scientists researching dangerous materials with maybe poor management (because seriously, controls, people, controls! Otherwise your findings are not going to be very useful even if the subjects don't eat you.)

The group as a whole has certainly been involved in terrorist actions and badly mismanaged scientific endevours though, which still points me toward the decision of no way in hell am I putting that level of technology into their fumbling hands.

Jacob is rather desperate to get out of Cerberus and Miranda is constantly trying to apologise for Cerberus. It's not suprising that they are easily turned away from Cerberus. Two of the top agents of Cerberus wants to leave it, you could speculate about why...
Sure there might be successfull Cerberus cells somewhere but Shepard only gets to hear about those that ends up eaten by their own experiments.
It's nothing to say that there is anything salvageable from the base burned out by the deadly radiation pulse at all. If the pulse worked as intended. If the pulse did kill a hundred % of all dangerous things in the base.
If there is usefull things there it's still too risky. This base and the collectors was directly controlled by the by human standards almost godlike Harbringer. The base and its inhabitants was not just tools for Harbringer, they were basicaly a part of its body. There is nothing to say that Harbringer wouldn't or couldn't take it back and use it against the galaxy again. It would be much harder to try to retake it a second time I think. There could also be more collectors out there that wants their base back. In short that base should not be put in anyones hands, especialy not Cerberus.

[kaenneth]

Same reason I let the council die. Let the Doctor die, Let Mordin die.



The Mission.

[mosor]

Captain Jazz wrote...

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

Captain Jazz wrote...

If you were asked to give a nuclear bomb to terrorists, would you do it?
That's why I destroy the collector base. Sure, Cerberus care about humanity not being wiped from the galaxy, but they're also power hungry terrorist maniacs with absolutely no ethical scruples or sense... and the collector base looks a helluva lot like a nuke to me.

Ok, if anyone needed a perfect example of a strawman fallacy, well, here you go.

Perhaps you need to be reminded what a strawman fallacy is. One of the things it is not is stating facts, the other thing it is not is a brief comment that the author doesn't feel needs to be fully fleshed out because it is a brief comment (as opposed to a thoroughly thought out and formulated argument).

Declared goal: "For humanity to be ascendant over all other species."
****ing about with husks, getting their researchers killed, no viable results.
****ing about with thorian creepers, getting their researchers killed, no viable results.
****ing about with rachni, getting their researchers killed, no viable results.
****ing about with thresher maws, getting alliance soldiers killed, no viable results.
****ing about with biotics, getting all subjects but two and most scientific staff killed, highly unstable results.
Unsanctioned assaults on foreign territory.
Murder of at least one alliance officer and at least one human politician.
Resurrection of Commander Shepard.
Fringe involvement in saving the citadel council from an assassination attempt.

Granted, Cerberus have done two good things that we're aware of and they're interested in saving humanity from extinction which makes three, but what are their motivations in these actions?
For saving humanity it's clear self interest - Cerberus is a human organisation which would suffer from human extinction.
Resurrecting Shepard is self interest again - they need Shepard in order to fight the Collectors in order to save humanity.
As for saving the citadel council, as far as I know, Miranda was no more than an informant in those events and Jacob did not join Cerberus until afterward, so it seems likely that any Cerberus involvement was geared toward recruiting Jacob rather than their having a real interest in saving the council.

So what can we assume from these things?
1) That Cerberus is power hungry.
2) That Cerberus have no scruples or sense when it comes to the pursuit of technological advances that would help them attain their power - a fact which leads to many of their scientific pursuits ending in total failure.
3) That Cerberus is a terrorist organisation.

I admit that maniacs is not necessarily supported as they could be sociopaths or mere incompetents, so I will drop that accusation, leaving us with the assertion that they are power hungry terrorists with no scruples or sense.

The Straw Man fallacy is  when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. The position of most people who save the base is that at very least, between the reapers and cerberus, cerberus is the lesser of two evils. You misrepresent the argument by not including the reapers in the equation, thus your argument is a strawman.

As for your conclusions about cerberus.

1. You provide no evidence that they're power hungry for themselves specifically. Nothing they've done contradicts that they're goal is for power for humanity as a whole.

2. Their experiments simply show they're willing to do whatever it takes to make humanity stronger. If the illusive man wanted political power, he has the money and resources to take it rather than meddle with the canidates of the fringe Terra Firma Party. For instance big oil and big pharma buy canidates all the time in congress and have a lot of political clout. Illusive man has more resources than they do.

Modifié par mosor, 01 juillet 2010 - 02:33 .

