198 réponses à ce sujet

[Moiaussi]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

It's not that there are tuna that aren't fish, it's that there are fish that aren't tuna.  

Same rationalization I hear for 'arson fires.'

Tuna isn't the redundant word. If you use the word Tuna, the other party should already know you are talking about fish. If you are talking about arson, the other party should already know there was fire involved. There are no tuna cattle, and no arson drownings.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Moiaussi wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

It's not that there are tuna that aren't fish, it's that there are fish that aren't tuna.  

Same rationalization I hear for 'arson fires.'

Tuna isn't the redundant word. If you use the word Tuna, the other party should already know you are talking about fish. If you are talking about arson, the other party should already know there was fire involved. There are no tuna cattle, and no arson drownings.

OK, I admit, that made me laugh.

My mind is going to keep coming back to this for the rest of the day, trying to come up with tuna cattle and arson drownings as viable scenarios.


I think the phrasing comes about as an awkward way of being more specific.  I don't want any old fish for lunch, I want tuna fish.  It wasn't an accidental fire, it was an arson fire.  In some contexts of conversation, it makes (some) sense.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 27 août 2010 - 07:20 .

[DPSSOC]

My name is Legion wrote...

The greater is good is nice argument for Ceberus isn't it? Just a shame they have wiped out how many Alliance squads? There is the sole survivor platoon including Toombs where I think it is something like 50 marines died? And then the failed Rachni experiment that led to the death of hundreds of other Marines as wellI think. Probably wrong number. Let me settle on "lots." And of course Kahoku's men plus the Admiral as well.

And that is just against the Alliance never mind non-military personal like Jack and David!

I'm sure Cerberus were founded with noble intentions in mind but whatever they were it's long gone now.

Now you condemn those actions but the fact is we have no idea what, if anything, came of those projects.  In order to determine whether or not Cerberus are working for the greater good or not we need to know what they've accomplished.  For example let's say Cerberus releases a virus on a population, 5,000 people die, but by studying the infected Cerberus is able to devlope a vaccine for this virus which saves millions.  In this scenario they are working for the greater good (can't make an omlette without cracking a few eggs), but if they got nothing out of it, or more importantly never intended to get anything out of it, then they're not.

Unfortunately we're not privy to the goals and success rate of Cerberus operation so we can only speculate, but so long as the average Cerberus project helps (and the rest intend to help) more people than it harms then they fall under the "working for the greater good" banner.

[Slayer299]

DPSSOC wrote...

My name is Legion wrote...

The greater is good is nice argument for Ceberus isn't it? Just a shame they have wiped out how many Alliance squads? There is the sole survivor platoon including Toombs where I think it is something like 50 marines died? And then the failed Rachni experiment that led to the death of hundreds of other Marines as wellI think. Probably wrong number. Let me settle on "lots." And of course Kahoku's men plus the Admiral as well.

And that is just against the Alliance never mind non-military personal like Jack and David!

I'm sure Cerberus were founded with noble intentions in mind but whatever they were it's long gone now.

Now you condemn those actions but the fact is we have no idea what, if anything, came of those projects.  In order to determine whether or not Cerberus are working for the greater good or not we need to know what they've accomplished.  For example let's say Cerberus releases a virus on a population, 5,000 people die, but by studying the infected Cerberus is able to devlope a vaccine for this virus which saves millions.  In this scenario they are working for the greater good (can't make an omlette without cracking a few eggs), but if they got nothing out of it, or more importantly never intended to get anything out of it, then they're not.

Unfortunately we're not privy to the goals and success rate of Cerberus operation so we can only speculate, but so long as the average Cerberus project helps (and the rest intend to help) more people than it harms then they fall under the "working for the greater good" banner.

But the problem is that very thing of 'helping more than it harms', at what point is Cerberus going to say enough? You use the example of Cerberus releasing a virus on  population, I'm assuming since you didn't say that the population wasn't that big, so lets take that to a larger scale. Cerberus releases a virus on a planet with a population of 1,000,000 and you have 100,000 deaths when its finally stopped, Cerberus now has a vaccine for this virus. Are you saying that whatever the numbers of deaths as long as it is "beneficial" to humanity that whatever the final death-count is acceptable or that its acceptable as long as "everyone" didn't die?

I do agree that Cerberus is a speciest organization rather than a racist one. 

Modifié par Slayer299, 29 août 2010 - 03:20 .

