238 réponses à ce sujet

[khevan]

The only thing I want to add to my previous post is this:



There's a misconception that the genophage is in fact a slow genocide. This is an error.



Genocide is the murder of an entire race, to the point where they no longer exist.



The genophage reduces the viable birthrate to levels consistent with krogan pre-industrial societal survival rates, basically countering the krogan's naturally high reproductive rate.



The biggest problem with the krogan that caused the krogan rebellions, is that krogan breed too quickly. On their native planet, it was a biological necessity, because it was a harsh, deadly place. The krogan needed that high birthrate to survive as a species. When the krogan left their homeworld, however, that high birthrate caused a population explosion, and the krogan expanded rapidly, eventually leading to the krogan rebellions. The genophage was designed and intended to reduce krogan fertility to the point where their population becomes stable, instead of expanding so rapidly.



To call that genocide is incorrect. It doesn't fit the facts. If the salarians could create a DNA modification that lowers fertility, why not go all the way and reduce fertility to zero? THAT would have been genocide. As it stands, the genophage may or may not have been the right thing to do, but it wasn't genocide.

[Nightwriter]

Yeah, I know, I don't get it. Renegade Cerberus supporters would commit genocide themselves, yet fault the Council for it when they don't even really do it. Renegades destroy the genophage cure, yet blame the Council for unleashing the genophage to begin with.

[didymos1120]

khevan wrote...


Genocide is the murder of an entire race, to the point where they no longer exist.

Um, no.  The word was coined in 1944 specifically to describe things like what N@zi Germany did to the Jews or what the Ottomans did to the Armenians.  Guess what?  There are still Jews and Armenians. 

[Moiaussi]

didymos1120 wrote...

khevan wrote...


Genocide is the murder of an entire race, to the point where they no longer exist.

Um, no.  The word was coined in 1944 specifically to describe things like what N@zi Germany did to the Jews or what the Ottomans did to the Armenians.  Guess what?  There are still Jews and Armenians. 

In both cases the intent was to entirely wipe out the respective groups (the Jewish and the Armenians). The fact that they were not successful doesn't mean it wasn't attempted genocide.

The Genophage though wasn't any such attempt.

[didymos1120]

Moiaussi wrote...
The Genophage though wasn't any such attempt.

I didn't say it was.  Mostly because I happen to agree that it wasn't.

[Nightwriter]

Going to have to side with Moiaussi on this one. Genocide is an emotionally charged word, it calls into thought an attempt to intentionally eradicate an entire race. Obviously if they had wanted to, they could have wiped out the krogan, but didn't, for whatever reason. The fact that Mordin juxtaposes "genophage or genocide" obviously means that it was one or the other, and since they apparently chose "genophage", it rules out "genocide".

[khevan]

didymos1120 wrote...

khevan wrote...


Genocide is the murder of an entire race, to the point where they no longer exist.

Um, no.  The word was coined in 1944 specifically to describe things like what N@zi Germany did to the Jews or what the Ottomans did to the Armenians.  Guess what?  There are still Jews and Armenians. 

What you describe, the Holocaust, and other episodes of ethnic cleansing, were attempted genocides.

Homocide - the killing of an individual

Patricide - killing your father

Fratricide - killing your brother

Genocide - killing a race of people

I understand that you get the definition of genocide, but taking that one line of mine, and trying to pick it apart, is somewhat pedantic, especially when you aren't even technically correct.

[mosor]

Nightwriter wrote...

Yeah, I know, I don't get it. Renegade Cerberus supporters would commit genocide themselves, yet fault the Council for it when they don't even really do it. Renegades destroy the genophage cure, yet blame the Council for unleashing the genophage to begin with.

Who says renegades don't agree with those decisions? It's about giving the council a pass on similar crimes cerberus is guilty of. Cerberus may have involved children in experiments, but at least they try to defend humanity. The council will sell humanity down the river like they did the quarians if it doesn't suit their interests.

