3478 réponses à ce sujet

[smudboy]

UpDownLeftRight wrote...

Shandepared wrote...
The politics won't matter if the Reapers
win.

The politics won't matter in the long run either. We will all die in the end anyway.

smudboy wrote...
I don't know exactly what our crazy nutjob wants, aside from "Promote Humanity" and all that.

I do know what our Big Bad wants.

Choice 1. Crazy Nutjob wants to promote humanity in possibly unethical/despotic ways.  He's going to use politics.
Choice 2. Everything dies ever.  Again.

Politics is not an issue.  Your point is still moot.

Long term result of both choices: Everything dies in the end. Whether it will happen now or in 10.000 years is not important. The end result is the same.

Keeping the base because of a will to survive is an emotional reason.
Destryoing the collector base is based on an emotional reason.


You want to keep the base? Good for you.
You want to destroy the base? Good for you.

Both of these arguments are based on emotional reasons.

I didn't know emotions were reasons.  I thought emotions were physical reactions to thoughts.

Thing is, the thoughts that the "emotions" are based on for keeping the base are more logical, practical than the thoughts and "emotions" for destroying it.

[tvih]

UpDownLeftRight wrote...
Keeping the base because of a will to survive is an emotional reason.
Destryoing the collector base is based on an emotional reason.

You want to keep the base? Good for you.
You want to destroy the base? Good for you.

Both of these arguments are based on emotional reasons.

Quite true.

It's funny when one side of an argument calls out the other as being "emotional" - like it's always a bad thing - when normal humans can't even truly be "non-emotional". I'm not sure if even sociopaths etc can. Their emotions might be twisted, but they still have them in some form. We can't completely eliminate emotional responses from affecting our decisions and reasons.

I for one would not want to survive if surviving meant possibly becoming as bad as that I'm trying to defend against.

Somehow it leads me into thinking situations where a nuclear war scenario is described - one country launches retaliatory strikes when the others' missiles are already in the air. Why bother? Is it really better to destroy all life rather than just die and let the other guy live? What do you gain from the other side dying when you yourself will die anyway? (Conventional wars don't really make sense either, but they are a different situation anyway.)

It's not a comparison or anything really. But just like the nuclear thing, becoming as bad as the "evil" you're trying to defeat makes no sense. If surviving the Reapers literally calls for "any means necessary", I have to ask if we deserve to survive. Like if a bad guy has a gun to your head, and says that unless you kill these ten innocents in front of you, I'll shoot you. If you kill those ten innocents to save yourself, do you honestly deserve to live even if the bad guy kept his word?

Like Shepard says, he won't risk the soul of the species. Being inhumane in order to defend humanity just isn't my thing. We'll die eventually anyway. I'd rather not die tainted, having betrayed what I believe in.

As always, your mileage may vary. Some will call my viewpoint naive, and that's their prerogative. I could just as well call their viewpoint inhumane, and that'd be mine

Modifié par tvih, 20 juillet 2010 - 12:33 .

[UpDownLeftRight]

smudboy wrote...
I didn't know emotions were reasons. I thought emotions were physical reactions to thoughts.

Scientifically: Emotions are electrochemical signals. Thoughts are as well. Both can, in a subjective view, be called reasons for certain actions.

smudboy wrote...
Thing is, the thoughts that the "emotions" are based on for keeping the base are more logical, practical than the thoughts and  "emotions" for destroying it.

Survival is not objectively logical.
It depends on the end result. If the end goal is nothing but survival then yes, it is more logical to keep the base.
If the end goal is a certain kind of survival then the answer can vary depending on what kind of survival is sought after.

Shandepared wrote...
You're right, so why are we wasting all this time and effort trying to stop the Reapers? F this, I'm gonna retire.

I don't care why you are doing it.

Modifié par UpDownLeftRight, 20 juillet 2010 - 12:42 .

[smudboy]

UpDownLeftRight wrote...

smudboy wrote...
I didn't know emotions were reasons. I thought emotions were physical reactions to thoughts.

Scientifically: Emotions are electrochemical signals. Thoughts are as well. Both can, in a subjective view, be called reasons for certain actions.

If they're both something in common, and one is based on the other, then why not just say "we're basing our opinions on electrochemical signals?"