[Christmas Ape]

But the problem is that very thing of 'helping more than it harms', at what point is Cerberus going to say enough? You use the example of Cerberus releasing a virus on population, I'm assuming since you didn't say that the population wasn't that big, so lets take that to a larger scale. Cerberus releases a virus on a planet with a population of 1,000,000 and you have 100,000 deaths when its finally stopped, Cerberus now has a vaccine for this virus. Are you saying that whatever the numbers of deaths as long as it is "beneficial" to humanity that whatever the final death-count is acceptable or that its acceptable as long as "everyone" didn't die?

I believe the argument is, essentially, that as long as those deaths "buy" an increased survival rate for others at risk, the exchange was beneficial.



Five thousand people die to save a million? Acceptable losses.

Infect a million, kill a hundred thousand, and cure the disease forever? Acceptable losses.



The dead may disagree, but their voices are drowned out by the living.

[DPSSOC]

Slayer299 wrote...
Are you saying that whatever the numbers of deaths as long as it is "beneficial" to humanity that whatever the final death-count is acceptable or that its acceptable as long as "everyone" didn't die?

 
Would it sound completely horrible if I said yes?  I know most of us think 100,000 or even 1 million is a lot of people and it is but let's put that into context.  At present there are over 6 billion human beings on earth.  That means if you were to kill of just 1% of our population it would be over 60 million.  That's close to the total death count of WW2 and it's insignificant.  Those 100,000 you mentioned would be less than 0.00167% of our total population, I consider that an acceptable loss.

[Dark Penitant]

It's not really horrible, I actually agree with you that sacrificing a few to save a lot is usually a good thing, however there are all sorts of special circumstances. There is a thread about this a few months back in the forums.

[upsettingshorts]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one.

Spock told me.

[AresXX7]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one.

Spock told me.

he was also refering to himself, at the time  

[HTTP 404]

Burdokva wrote...

I couldn't help but wonder about a general sentiment throughout the forums, namely Cerberus' alleged racism. More importantly, why so many people not only only make parallels, but outright identify Cerberus' pro-human development goal with human racism? It's completely wrong and devoid of logic.

Calling Cerberus racist, in our human terms, is an invalid argument. Racism argues that members of the same species (note: English isn't my native language, so don't jump on me if I mess biological terms), that is - humans, are members of different races based solely on outer differences, like facial features, skin tones etc. Some going to the extremes of taking cultural and language differences as a measure. While that's a moot point, at best, as genetically humans across the planet are practically the same, and the UN banned the use of "race"for different ethnic groups (note: Mass Effect 2's "human genetic diversity" theme left me confused), it is valid for an alien species - quite simply, aliens would be very different from humans. Not necessarily in their looks, but genetically.

That doesn't mean treating an alien as an "inferior", but simply different. I fail to see how Cerberus can be allegedly racist when: one, humans within the organization seem to be treated equally; actually, there isn't a hint of human sub-division at all, to the contrary, it's wholesale human endeavor. Second, why do people here perceive human political (and probably military and technological) superiority, even dominance, as "racist"? 

I understand racism seems to be a very touchy subject for people in the West (the vast majority on this forum I suspect being Westerners) but isn't this going too far? A human organization cast down for it's attempt to ensure the welfare of it's own race, in a situation where we have an actual racial variety? Isn't this a taking political liberalism to the extreme and applying it without taking note of the very different context? Humanity arguably has greater goals that may take precedence over nations, even cultures, but again, I fail to see how humanity wholesale benefit can be bad when dealing with aliens, even at their own expense, when they may not only not share same liberal values, but even have opposing values and contrary goals.

holy cow. its just a game

[Dark Penitant]

HTTP 404 wrote...

Burdokva wrote...

I couldn't help but wonder about a general sentiment throughout the forums, namely Cerberus' alleged racism. More importantly, why so many people not only only make parallels, but outright identify Cerberus' pro-human development goal with human racism? It's completely wrong and devoid of logic.

Calling Cerberus racist, in our human terms, is an invalid argument. Racism argues that members of the same species (note: English isn't my native language, so don't jump on me if I mess biological terms), that is - humans, are members of different races based solely on outer differences, like facial features, skin tones etc. Some going to the extremes of taking cultural and language differences as a measure. While that's a moot point, at best, as genetically humans across the planet are practically the same, and the UN banned the use of "race"for different ethnic groups (note: Mass Effect 2's "human genetic diversity" theme left me confused), it is valid for an alien species - quite simply, aliens would be very different from humans. Not necessarily in their looks, but genetically.

