2146 réponses à ce sujet

[Flamewielder]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...
The Council also feels that personal opinions are irrelevant and they know whats best. The Alliance is the same way. Any ruling body will be that way.  Been that way since parents had kids, teachers had classrooms, governors had states, and kings had kingdoms.

While being far from perfect, representative democracy is the closest thing to a goverment taking into account individual opinions. Legion may state that it is the tyranny of the majority over the minority and that is true to some extent. But even representative democracies will establish laws that attempt to embody what the ethical concensus is amongst the majority of adult citizens.

As far as we know, the Alliance is a representative democracy (of which Terra Firma is a legitimate party). The Council is different, as the Human councilor was apparently selected by Shep (and we assume his choice was ratified by a majority vote of the Council). The Alliance did NOT choose its representative on the Council, which does sound odd. We do not know if the Allliance can actually impeach the human Councillor.

But going back to the Alliance, it's a representative democracy and its policy/values will be determined by the majority of its voting citizens. If its decisions ever ran against the majority, some new party would be put in power and such decisions would be reversed.

"Father/Mother knows best" usually works, depending on the parenting skills displayed, and is necessary for the welfare of underage children. Adult children are of course entitled to make their own choices, wether the parents agree or not. same can be said of teachers. In Canada, if you're 18, no one can legally force you to obey your parents or teachers unless you're breaking a law. Your decisions = your responsibility.
Kings and such are essentially tyrants, wether benevolent or otherwise. People tend to object to the "otherwise"... sometimes leading to beheadings (as in France and the UK) or wars of independance (like the US or Mexico). NOT quite as peaceful as the election of a new governement in a representative democracy.

If Terra Firma achieved a majority in the Alliance government, perhaps Cerberus could be legitimized but there would still be considerable backlash and anti-human sentiment among aliens. It is more likely that Terra Firma would simply disavow Cerberus while TIM took control of the TF party behind the scenes (something he is already setting up). But Cerberus itself is not elected. It conveys values that are NOT shared by the majority of the human population (yet). It breaks whatever law it needs to break to achieve its goals, it will conduct unethical research to achieve its goals, arguing that its goals are in humanity's best interests. The majority of humanity currently dissaggrees, and so Terra Firma is still only an opposition party.

Modifié par Flamewielder, 04 octobre 2010 - 01:47 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

TIM has never been above not taking suggestions as an organization. And as they say, "when justice is outlawed the just become outlaws."

Not to say that Cerberus is just, but they're currently the only group that we know of that is preparing for the Reaper threat.

The Council, elected or not, has dismissed the Reapers as they actually are and instead view them as an isolated threat created by Saren and his Geth. It's the more obvious answer and avoids a truth that's textbook for superstition.  There's also not much of a way to convince them out of this way of thinking.

Cerberus, in trying to face the Reapers pre-emptively has been met with both casualties and successes. But they're the only ones trying and their results have been what Shepard has used and discovered. The IFF cost a study crew their lives but was also the only way to defeat the Collectors at their homeworld.

Reapers are deadly, taking casualties trying to get past their safeguards is almost to be expected when going up against a threat that vastly advanced. That's not a real excuse to not fight on... being weaker than the enemy isn't a reason to quit. You just learn from your mistakes.

Cerberus is the pioneer so far against the Reapers and are finding all the mistakes first. But like rollercoaster rides, rules don't get made unless someone broke them first.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 04 octobre 2010 - 02:27 .

[mosor]

Flamewielder wrote...

One could say that renegades don't have the stomach to conduct the experiments on themselves. They'll find some poor sap and experiment on him. Seriously, I think some of the research conducted by Cerberus could have been done ethically, and perhaps would have achieved the desired/same results (or lack thereof). The designers have made it so we cannot tell one way or the other so that players can choose their own "moral" path and still succeed in stopping the Reapers.

Would you still maintain that moral path if defeating the reapers wasn't a certainty? You crow on how renegades sacrifice other people's lives to achieve victory, yet paragons willingly risk and possibly even sacrifice lives for the sake of thier own morality. In that sense, paragons are more selfish since victory is shared by everyone, while morality is yours alone. The paragon decison is only more noble, if the only life you're putting at risk is your own. If you're risking trillions (such as with the collector base decision) it's simply not.

I'm not saying the paragon path is superior (unless you're speaking in terms of virtue ethics). It may in fact be slower and cost more lives. The Allies certainly thought dropping the A-bomb on Japan was going to save thousands of soldiers lives and that may have been true if mainland Japan had been invaded conventionally. Would Japan have capitulated after a 2 year economic blockade (more expensive in terms of money, but risking fewer lives)? A paragon option that was quickly discarded by tired allied governments who sought a quick end to a conflict at the cost of a couple hundred thousand japanese civilian lives... I'm not saying it would have been possible, I'm just speculating here and using the atomic bombing of 1945 as an example of tough paragon-renegade decision-making.