[Krilral]

At least one of the reasons to destroy the collector base is because if Cerberus got their hands on reaper technology they would definatly use it in their attempt to gain complete control over the galaxy. And they don't seem like they would have any moral problems creating a reaper of their own.



You would likely be trading one menace for another.

[ZaroktheImmortal]

If you can't see how keeping a base used to make reapers could backfire then you're very short sighted. Especially when handing it over to Cerberus. I wonder if The Illusive Man actually thinks he could control a human made reaper. Somehow I doubt anyone could, except maybe another reaper.

[mosor]

Krilral wrote...

At least one of the reasons to destroy the collector base is because if Cerberus got their hands on reaper technology they would definatly use it in their attempt to gain complete control over the galaxy. And they don't seem like they would have any moral problems creating a reaper of their own.

You would likely be trading one menace for another.

Who says they would create a reaper of their own or that they wouldn't have a problem with that? Using reaper tech, sure, actual reaper? Thats a whole new can of worms and it's never even alluded in game that cerberus would do that.

As for your first point, how Cerberus or Humanity gaining control of the galexy worse than reapers destroying all advanced sentinet life in the galexy? The evil the reapers pose is greater than any evil cerberus could inflict evening assuming the absolute worst things about them.

[mosor]

ZaroktheImmortal wrote...

If you can't see how keeping a base used to make reapers could backfire then you're very short sighted. Especially when handing it over to Cerberus. I wonder if The Illusive Man actually thinks he could control a human made reaper. Somehow I doubt anyone could, except maybe another reaper.

Why do you assume that keeping the base involves making reapers? The millions of humans required to make even 1 reaper is beyond the logistics of anyone other than the reapers, including cerberus. Cerberus' intentions with the collector base is exactly what the illusive man said it would be. Find information and tech to defeat the reapers and later use that tech and info to secure human dominance. Not convert us all to reapers.

Modifié par mosor, 01 juillet 2010 - 03:47 .

[Melra]

mosor wrote...

Krilral wrote...

At least one of the reasons to destroy the collector base is because if Cerberus got their hands on reaper technology they would definatly use it in their attempt to gain complete control over the galaxy. And they don't seem like they would have any moral problems creating a reaper of their own.

You would likely be trading one menace for another.

Who says they would create a reaper of their own or that they wouldn't have a problem with that? Using reaper tech, sure, actual reaper? Thats a whole new can of worms and it's never even alluded in game that cerberus would do that.

As for your first point, how Cerberus or Humanity gaining control of the galexy worse than reapers destroying all advanced sentinet life in the galexy? The evil the reapers pose is greater than any evil cerberus could inflict evening assuming the absolute worst things about them.

Because due to human nature, we'll/they'll be always worse than Reapers, if given the opportunity.Vicious creatures and sure not everyone would turn into that kind, but evil always out does the good. Because it's much more ''easier'' and simpler route to take.

[mosor]

Melrache wrote...

mosor wrote...

Krilral wrote...

At least one of the reasons to destroy the collector base is because if Cerberus got their hands on reaper technology they would definatly use it in their attempt to gain complete control over the galaxy. And they don't seem like they would have any moral problems creating a reaper of their own.

You would likely be trading one menace for another.

Who says they would create a reaper of their own or that they wouldn't have a problem with that? Using reaper tech, sure, actual reaper? Thats a whole new can of worms and it's never even alluded in game that cerberus would do that.

As for your first point, how Cerberus or Humanity gaining control of the galexy worse than reapers destroying all advanced sentinet life in the galexy? The evil the reapers pose is greater than any evil cerberus could inflict evening assuming the absolute worst things about them.

Because due to human nature, we'll/they'll be always worse than Reapers, if given the opportunity.Vicious creatures and sure not everyone would turn into that kind, but evil always out does the good. Because it's much more ''easier'' and simpler route to take.

You're making human nature out to be worse than it actually is. Humanity has it's notbility as well as it's vices. The same can be said of any other sentinent race in the ME universe other than the reapers. Whats common among everyone is the struggle for survival. To blow up something that may ensure our survival because of a possible future threat may be principled, but it certainily isn't rational considering at this time we have no way of dealing with the immediate threat from the reapers.

[smudboy]

Melrache wrote...
Because due to human nature, we'll/they'll be always worse than Reapers, if given the opportunity.Vicious creatures and sure not everyone would turn into that kind, but evil always out does the good. Because it's much more ''easier'' and simpler route to take.