[Nightwriter]

Who says they get a pass? They don't get a pass on the quarians. But for the krogan? Yeah, they were taking over the galaxy and their crime was that they stunted their overpopulation. The rachni? Speechless bugs slaughtering people by the millions for centuries. How you can compare this to torturing innocent kids on the hypothetical potential of producing a stronger human biotic in support of human supremacist goals is beyond me.

[didymos1120]

khevan wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

khevan wrote...


Genocide is the murder of an entire race, to the point where they no longer exist.

Um, no.  The word was coined in 1944 specifically to describe things like what N@zi Germany did to the Jews or what the Ottomans did to the Armenians.  Guess what?  There are still Jews and Armenians. 

What you describe, the Holocaust, and other episodes of ethnic cleansing, were attempted genocides.

Homocide - the killing of an individual

Patricide - killing your father

Fratricide - killing your brother

Genocide - killing a race of people

I understand that you get the definition of genocide, but taking that one line of mine, and trying to pick it apart, is somewhat pedantic, especially when you aren't even technically correct.

OK, the guy who coined it got to define it, and that's how he defined it.  That's even what the current legal definition used by the UN follows. The fact is, you don't have to kill every person in the targeted group for it to be considered a genocide, which is what you said and are apparently still saying. It doesn't matter what the roots "technically" mean, or that it would be more logical if the actual definition agreed with the literal meaning of those roots.  Language just plain isn't logical a great deal of the time.  

And the reason I picked one line?  Because I disagreed with that one line.  I still do.  That's it.  There was nothing more to it than that.  I didn't think it was going to be such a big deal and require all this explanation.

Modifié par didymos1120, 02 septembre 2010 - 05:46 .

[Nightwriter]

Well obviously the Holocaust isn't a fit comparison. If the Jews had been threatening to take over the world, and were invading innocent countries and gobbling them up, and were refusing to respond to negotiation, and were killing the environment piece by piece, developing threatening technology and generally just intent on conquest, and Germany had introduced a chemical weapon which stabilized their population so they couldn't hurt anybody else, I wouldn't call that genocide, either.

[RiouHotaru]

Oh oh! You guys forgot to bring up Chasca! You know, UNC: Colony of the Dead? That's a crime Cerberus commited!





*...wait for it...~*

[Sajuro]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Oh oh! You guys forgot to bring up Chasca! You know, UNC: Colony of the Dead? That's a crime Cerberus commited!


*...wait for it...~*

We actually brought it up before Zulu started posting links to his earlier threads.

[RiouHotaru]

Sajuro wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Oh oh! You guys forgot to bring up Chasca! You know, UNC: Colony of the Dead? That's a crime Cerberus commited!


*...wait for it...~*

We actually brought it up before Zulu started posting links to his earlier threads.

DAMMNIT!  Oh well.  Seriously though, it's almost amusing how consistent he is with bringing that stuff up.  I figured I should try again.  :innocent:

[Sajuro]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Oh oh! You guys forgot to bring up Chasca! You know, UNC: Colony of the Dead? That's a crime Cerberus commited!


*...wait for it...~*

We actually brought it up before Zulu started posting links to his earlier threads.

DAMMNIT!  Oh well.  Seriously though, it's almost amusing how consistent he is with bringing that stuff up.  I figured I should try again.  :innocent:

Don't worry, wait another day and there will be another thread to argue about Chasca on

[MisterDyslexo]

Sajuro wrote...


Don't worry, wait another day and there will be another thread to argue about Chasca on

Chasca is the reason for all the wars

[RiouHotaru]

MisterDyslexo wrote...

Sajuro wrote...


Don't worry, wait another day and there will be another thread to argue about Chasca on

Chasca is the reason for all the wars

Well, it's the most hotly contested charge due to the fact that the game implies, but there's no explicit statement saying "Yes they did it."  What we have is two statements in-game which heavily suggest involvement, direct or otherwise.

[Sajuro]

MisterDyslexo wrote...

Sajuro wrote...


Don't worry, wait another day and there will be another thread to argue about Chasca on

Chasca is the reason for all the wars

Because war.... war never changes

[MisterDyslexo]

Sajuro wrote...

MisterDyslexo wrote...

Sajuro wrote...