That doesn't mean treating an alien as an "inferior", but simply different. I fail to see how Cerberus can be allegedly racist when: one, humans within the organization seem to be treated equally; actually, there isn't a hint of human sub-division at all, to the contrary, it's wholesale human endeavor. Second, why do people here perceive human political (and probably military and technological) superiority, even dominance, as "racist"? 

I understand racism seems to be a very touchy subject for people in the West (the vast majority on this forum I suspect being Westerners) but isn't this going too far? A human organization cast down for it's attempt to ensure the welfare of it's own race, in a situation where we have an actual racial variety? Isn't this a taking political liberalism to the extreme and applying it without taking note of the very different context? Humanity arguably has greater goals that may take precedence over nations, even cultures, but again, I fail to see how humanity wholesale benefit can be bad when dealing with aliens, even at their own expense, when they may not only not share same liberal values, but even have opposing values and contrary goals.

holy cow. its just a game

That is true. It probably seems like we are all insane addicts for discussing the obsucre and not so obscure political elements and the ramifications of their actions in the game. However, simply because those political elements exist makes them worthy of discussion.

[didymos1120]

DPSSOC wrote...
 That's close to the total death count of WW2 and it's insignificant.

Only if those deaths don't have any ramifications or impact on anyone but the one who dies.  Trying to use raw numbers when talking about these things is, I'm sorry, foolish.  We're a highly social species, and even a single death can have disastrous and far-reaching consequences. 

[upsettingshorts]

I think the point is that massive amounts of people have died for one cause or another already in human history, and in some of those cases - not all - they were viewed as just or necessary.



A famous and fairly recent example would be the Great Leap Forward.



The implication is that while Cerberus' actions range from amoral to indefensible, it certainly isn't anything new for humanity.

[ExtremeOne]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

The OP can drop the ball to the visitors of this forum, but in fact BioWare portraits Cerberus as a "pro-human" organization and gives it an aura similar to racist organizations in our society. That's a given. So, I don't understand what the OP is trying to achieve here.

  


Oh and what is bioware giving the Quarians who want to wipe out the geth and will take geth and use them for weapons tests . they are racist as well. or what about the Salarians who designed the genophage they want to castrate the krogan and keep them down. they are racist as well. what Cerberus wants is to protect humanity at all cost there is nothing racist about that . 

[upsettingshorts]

Ok, I wasn't going to break this out - I'd been saving it for an Ashley thread. But let's get down to it.

The difference between racism and nationalism. Here's a comparison, and don't take issue with which nations I assign to which ethnicity and vice versa, I'm making them random:

Human: Black
Asari: European
Turian: Asian
Salarian: Middle-Eastern
Krogan: Jewish
Hanar: Slavic
Volus: Hindu

-----or-----

Human: People's Republic of China
Asari: United Kingdom
Turian: France
Salarian: Iraq
Krogan: Russia
Hanar: United States
Volus: Egypt

Now play mad libs with any quote referring to "races" in the Mass Effect universe. In the case of Ashley, Cerberus, and yes even Lieutenant Pressly in ME1, nearly all of the characters and organizations (with notable exceptions like Terra Firma and Harbinger's quotes about your squad) the LATTER group is the one that makes the most sense in context.

Cerberus are pro-human NATIONALISTS not pro-human RACISTS. Their enthusiasm and aggressiveness upgrades that nationalism to JINGOISM, which is sort of "advanced, bold, unapologetic nationalism."

Ashley is a pro-human NATIONALIST whose motivations stem from logic, hence her hestiation to accept foreign help on top secret military projects, or trust them to support us in the future.

Kelly Chambers and most of the Cerberus crew of the Normandy SR-2 are NATIONALISTS.  They seem to believe in humanity and are motivated by pride, and are not necessarily against or wary of the assistance of aliens, they are just hesitant to rely on it and take an active approach. 

The English language has given us many terms by which to define the sociopolitical views of individuals and groups that are more accurate and far less loaded than "racist."  How about we try using them instead of attempting to force a square peg in a round hole.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 29 août 2010 - 06:19 .

[Christmas Ape]

UpsettingShorts wrote...