A blockade would have killed more people though hunger, disease, and malnutrition , and also prolonged the agony for 2 extra years. See the paragon decision makes the person making it feel good about themselves, at the expense of having others suffer for it.  On the other hand, 2 A-bombs, which killed less people than the mass firebombings in the previous months, and the war is over. 

Modifié par mosor, 04 octobre 2010 - 05:21 .

[Elite Midget]

Pretty sure Admiral Hackett and the Alliance are preparing for the Reaper threat as well. That's just humanity though and they're going a limp to trust Shepard even though Hackett knows Shepard joins Cerberus for whatever reason. Also, who's to say that Harbringer didn't leave tabs in the systems of the Collector Base? Just because you wiped out all the Collecters doesn't mean he can't use the base or spy on TIM through it? No, the best method to stop the Reapers effectively is to use Technology they didn't give organic life or by their guidiance. Than there's the technology left at Illos that the Reapers knew nothing about. That could easily be used to the advantage of organic life.

The A-bombs left the survivors severely deformed and children to this day are still being effected by it. In fact, the USA is still paying money for said children, and adults, effected by the A-Bombs all those years ago.

Modifié par Elite Midget, 04 octobre 2010 - 06:02 .

[vkt62]

I guess Saren is a good example of "attempting to use Reaper tech gone wrong". He tried to use Sovereign which ended up using him.

[Elite Midget]

To be fair Saren was still able to resist a little untill they replace most of his organic parts with upgrades.

[Arijharn]

Saren was also using reaper tech under Reaper control. You know as Sovereign was 'breathing' down his neck the entire time.



I don't think anyone can really argue that they're the same thing at all.

[vkt62]

I am just pointing out that he too had good intentions regarding the reapers until he got turned.

[Arijharn]

vkt62 wrote...

I am just pointing out that he too had good intentions regarding the reapers until he got turned.

I absolutely agree, but I see too many differences between the two situations to say that using the CB is definitely going to be falling into some Reaper trap.

[Elite Midget]

Though there's still the threat of Harbringer still having access to the Collector Bases systems even though the Collectors were dead. Remember, he wasen't initially controlling the Collector Leader at the start of ME2. He could have left a backdoor or maybe even manipulate the data so that humanity will follow the evolutionary path they desire.



I doubt the Reapers have given up on making a human Reaper. They just have to work a bit harder this time around since to the Reapers the first human Reaper failed because the organics, aka the Collectors, weren't good enough. Than there are the traitorous Keepers as well...



Yeah, I can see the Reapers blamming the organics for any failures that have occured and have decided that the only way the job will get done is if they do it themselves.

[Inverness Moon]

Elite Midget wrote...

Pretty sure Admiral Hackett and the Alliance are preparing for the Reaper threat as well. That's just humanity though and they're going a limp to trust Shepard even though Hackett knows Shepard joins Cerberus for whatever reason. Also, who's to say that Harbringer didn't leave tabs in the systems of the Collector Base? Just because you wiped out all the Collecters doesn't mean he can't use the base or spy on TIM through it? No, the best method to stop the Reapers effectively is to use Technology they didn't give organic life or by their guidiance. Than there's the technology left at Illos that the Reapers knew nothing about. That could easily be used to the advantage of organic life.

Firstly, if the Alliance or TIM were preparing for the reaper threat, everybody would know about it, and the other council races would be preparing alongside them. They aren't.

TIM is not going to set foot on the base in person for Harbinger to be able to do anything. It's also a waste of resources to set the base up to spy on people when you don't believe anyone will ever be there to spy on. Didn't EDI say the base lacked internal sensors because they didn't ever expect intruders?

As for developing new technology, easier said than done. It would take decades to develop new technologies that aren't based on our current ones and yet are powerful enough to defeat the reapers. We have no idea how long it will take the reapers to enter the galaxy. Researching the collector base would take far less time.

You keep repeating yourself and saying we need to develop our own stuff, but you obviously haven't stopped to think of what that entails. As for Ilos, anything there would be Prothean technology, which is based on reaper technology, contradicting what you've suggested previously. The fruits of Ilos were already used to save the Citadel in the first game.

Elite Midget wrote...

Though there's still the threat of Harbringer still having access to the Collector Bases systems even though the Collectors were dead. Remember, he wasen't initially controlling the Collector Leader at the start of ME2. He could have left a backdoor or maybe even manipulate the data so that humanity will follow the evolutionary path they desire.

I doubt the Reapers have given up on making a human Reaper. They just have to work a bit harder this time around since to the Reapers the first human Reaper failed because the organics, aka the Collectors, weren't good enough. Than there are the traitorous Keepers as well...

Yeah, I can see the Reapers blamming the organics for any failures that have occured and have decided that the only way the job will get done is if they do it themselves.