1. There's no such thing as human nature, or whatever you're talking about in this context.
2. We'll/they'll?  We'll be worse, or the Reapers will be?  What are you saying?
3. "So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."  I don't consider Cerberus all that good.  Good for resurrecting the dead and throwing mass amounts of money at things, though.
4. How is building a Reaper the "easier" and simpler route?

[RubyRed1975]

I have a question I may be wrong I'm only going off of what I saw from one of the videos on you tube. If I'm not mistaken if Shep and his crew all die the only one left is Joker. Any way in one of the playthroughs that I saw Shep gave the base to TIM. After Joker is finished talking to TIM I noticed what appeared to be ships converging on the base? So if I'm right how did TIM send ships to the base if the Normandy is the only ship with the Reaper IFF? Just wondering I may be wrong

[RubyRed1975]

sorry double post

Modifié par RubyRed1975, 01 juillet 2010 - 05:01 .

[mosor]

RubyRed1975 wrote...

I have a question I may be wrong I'm only going off of what I saw from one of the videos on you tube. If I'm not mistaken if Shep and his crew all die the only one left is Joker. Any way in one of the playthroughs that I saw Shep gave the base to TIM. After Joker is finished talking to TIM I noticed what appeared to be ships converging on the base? So if I'm right how did TIM send ships to the base if the Normandy is the only ship with the Reaper IFF? Just wondering I may be wrong

The IFF is just so the collectors don't destroy ships upon immediate entry into the relay. That IFF bought the Normany enough time to enter that region of space before the collectors swarmed and destroyed them. Since the collectors are dead, there is no need for an IFF telling them that a friend is approaching.

[RubyRed1975]

mosor wrote...

RubyRed1975 wrote...

I have a question I may be wrong I'm only going off of what I saw from one of the videos on you tube. If I'm not mistaken if Shep and his crew all die the only one left is Joker. Any way in one of the playthroughs that I saw Shep gave the base to TIM. After Joker is finished talking to TIM I noticed what appeared to be ships converging on the base? So if I'm right how did TIM send ships to the base if the Normandy is the only ship with the Reaper IFF? Just wondering I may be wrong

The IFF is just so the collectors don't destroy ships upon immediate entry into the relay. That IFF bought the Normany enough time to enter that region of space before the collectors swarmed and destroyed them. Since the collectors are dead, there is no need for an IFF telling them that a friend is approaching.

Oh o.k....thanks for clarifying that

[ztonkin]

I think Shepard should worry about Cerberus abusing the technology AFTER he solves the "Intergalactic Doomsday Fleet" problem. I don't get why anyone would destroy the Base. If you're so long-visioned that you worry about TIM doing what TIM does best, then you need to take a step back and think about who the bigger long-term threat is: Reapers, who are bent on murdering EVERYTHING and EVERYONE, or the most imcompetant (Rachni, Overlord, a million other examples) terrorist group ever outside of saturday morning cartoons? Plus, you're ****ing Commander Shepard! You could deal with anything!

[shep82]

Krilral wrote...

At least one of the reasons to destroy the collector base is because if Cerberus got their hands on reaper technology they would definatly use it in their attempt to gain complete control over the galaxy. And they don't seem like they would have any moral problems creating a reaper of their own.

You would likely be trading one menace for another.

Agreed. I do not trust Cerberus fully especially when it comes to the collector base. That's why I only save it when I am a full renegade and "mission over lives" person.

[pprrff]

Shandepared wrote...

Krilral wrote...

At least one of the reasons to destroy the collector base is because if Cerberus got their hands on reaper technology they would definatly use it in their attempt to gain complete control over the galaxy. And they don't seem like they would have any moral problems creating a reaper of their own.

You would likely be trading one menace for another.

Cerberus is much less of a menance than the Reapers are. The worst that happens if you let htem keep the base is they stop the Reapers and then Cerberus helps humanity become the dominant power in the galaxy. Is that really so horrible? Is it worse than the old system where the Council and its member races lorded over everybody? Certainly a human dominated galaxy is better than an empy galaxy devoid of sentient life.

Or an option 3, where you don't actually need the collector's base to beat the reaper, and you can use your defiance against Cerbrus as evidence of your impartiallity to the different races. With that, you can gather support from turian, salarian and the asari, not to mention the human alliance. With a more powerful alliance of organic races, you can resist the reapers more effectively.

Don't be so dismissive of the paragon choices, they are suppose to be equally valid choices. We just prefer go the paragon route.

[DPSSOC]

pprrff wrote...
Or an option 3, where you don't actually need the collector's base to beat the reaper, and you can use your defiance against Cerbrus as evidence of your impartiallity to the different races.