If thoughts and emotions are electrochemical signals, then wouldn't some opinions be based on thoughts, and others based on emotions?

smudboy wrote...
Survival is not objectively logical.
It depends on the end result. If the end goal is nothing but survival then yes, it is more logical to keep the base.
If the end goal is a certain kind of survival then the answer can vary depending on what kind of survival is sought after.

Survival depends on homeostasis and avoiding causes to death.

In this case, the causes to death is galactic genocide via Reaper invasion, which we have no knowledge and comprehension of.  (I do not understand what you mean by "objectively logical", or how something can be as such.  But I'm quite sure we can all agree we want to survive, else, we'd be dead.  There are some who seek death but cannot, but that is an irrelevant issue.)  Because we have no knowledge of how we're going to die, and would seek to avoid such a cause, it is a wise measure to learn about ones enemy.

Shandepared wrote...
You're right, so why are we wasting all this time and effort trying to stop the Reapers? F this, I'm gonna retire.

I don't care why you are doing it.

Just another electrochemical signal to you, huh?

[lovgreno]

There is no such thing as a absolute fact, only opinions. Every opinion is based more or less on personal emotions. A machine can act from the logic it has been programmed with (wich in turn is based on the emotions of the human programmer by the way) but human thought processes don't deal in black and white.

What the people who try to mock those with different opinions means when they call people "naive" is: You are stupid for not agreeing to my personal opinion.

They don't want to learn from other peoples different opinions and theories as they can not bear the thought of being wrong. Admitting that someone else may have a better argument, or even just a alternative would make them seem weak in their own logic. And being weak is something they fear.

To them a debate is not about learning but to tell others they are stupid. They know only two alternatives: My opinion that is fact and the opposing opinion that is by default stupid.

Oh well, if it makes them feel smarter who am I to deny them a little more self confidence? It's just a game after all so need to take things said here seriously.



But back to topic: TIMmy seems to be obsessed with his own superiority in this way. He calls anyone who disagrees "naive" and "emotional". He doesn't trust anyone (those naive and stupid people must be saved from themselves) to know his plans and tries to manipulate and controll everything. This is exactly why he often fails. With no one to tell him where his plans and agenda fails the flaws in his plans never gets uncovered untill it's too late and a new cell has been eaten by their experiments. Again. Can he realy be trusted to keep the base from falling back into reaper hands? He has lost controll of all projects he has started before.

[smudboy]

lovgreno wrote...

It is my opinion that 2 + 2 is 4.

Whoops.  I didn't have any emotion there.  I apologize.  I really hate it that 2 + 2 is equal to a value I totally think is super awesome and makes me dance.  4.  There.

Logic and reason are bereft of emotion.  This is why we sometimes term people as being cold.  They are indifferent.  One might argue we learn all things a posteriori, and the fact that stimulus is something we sense is an emotion, but now we're jumping into the realm of cognition, bordering on epistemology and some bizarre reductio ad absurdum view that we're all just neurochemical signals.

The reason we call people emotional is because they genuinely want to snub TIM (at least that's how they describe their reasons.)  It's possible they don't want to snub TIM and simply don't trust him.  This would be a lack of emotion (trust), and as such, is perfectly accetable.  It's also completely petty.

Modifié par smudboy, 20 juillet 2010 - 01:10 .

[wulf3n]

smudboy wrote...
This would be a lack of emotion (trust), and as such, is perfectly accetable.  It's also completely petty.

I don't know if i would call it petty, I'd consider strengthening one enemy to save myself from another, to be a dangerous move.
I know we don't know what TIM's ultimate goals are, but i'd be willing to bet they are fatal to me and mine. 

edit: And i would consider TIM to be just as much of a threat to the galaxy as the Reapers if he had the base.

Modifié par wulf3n, 20 juillet 2010 - 01:19 .

[smudboy]

wulf3n wrote...

smudboy wrote...
This would be a lack of emotion (trust), and as such, is perfectly accetable.  It's also completely petty.

I don't know if i would call it petty, I'd consider strengthening one enemy to save myself from another, to be a dangerous move.
I know we don't know what TIM's ultimate goals are, but i'd be willing to bet they are fatal to me and mine. 

Anything that interferes with saving the galaxy would be petty, like ones feelings for a person, especially if that person is the only one who's doing anything about saving the galaxy.