The English language has given us many terms by which to define the sociopolitical views of individuals and groups that are more accurate and far less loaded than "racist." How about we try using them instead of attempting to force a square peg in a round hole.

But that would deprive half the discussion of emotionally weighted buzzwords with which to obscure the actual discussion with knee-jerk reactions!

[Moiaussi]

DPSSOC wrote...

Now you condemn those actions but the fact is we have no idea what, if anything, came of those projects.  In order to determine whether or not Cerberus are working for the greater good or not we need to know what they've accomplished.  For example let's say Cerberus releases a virus on a population, 5,000 people die, but by studying the infected Cerberus is able to devlope a vaccine for this virus which saves millions.  In this scenario they are working for the greater good (can't make an omlette without cracking a few eggs), but if they got nothing out of it, or more importantly never intended to get anything out of it, then they're not.

Unfortunately we're not privy to the goals and success rate of Cerberus operation so we can only speculate, but so long as the average Cerberus project helps (and the rest intend to help) more people than it harms then they fall under the "working for the greater good" banner.

You are completely discounting the risk, and the fact that none of the experiments Shep encounters in ME1 were well contained. Cerberus unleashes a virus that kills an initial 5,000, but gets off world and kills 5 billion.

Enough of the Thorian spores get off world to a garden world or two, and from there into general population and you have another Rachni or Krogan situation.

The Rachni get themselves out and you have a second Rachni war.

There is no evidence that subjecting people to thresher maw attack did anything other than kill those people. No clue what they were trying to test there other than possibly how to cover up murders better.

They try to breed a better biotic and create a nigh psychopath.

There experiments are only anything other than complete disasters because someone less renegade comes along to clean them up.

[Moiaussi]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Now play mad libs with any quote referring to "races" in the Mass Effect universe. In the case of Ashley, Cerberus, and yes even Lieutenant Pressly in ME1, nearly all of the characters and organizations (with notable exceptions like Terra Firma and Harbinger's quotes about your squad) the LATTER group is the one that makes the most sense in context.

Cerberus are pro-human NATIONALISTS not pro-human RACISTS. Their enthusiasm and aggressiveness upgrades that nationalism to JINGOISM, which is sort of "advanced, bold, unapologetic nationalism."

Ashley is a pro-human NATIONALIST whose motivations stem from logic, hence her hestiation to accept foreign help on top secret military projects, or trust them to support us in the future.

Kelly Chambers and most of the Cerberus crew of the Normandy SR-2 are NATIONALISTS.  They seem to believe in humanity and are motivated by pride, and are not necessarily against or wary of the assistance of aliens, they are just hesitant to rely on it and take an active approach. 

The English language has given us many terms by which to define the sociopolitical views of individuals and groups that are more accurate and far less loaded than "racist."  How about we try using them instead of attempting to force a square peg in a round hole.

Like it or not, the Governments all seem to be race based. There doesn't seem to be any non-humans in Alliance forces, nor non Salarians amongst the STG, or non-Asari amongst the Commandos.

There was an objection to a Human speaking at Tali's trial... not an 'outsider' but a 'Human.'

Mercenary bands are exceptions and seem to have mixed race. Cerberus seems strangely more accepting of other races than any of the formal governments too.

It is ALL race based instead of economic, other than at the fringes, outside of formal government structures. Racial equity is actually treated like a renegade idea.

[upsettingshorts]

Just because they're racially homogenous doesn't mean that racism is the underlying factor.

It's a question of self-identification and motivation. The difference, even when it comes to nation-states (ie, an ethnicity and state sharing the same geographical boundaries) is in political motivations versus ethnic or racial ones.

The reason why the latter group above works better than the former is that in context the disagreements between races in Mass Effect are political, not racial. They aren't based on some concept of inherent racial superiority or inferiority, but of sociopolitical and military interests.

However! It doesn't work like that in every situation, and your example of Tali's trial is one where it doesn't.  I didn't say there was no racism in the universe.  My goal was to establish that those individuals and groups most often accused of racism in the ME universe on this board and others are in fact nationalists, not racists.

Does that mean stereotypes and gross overgeneralizations about species don't exist?  No.  That's an unfortunate reality of existence, but that doesn't mean it's the basis of policy decisions or the underlying motivation between inter-species distrust or inward-looking shadow organizations like Cerberus.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 29 août 2010 - 07:13 .

[Moiaussi]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Just because they're racially homogenous doesn't mean that racism is the underlying factor.