 
Yes except we've seen how those races respond to your good will.  Regardless of what you've done for them, the sacrifices you've made on their behalf the Council dismiss your warnings and publicly discredit you.  We have no reason to believe the Council will side with us just because we've shown our good intentions; admittedly it can't hurt but on it's own will not be enough.  Realistically, based on how the characters are developed, the only way to gain the Council's loyalty will be to prove the inevitability of their destruction.  Either in a Paragon, "United we stand divided we fall" approach or a Renegade, "Stand with me or fall before my might."

pprrff wrote...
With that, you can gather support from turian, salarian and the asari, not to mention the human alliance. With a more powerful alliance of organic races, you can resist the reapers more effectively.

Arguable.  In all honesty it would be more effective to prop up a single race to the point they can take on the Reapers individually or at least force the others to fall in line.  With the Paragon Alliance you're ultimately going to run into the issue of who's in charge; The Council won't bow to Humanity, the Quarians, Krogan, Geth, and Rachni won't bow to the Council, or each other so you end up trying to forge a useful weapon out of this pack of squabbling children.  With the Renegade Alliance you have a single power, Cerberus at worst Humanity at best, capable of forcing these groups to work together.  It's not the best option and it certainly won't last long but it eliminates the inevitable bickering if you treat it as a gathering of equals.

It all comes down to perception; the Paragons see the other races as individuals who must be brought together to work for a common good.  Renegades (at least my Renegades) view them as materials that must be forged into a weapon to stop the Reapers.  They are the blade, the Collector base (more accurately the tech it provides) is the anvil, we will be the hammer.

I would certainly prefer the Paragon route but the fact of the matter is we don't know if we have that kind of time (ok we do but Shepard doesn't).  What good is it if everyone's united under sunshine and rainbows if the Reapers arrive before you're ready. 

[V0luS_R0cKs7aR]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Captain Jazz wrote...
If you were asked to give a nuclear bomb to terrorists, would you do it?

To make this comparison fitting:

If I were asked to give a facility for making nuclear bombs to a fanatic and ruthless survivalist group allied with me in a total war for our very survival against a technologically superior enemy whose defenses I was hitherto unable to crack without stupidity on their side, would I do it?

Yes, I'd rather keep that facility for myself or give it to more dependable allies, but if the only alternative is not to have it at all, then, yes, I'd give it to them and deal with the consequences after our survival is assured. At this point, with the knowledge I have at that point, it's the only strategically viable option. Anything else means risking extinction for the sake of honor. Death before dishonor is a decision you have the right to make for yourself, but not for your whole group, species etc.. I'd say you have a moral obligation to keep the facility intact.

Um, no. If we were to follow the comparison faithfully, the facility you're capturing would not be making nuclear bombs, because in the game, the Collector Base was making a Reaper and we pretty much unanimously agreed that Cerberus should not be using the captured tech to make a Reaper. 

But to continue the nuclear weapon analogy, let's say the United States (Reapers) have nukes and the Taliban (Cerberus) managed to capture an Iraqi Army base (Protheans) that the U.S. stockpiled some advanced U.S. (Reaper) weapons. Let's say we (as the Taliban) captured this U.S. base and researched some of its technology. 

Wow, FANTASTIC. Now, two years later, AT BEST, Cerberus becomes North Korea/Iran (with some nukes). The U.S. will just as easily steam roll North Korea as they did Iraq (the Protheans) or Cerberus. Jumping back to the Mass Effect Universe, saving the Collector Base is hardly a strategically war-changing decision - sure, the Alliance/Council Races may start producing bigger and better Thanix-type weapons, start retrofitting ships with better/bigger mass effect drives, or whatever, but the truth is, the Reapers have had tens of thousands of years to perfect this technology. Therefore, this argument of harvesting Reaper technology and using it against them is absurd - there is no way we can master this technology within Shepherd's lifetime to the point where it would be competitive with the Reapers.

It's like going back in time and giving World War II Germany the F-22 Raptor in 1939. The technology in the Raptor might help Hitler defeat Stalin and Churchill in 1939, but any technological advances derived from the Raptor by the Germans would be useless against the present-day United States Air Force.

And that is why keeping the Collector Base is necessarily the "strategically" right thing to do. On a tactical level - as in, in future individual engagements - having all your ships armed with Thanix 2.0s is great. But in the big picture, trying to beat the Reapers with their own toys should NOT be at the core of any war strategy.

Modifié par V0luS_R0cKs7aR, 02 juillet 2010 - 01:08 .