Who is the greater enemy?  TIM or the Reapers?  If it's TIM, that's fine: then you're simply misguided.  I could use harsher words, but really, you have to be blind instead of stupid.

[wulf3n]

smudboy wrote...
Who is the greater enemy?  TIM or the Reapers?  If it's TIM, that's fine: then you're simply misguided.  I could use harsher words, but really, you have to be blind instead of stupid.

and here i was thinking you were different than the majority of forum posters...yet here you are, pulling out the insults without any hint of provocation...sigh.

back to the matter at hand, maybe your just underestimating TIM. You say he's trying to save the galaxy, but i believe he's just trying to save himself.

Besides, in my REAL opinion, i would probably just give up, if this weren't a game, i would be putting all my money on the Reapers. I would find a nice little planet many lightyears away from any Relay, and live out the rest of my days in peace, because unless Shepard pulls a miracle out of his ass, this war is already over.

[smudboy]

wulf3n wrote...

smudboy wrote...
Who is the greater enemy?  TIM or the Reapers?  If it's TIM, that's fine: then you're simply misguided.  I could use harsher words, but really, you have to be blind instead of stupid.

and here i was thinking you were different than the majority of forum posters...yet here you are, pulling out the insults without any hint of provocation...sigh.

back to the matter at hand, maybe your just underestimating TIM. You say he's trying to save the galaxy, but i believe he's just trying to save himself.

Besides, in my REAL opinion, i would probably just give up, if this weren't a game, i would be putting all my money on the Reapers. I would find a nice little planet many lightyears away from any Relay, and live out the rest of my days in peace, because unless Shepard pulls a miracle out of his ass, this war is already over.

I am not insulting you when I call you blind or stupid in this context.  Really, look up those words.  You're the one who's taking it personally.  I repeat: I am not insulting you.  You're blind if you can't see the Reaper threat being the greater evil than the...TIM threat...

And you're stupid if you see TIM as being the greater threat, since you can't comprehend the two.  Stupidity is simply not understanding information, at least to me, which is why I'm using the word.  Humans are mostly ignorant, and largely stupid of what little information they do possess.  For example, we observe what the Reaper threat is, and then we observe the TIM threat.  Two things.  If you cannot comprehend that the Reapers are more a dangerous than TIM, then you are not blind, you are stupid.  It's like having a scale, and you weigh the greater of two evils.  However, I shouldn't have to list and compare the two, as the observations are pretty comical.

If you would give up, then you do not have the stature to be a hero, or a savior of the galaxy.  You do what's best for the galaxy, not some petty relationship with your boss because he's a dick.

[mosor]

wulf3n wrote...

smudboy wrote...
Who is the greater enemy?  TIM or the Reapers?  If it's TIM, that's fine: then you're simply misguided.  I could use harsher words, but really, you have to be blind instead of stupid.

and here i was thinking you were different than the majority of forum posters...yet here you are, pulling out the insults without any hint of provocation...sigh.

back to the matter at hand, maybe your just underestimating TIM. You say he's trying to save the galaxy, but i believe he's just trying to save himself.

Besides, in my REAL opinion, i would probably just give up, if this weren't a game, i would be putting all my money on the Reapers. I would find a nice little planet many lightyears away from any Relay, and live out the rest of my days in peace, because unless Shepard pulls a miracle out of his ass, this war is already over.

Saren put his money on the reapers too. Didn't get him anywhere. Besides, why would you want to live out your life alone? Might as well be dead.  Don't take this the wrong way, but with an attitude like that, you wouldn't be in Sheppard's position to begin with.

In regards to the other points.

1. I prefer survival over principle. Principles change.  Politics change. Powers Change, Evil People could be redeemed. Extinction is absolute.
2. Risking the lives of trillions based on principle or unknown fears about the illusive man seems immoral in itself.
3. Who says humanity will eventually die? Maybe if we stayed on earth and extinction event would have happened, but not when people are travelling the universe. The more dispersed, the less likely an extinction event would come. Unless the universe ends or the reapers win.

Modifié par mosor, 20 juillet 2010 - 01:46 .

[UpDownLeftRight]

smudboy wrote...
If they're both something in common, and one
is based on the other, then why not just say "we're basing our opinions
on electrochemical signals?"