It's a question of self-identification and motivation. The difference, even when it comes to nation-states (ie, an ethnicity having its own state, like Japan being 98% or so ethnically Japanese) is in political motivations versus ethnic or racial ones.

The reason why the latter group above works better than the former is that in context the disagreements between races in Mass Effect are political, not racial. They aren't based on some concept of inherent racial superiority or inferiority, but of sociopolitical and military interests.

Does that mean stereotypes and gross overgeneralizations about species don't exist?  No.  That's an unfortunate reality of existence, but that doesn't mean it's the basis of policy decisions or the underlying motivation between inter-species distrust or inward-looking shadow organizations like Cerberus.

The Asari and Salarians have been working together for millenia. In much less time, many nations in the world (including most of the most influential) are mixed race. Police, military, and special ops are mixed race.

Nations that are not mixed race are usually not only because the regions are relatively inhospitible or politicaly backed racism, but even that is diminishing constantly.

And it isn't 'sociopolitical or military' interests when someone says 'humans can't be trusted. That is a race based stereotype that goes well beyond 'the Alliance can't be trusted.'

Interestingly, the Krogan seemed arguably the least racist. The clan that opposed Grunt had many other issues besides Grunt's origins, but the Shaman, who seemed 'cross tribe' shows considerable respect for Shep as long as Shep shows understanding of Krogan culture, and noone at all objects to Shep being Grunt's battlemaster. In fact if anything they are simply more impressed.

Wrex's respect for Aleena and Shepard shows similar openness, as does the Krogan/Asari pair on Illium.

[upsettingshorts]

Moiaussi wrote...

And it isn't 'sociopolitical or military' interests when someone says 'humans can't be trusted. That is a race based stereotype that goes well beyond 'the Alliance can't be trusted.'

Depends greatly on the context and reason for distrust. 

Example:

"Americans can't be trusted" could easily mean "The United States can't be trusted" in the right context. 

[Moiaussi]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

And it isn't 'sociopolitical or military' interests when someone says 'humans can't be trusted. That is a race based stereotype that goes well beyond 'the Alliance can't be trusted.'

Depends greatly on the context and reason for distrust. 

Example:

"Americans can't be trusted" could easily mean "The United States can't be trusted" in the right context. 

While that is true, there never seems to be a distinction in ME or ME2. You never see anyone not racially Asari saying "I am an Asari", i.e. that they are a member of the Asari nation with full citizenship, rights, etc., or a Salarian saying they are an Alliance Salarian.

The closest you get are the Volus, who are a protectorate of the Turians, but they complain that they are not given proper recognition as a free political entity, and of course the Turians, who act like a cross between an occupying nation and a nation who disregards the Volus entirely. Despite the close economic ties, it is still treated like both maintain closed door policies.

You have the Quarians, who are essentially militant gypsies, who would likely benefit greatly from outside ideas but keep a closed society and only bring back those ideas they find on pilgrimage.....

It is all racial, not political.

[Burdokva]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
 
Cerberus are pro-human NATIONALISTS not pro-human RACISTS. Their enthusiasm and aggressiveness upgrades that nationalism to JINGOISM, which is sort of "advanced, bold, unapologetic nationalism."

Ashley is a pro-human NATIONALIST whose motivations stem from logic, hence her hestiation to accept foreign help on top secret military projects, or trust them to support us in the future.

Kelly Chambers and most of the Cerberus crew of the Normandy SR-2 are NATIONALISTS.  They seem to believe in humanity and are motivated by pride, and are not necessarily against or wary of the assistance of aliens, they are just hesitant to rely on it and take an active approach. 

The English language has given us many terms by which to define the sociopolitical views of individuals and groups that are more accurate and far less loaded than "racist."  How about we try using them instead of attempting to force a square peg in a round hole.

Exactly my point. Cerberus is far more akin to a national state at the end of the XIXth-early XXth century, in the context of the "European concert", than a racist-supremacist group. Cerberus ideology is very similar to a future political realism, where the main objective of each nation state is it's own survival (if we see the unified governments of each race in Mass Effect as an extension of the nation state). They're not necessarily aggressive towards other states, rather than survival of own species at any cost. Which in political realism is justified, as all other players have the same goal and (or lack of) principles. 