Don't worry, wait another day and there will be another thread to argue about Chasca on

Chasca is the reason for all the wars

Because war.... war never changes

You wastelanders are all racist

[Moiaussi]

mosor wrote...

Who says renegades don't agree with those decisions? It's about giving the council a pass on similar crimes cerberus is guilty of. Cerberus may have involved children in experiments, but at least they try to defend humanity. The council will sell humanity down the river like they did the quarians if it doesn't suit their interests.

The decisions are fundamentally different though. With the Rachni and Krogan, they were in the middle of wars which were not being won by other means. The Rachni gave no quarter, and the Krogan had their population stabilized, not eliminated. There is no similar 'clear and present danger' in support of Cerberus operations.

While it could be argued that the Reavers are such a danger, they didn't show up until after Cerberus was already doing these things.

As for the Quarians, since the Geth are sentient (again hard to argue against that now), they were not an 'outside threat' and were arguably Quarian citizens. The Quarians fired the first shot in that war, not the Geth, and we know now for an absoulte fact that the Geth are rational and can be bargained with. Note that I don't say 'trusted', but there is no reason to distrust them any more or less than the Quarians.

The Quarians on the other hand started a war which could have ended up on the same scale as the Rachni or Krogan wars. There was a strong case for not backing them. And they never were actually on the Council. They had an embassy, just as humans, elcor and volus do, but were never a Council member race. As such, the Council had no obligations to intervene militarily. Even so, the Council did patrol the Geth borders for years after the Morning War.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Cerberus's only crime is spreading hippie love to all reaches of the galaxy

[MisterDyslexo]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Cerberus's only crime is spreading hippie love to all reaches of the galaxy

The definition of hippie has certainly changed in those hundred-fifty years

[mosor]

Moiaussi wrote...


The decisions are fundamentally different though. With the Rachni and Krogan, they were in the middle of wars which were not being won by other means. The Rachni gave no quarter, and the Krogan had their population stabilized, not eliminated. There is no similar 'clear and present danger' in support of Cerberus operations.

First Contact War made it clear that there is always the possibility of unexpected dangers, and that it's better to be prepared by investigating unknown dangers and strengthening the human race than not. The reapers vindicate Cerberus' position.

As for the Quarians, since the Geth are sentient (again hard to argue against that now), they were not an 'outside threat' and were arguably Quarian citizens. The Quarians fired the first shot in that war, not the Geth, and we know now for an absoulte fact that the Geth are rational and can be bargained with. Note that I don't say 'trusted', but there is no reason to distrust them any more or less than the Quarians.

AI is illegal in citadel space. Illegal AI's get shut down. Sentience has nothing to do with it. It was illegial because the council determined that AI's and organics can't co-exist peacefully. That's why that unamed AI on the signal tracking mission wanted to make it to geth space. So the reason why the council threw the quarians under the bus can only be self interest. It also doesn't explain the callousness of denying them a colony world to rebuild when they obviously needed one more than the elcor.

And they never were actually on the Council. They had an embassy, just as humans, elcor and volus do, but were never a Council member race. As such, the Council had no obligations to intervene militarily. Even so, the Council did patrol the Geth borders for years after the Morning War.

They were an associate member, bound by council law and their protection, just like the humans (before getting a seat) elcor and hanar were. As for patrolling their borders, that only further shows it's about self interest. It's ok for geth to massacre quarians but if they threaten the sitting council members, send out the fleet.

Modifié par mosor, 02 septembre 2010 - 08:53 .

[Moiaussi]

mosor wrote...

First Contact War made it clear that there is always the possibility of unexpected dangers, and that it's better to be prepared by investigating unknown dangers and strengthening the human race than not. The reapers vindicate Cerberus' position.

So we should... run a military dictatorship and keep society under full martial law 'just in case?' The crimes the Council is accused of were at least against enemies in actual wars. Cerberus engages in torture and extreme experimentation on those they are alledgedly representing, without the consent of the test subjects let alone the acceptance of human society generally.

If you cannot understand the difference, you really need professional help.

The Reapers didn't show up until AFTER the experiments and there is no evidence that the experiments did anything to help against them.