Emotion is a common word. There is a chance that people won't understand what I mean if I would use "electrochemical signals" instead.

smudboy wrote...
If thoughts and emotions are electrochemical signals, then wouldn't some opinions be based on thoughts, and others based on emotions?

In the end they are all based on electrochemical signals.

smudboy wrote...
Survival depends on homeostasis and avoiding causes to death.

Your point?

smudboy wrote...
In this case, the causes to death is galactic genocide via Reaper invasion, which we have no knowledge and comprehension of.  (I do not understand what you mean by "objectively logical", or how somthing can be as such.  But I'm quite sure we can all agree we want to survive, else, we'd be dead.  There are some who seek death but cannot, but that is an irrelevant issue.)  Because we have no knowledge of how we're going to die, and would seek to avoid such a cause, it is a wise measure to learn about ones enemy.

What comprehension do you need? If they fight us and we fail to beat them = A high probablility suggests that we die.
Simply put.

Physics: An object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by another force.
Conclusion: If I throw a stone in perfect vaccum it is logical to assume that it will stay in motion unless acted upon by another force. = Objective logic.

Keep the collector base because I want to live: Objectively it has nothing to do with logic.

smudboy wrote...
Just another electrochemical signal to you, huh?

A large number of electrochemical signals.

smudboy wrote...
Logic and reason are bereft of emotion.  This is why we sometimes term people as being cold.  They are indifferent.  One might argue we learn all things a posteriori, and the fact that stimulus is something we sense is an emotion, but now we're jumping into the realm of cognition, bordering on epistemology and some bizarre reductio ad absurdum view that we're all just neurochemical signals.

Hah. This has nothing to do with reductio ad adsurdum.
Your choice has nothing to do with logic.

smudboy wrote...
I am not insulting you when I call you blind
or stupid in this context.  Really, look up those words.  You're the one
who's taking it personally.  I repeat: I am not insulting you. 
You're blind if you can't see the Reaper threat being the greater
evil than the...TIM threat...

And you're stupid if you
see TIM as being the greater threat, since you can't comprehend the
two.  Stupidity is simply not understanding information, at least to me,
which is why I'm using the word.  Humans are mostly ignorant, and
largely stupid of what little information they do possess.  For example,
we observe what the Reaper threat is, and then we observe the TIM
threat.  Two things.  If you cannot comprehend that the Reapers are more
a dangerous than TIM, then you are not blind, you are stupid.  It's
like having a scale, and you weigh the greater of two evils.  However, I
shouldn't have to list and compare the two, as the observations are
pretty comical.

If you would give up, then you do not have the
stature to be a hero, or a savior of the galaxy.  You do what's best for
the galaxy, not some petty relationship with your boss because he's a
dick.

What is and is not a great threat is subjective. What is and is not "best for the galaxy" is also subjective.


This is getting very offtopic.

Modifié par UpDownLeftRight, 21 juillet 2010 - 10:10 .

[wulf3n]

smudboy wrote...
If you would give up, then you do not have the stature to be a hero, or a savior of the galaxy.  You do what's best for the galaxy, not some petty relationship with your boss because he's a dick.

I like to think of it as preparing for the next war. Yes i understand the Reapers are more dangerous than TIM "now", if they weren't TIM wouldn't need Shepards help. 

Where as you see it as I'm risking the safety of the Galaxy by denying invaluable technology, but i see it as saving the galaxy by not strengthening it's next greatest threat.

[smudboy]

wulf3n wrote...

smudboy wrote...
If you would give up, then you do not have the stature to be a hero, or a savior of the galaxy.  You do what's best for the galaxy, not some petty relationship with your boss because he's a dick.

I like to think of it as preparing for the next war. Yes i understand the Reapers are more dangerous than TIM "now", if they weren't TIM wouldn't need Shepards help. 

Where as you see it as I'm risking the safety of the Galaxy by denying invaluable technology, but i see it as saving the galaxy by not strengthening it's next greatest threat.

First war: Reapers.  Next war: potentially TIM?

If you can't fight and stop the first war, all bets are off.  This is ridiculous thinking.

ME is about stopping the Reapers.  Not stopping TIM.  We don't know what we'll find in the base, but I can't see it making TIM into something greater than the Reapers, which you yourself acknowledge.  Which means you put more onus on TIM than the Reapers: this is also stupidity.