We could argue that the other races are in any way more peaceful or cooperative, but that's not entirely true. Salarians (and turians) used biological weapons to decimate the Krogan, turians turned a first-contact situation into a war and were preparing for an all-out war against humanity before the Council intervined, quarians are more-or-less racist sociopaths who tried to destroy the sentient, even if synthetic, Geth. Batarians clearly have the means and will to use WMDs. Even the relations between Council races are based on power balance - the Council fleet treaty is Mass Effect's version of the Washington treaty about the tonnage of warships.   

I can see why people see Cerberus as unethical, and they're completely accurate in that. But I can't understand the rampaging hate against an organization that strives to preserve humanity.

[lovgreno]

I would say Cerberus are spiecesists rather than racists but terminology can be confusing and are often not that relevant. Cerberus are not alone in being spieciesists though, everyone in the galaxy is to some extent. A turian understands turians but not batarians as he is a turian and not a batarian. Therefore his only point of wiev is from his own spiecies and can never truly understand the needs and culture of other spiecies. The same of course applies to everyone.



Most species and their rulers understand that sharing power and allowing each spiecies to rule themselves (as long as it doesn't threaten others) is necesary for galactic stability. A wise ruler knows that you often have to sacrifice something, compromise and even admit being wrong when necesary. The concept behind the old human empires based on racism is thankfully abandoned as the ineffective stupidity it was. Of course each spiecies still puts their own interests first but no one is stupid enough to think they can or would profit from dominating all other spiecies.



The exception is of course Cerberus who have human supremacy as their agenda.

[DPSSOC]

Moiaussi wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

Now you condemn those actions but the fact is we have no idea what, if anything, came of those projects.  In order to determine whether or not Cerberus are working for the greater good or not we need to know what they've accomplished.  For example let's say Cerberus releases a virus on a population, 5,000 people die, but by studying the infected Cerberus is able to devlope a vaccine for this virus which saves millions.  In this scenario they are working for the greater good (can't make an omlette without cracking a few eggs), but if they got nothing out of it, or more importantly never intended to get anything out of it, then they're not.

Unfortunately we're not privy to the goals and success rate of Cerberus operation so we can only speculate, but so long as the average Cerberus project helps (and the rest intend to help) more people than it harms then they fall under the "working for the greater good" banner.

You are completely discounting the risk, and the fact that none of the experiments Shep encounters in ME1 were well contained. Cerberus unleashes a virus that kills an initial 5,000, but gets off world and kills 5 billion.

I disagree, I think, with the exception of the Rachni, all the experiments were remarkably well contained.

Moiaussi wrote...
Enough of the Thorian spores get off world to a garden world or two, and from there into general population and you have another Rachni or Krogan situation.

The spores are generated by the Thorian itself not the Creepers and none of the people we encounter on Nodacrux give any indication they're suffering from Thorian control.  Furthermore it's important to note that Nodacrux was an Exogeni project not Cerberus.  Cerberus may have gotten involved but that's different.  The only clear indication of Cerberus Thorian Creeper experiments is durring the assignment on Binthu where the Creepers are very clearly, and safely, contained until Shepard shows up and starts wrecking s***.

Moiaussi wrote...
The Rachni get themselves out and you have a second Rachni war.

Not really the Rachni need a Queen to breed and we find no evidence on any of the planets, or the station, where Rachni got loose.

Moiaussi wrote...
There is no evidence that subjecting people to thresher maw attack did anything other than kill those people. No clue what they were trying to test there other than possibly how to cover up murders better.

Learning how to treat Thresher Maw burns, does the acid spread, what's the rate of spread, how long do you have to treat it before the only option is amputation, lethality once it enters the bloodstream, etc.  It's crude science, it may even be bad science, but when dealing with the completely unknown you can't always be clean about it.

Moiaussi wrote...
They try to breed a better biotic and create a nigh psychopath.

There experiments are only anything other than complete disasters because someone less renegade comes along to clean them up.

I don't deny that many of the Cerberus projects we encounter are complete disasters but as I said we're not privy to all that information.  We have no idea how many successful operations Cerberus has run.  Furthermore we have no idea what other benefits came from these projects.

Let's look at Jack shall we.  Assuming the end goal was to create a super biotic, they succeeded but she proved unstable so we'll call it a failure.  Now that was their end goal but who knows what else they learned, what technology they developed, what training techniques they refined, etc.  We don't have enough information to write any Cerberus operation off as a total failure and we likely never will.  All we know is people keep funding them so chances are good they're doing something right.