AI is illegal in citadel space. Illegal AI's get shut down. Sentience has nothing to do with it. It was illegial because the council determined that AI's and organics can't co-exist peacefully. That's why that unamed AI on the signal tracking mission wanted to make it to geth space. So the reason why the council threw the quarians under the bus can only be self interest. It also doesn't explain the callousness of denying them a colony world to rebuild when they obviously needed one more than the elcor.

1) As the Quarians were not a Council race, they (and the Geth) were not in Council space. The Council determined no such thing, but it is not clear that when the laws were enacted. Regardless, there is nothing wrong with acting in your own self interest when dealing with a foreign power.

They were an associate member, bound by council law and their protection, just like the humans (before getting a seat) elcor and hanar were. As for patrolling their borders, that only further shows it's about self interest. It's ok for geth to massacre quarians but if they threaten the sitting council members, send out the fleet.

Re-read the description of an 'associate member.' It means 'they get an embassy', i.e. diplomatic relations. That is all. It doesn't mean they get protection. When the Geth attacked the terminus systems, the same was true for the Alliance. As associate members they had no actual right to protection. It was not Council space and the Council was not obligated to intervene. As for maintaining Council laws, gosh, the Council is not interested in maintaining diplomatic relations with empires that are not willing to accept Council rules. Go figure.

There is no such thing as a 'non-sitting council member.'  'Associate member' is just a diplomatic way of saying 'we'll take you seriously enough to negotiate with you officially.'

This is also why the Council is so picky about who gets in. To get in, a race has to prove that they are trustworthy, can hold their own and not be a liability. The Quarians were deemed to be a liability, which is really hard to argue against. Precisely what would the other races have gained by supporting the Quarians?

[mosor]

Moiaussi wrote...


So we should... run a military dictatorship and keep society under full martial law 'just in case?' The crimes the Council is accused of were at least against enemies in actual wars. Cerberus engages in torture and extreme experimentation on those they are alledgedly representing, without the consent of the test subjects let alone the acceptance of human society generally.

If you cannot understand the difference, you really need professional help.

As the Citadel custums officer says "Assumptions are dangerous" There is no indication that Cerberus wants a military dicatorship. Hell the USA did all kinds of dangerous human experimentation until the 1960's. Last time I checked they were still a democracy.

The Reapers didn't show up until AFTER the experiments and there is no evidence that the experiments did anything to help against them.

EDI, human biotics made, and god knows what else. We don't know the full extent of cerberus experiments.My point was the First Contact War took us unawares and we should never let ourselves be unprepared like that again.

1) As the Quarians were not a Council race, they (and the Geth) were not in Council space. The Council determined no such thing, but it is not clear that when the laws were enacted.

It was clear enough that it was illegal before the geth were created. That's the reason why quarians worked to create sophisticated VI's and not AI's, because working on AI's was illegal at the time.

Re-read the description of an 'associate member.' It means 'they get an embassy', i.e. diplomatic relations. That is all. It doesn't mean they get protection. When the Geth attacked the terminus systems, the same was true for the Alliance. As associate members they had no actual right to protection. It was not Council space and the Council was not obligated to intervene. As for maintaining Council laws, gosh, the Council is not interested in maintaining diplomatic relations with empires that are not willing to accept Council rules. Go figure.

Wrong. The citadel and the council is pretty much a copy of the UN, with the council being the akin to the 5 permanent members of the security council. Species have embassies, but they have to follow council law. The council also does terraforming projects with all species that have embassies there. They allocate colonies to different races too. Associate members even join their spectres. Furthermore, they dictate how many dreadnaughts each species can have. It's ludicrous that they can dicate the size of fleets, impliment laws members are expected to follow, delegate colony worlds to associate members, yet offer them no protection.

This is also why the Council is so picky about who gets in. To get in, a race has to prove that they are trustworthy, can hold their own and not be a liability. The Quarians were deemed to be a liability, which is really hard to argue against. Precisely what would the other races have gained by supporting the Quarians?

They are only picky about who gets to make the decisions. Associate members have little say, but they are still protected.

Modifié par mosor, 02 septembre 2010 - 11:41 .