[smudboy]

Well I've never encountered a non-sequitur troll before. Let's not feed it.

[wulf3n]

smudboy wrote...
 First war: Reapers.  Next war: potentially TIM?

If you can't fight and stop the first war, all bets are off.  This is ridiculous thinking.

ME is about stopping the Reapers.  Not stopping TIM.  We don't know what we'll find in the base, but I can't see it making TIM into something greater than the Reapers, which you yourself acknowledge.  Which means you put more onus on TIM than the Reapers: this is also stupidity.

1st of all, because this is a game, my Shepard is like McGuyver crossed with Chuck Norris, i could defeat the entire Reaper fleet with a paper clip, some chewing gum, and a liberal dose of round house kicks, so i don't need the Collector base.  (By that i mean victory against the reapers is all but assured.)  But we're not arguing like this is a game SO...

TIM is a different kind of threat, whereas the Reaper threat is now obvious to all who are willing to look, TIM is insidious, you won't know he's dangerous, until it's too late to stop him.

You will undoubtedly argue this is based on my own personal grievances with TIM, but no, I base my decision on TIMs  previous actions.

Modifié par wulf3n, 20 juillet 2010 - 02:16 .

[UpDownLeftRight]

smudboy wrote...

Well I've never encountered a non-sequitur troll before. Let's not feed it.

What has trolling got to do with anything?

[smudboy]

wulf3n wrote...

smudboy wrote...
 First war: Reapers.  Next war: potentially TIM?

If you can't fight and stop the first war, all bets are off.  This is ridiculous thinking.

ME is about stopping the Reapers.  Not stopping TIM.  We don't know what we'll find in the base, but I can't see it making TIM into something greater than the Reapers, which you yourself acknowledge.  Which means you put more onus on TIM than the Reapers: this is also stupidity.

1st of all, because this is a game, my Shepard is like McGuyver crossed with Chuck Norris, i could defeat the entire Reaper fleet with a paper clip, some chewing gum, and a liberal dose of round house kicks.  (By that i mean victory against the reapers is all but assured.)  But we're not arguing like this is a game SO...

TIM is a different kind of threat, whereas the Reaper threat is now obvious to all who are willing to look, TIM is insidious, you won't know he's dangerous, until it's too late to stop him.

You will undoubtedly argue this is based on my own personal grievances with TIM, but no, I base my decision on TIMs  previous actions.

Whatever imagination you have for your Shepard is meaningless, though now that we know, quite...um, nevermind.

TIM isn't a threat.  Yet the known galaxy knows more about TIM than they do the Reapers, and I'm quite sure they can deal with a few hundred humans.  The Council knows about Cerberus, but they're denying the existence of the Reapers.  Keeping the base might help solve that.  You yourself mentioned that the Reapers are the greater threat. What's the real reason here?

I don't like TIM all that much either.  TIM's previous actions involve 1) resurrecting Shepard, 2) giving Shepard a state of the art warship, 3) getting him a list of badasses for some magical mystery tour, 4) having amazing timing on everything plot related, like being able to pull a dead Reaper out of his ass 5) didn't provide all information so Shepard and crew got purposely caught on the Diabled Collector Cruiser because he knew the risks justified the reward, 6) asking Shepard to go on a Suicide Mission.  I certaintly didn't like all those experiments on people and such that Cererus cells made, but we learn that TIM is not ambiguously gray: he simply didn't know of the types of experiments being performed.  He is an "ends justify the means" kind of guy, but not if those ends involve sacrificing humans in unethical experiments.  ME2 has made this clear.

[Chim3ra]

All of your teamates say you did the right thing. ( when you explode it )





Bioware makes what they say.

[Matdeception]

My own view point on not giving TIM the base



Depending on the game, play style/ect, it all generally comes down to Mordin's dark foretelling.



Yes, Mordin, that Gilbert and Sullivan singing freak of bad ass nature. He mentions things, like how recieving technology before you are ready for it causes disaster (Krogan, anyone?)



But I generally play a pragmatist. **** the future, I need to win this war with the Reapers by any means I can, or there won't BE a future.



I can see good points and flaws for both sides of the argument. I guess it all comes down to 'Do you like rape face or not?'

[smudboy]

Chim3ra wrote...

All of your teamates say you did the right thing. ( when you explode it )


Bioware makes what they say.

No.