Harbinger has always controlled using the Collector General as a proxy, I don't know what you're talking about.

The threat of Harbinger having access to the systems is also quite low. If he could access the systems directly, why would he need to control the Collector General? If you've read Retribution you should have a pretty good idea about how all that works.

Anyhow, you just keep pulling flimsy arguments out of your hat in order to support your main argument. It's quite clear that you're not really thinking through what you're saying.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 04 octobre 2010 - 06:59 .

[Elite Midget]

Ummm... TIM 'is' prepareing for the Reapers. The Collectors were the agent of the Reapers and he spent the whole time wipeing the Collectors out as a first strike against the Reapers. Him wanting the Collector Base was because he wanted to prepare, in his own way, to defeat the Reapers and place humanity as the rulers of the Universe.



The Conduit obviously wasen't based on what the Reapers envisioned. That's why they didn't even know it existed or what it even did untill Saren became their puppet. Than there are the beacons that they didn't know about untill they started looking for them when the Keepers evolved outside their original plan.



Look, that's all I'm going to say to you now. You obviously care only for your idea that Cerberus is full of saints and that nothing can go wrong with the Collector Base to even entertain what I have to say. So take your flimsy arguements somewhere else and don't ever respond to my posts ever again since they're so wrong compared to your views which must be the only correct ones since any other are flimsy and flawed in your eyes.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

vkt62 wrote...

I guess Saren is a good example of "attempting to use Reaper tech gone wrong". He tried to use Sovereign which ended up using him.

Sovereign indoctrinated Saren.  He worked with an actual Reaper.  If anything that's an example of what'll happen without being prepared to face a real live Reaper.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 04 octobre 2010 - 08:34 .

[Siegdrifa]

mosor wrote...

Would you still maintain that moral path if defeating the reapers wasn't a certainty? You crow on how renegades sacrifice other people's lives to achieve victory, yet paragons willingly risk and possibly even sacrifice lives for the sake of thier own morality. In that sense, paragons are more selfish since victory is shared by everyone, while morality is yours alone. The paragon decison is only more noble, if the only life you're putting at risk is your own. If you're risking trillions (such as with the collector base decision) it's simply not.

I like the ways you say it, and it's exaxtly about what moral is.

Do people without moral really need to be saved? moral isn't what make the difference between a human being and a animal surviving ?
In ME2 there is one thing we can stat, paragon believe in "redemption", letting other reflect on their mistake to improve themself, and it's usualy turning in a good way (wich is not the reality at all in real life), but i won't be too hard on this naivety, because if even in popular games, you try to show that being good can bit your ass back, it would convince more people that getting thing done without moral is the best solution.

Yes paragon take selfish decision, but, they are understandble, it's a bet on the faith that someone can learn from his mistake to improve himself.

But yeah, i agree with you, if it's involve trillion of being, this kind of bet sound "stupide" and moral is surely unbalanced in front of big numbers.


In the end, i take it for what it is possible to do in this game, because no matter what we do, it's a game that let you play it the way you want.
Not many people would actualy do this paragon or that paragade if they faced a situation that would invole real life.
Like one of my teacher said, "you discover who someone really is only in the storm with 15m tall weave, when it's calm you will never find out". Meaning, only extrem situaion revel the deepest core of our personnality.

To get back at the base, in the game we are still not sure that it will be the key to save the galaxy and that we could use it properly, because this base is not like finding the sharper sword we ever saw (we would know how to handle it and use it effectively), we don't know how it works, we don't know yet how to handle it, we don't know yet how powerfull it is, we don't know yet if in reality it's no in fact a grenade ready to blow at our face (remember the IFF? i doubt that reaper technologie would actualy be taken that easly without side effect).
In this case, a "let's keep it to win at all cost" is as selfish as "let's destroy it to be sure it cannot be a future menace".

[lovgreno]

Elite Midget wrote...

Though there's still the threat of Harbringer still having access to the Collector Bases systems even though the Collectors were dead. Remember, he wasen't initially controlling the Collector Leader at the start of ME2. He could have left a backdoor or maybe even manipulate the data so that humanity will follow the evolutionary path they desire.

That's how reapers usualy lures and traps organics.

[Arijharn]

Siegdrifa wrote...

I like the ways you say it, and it's exaxtly about what moral is.

Do people without moral really need to be saved? moral isn't what make the difference between a human being and a animal surviving ?

I didn't think a paragon had the 'choice' to pick and choose which people are worth saving, if anything that sounds more of a Renegade decision. Also; as a paragon wouldn't one put faith more in legal establishments for deciding guilt such as a court of law, whereas Renegades would be more judge-jury-executioner.

Siegdrifa wrote...
In ME2 there is one thing we can stat, paragon believe in "redemption", letting other reflect on their mistake to improve themself, and it's usualy turning in a good way (wich is not the reality at all in real life), but i won't be too hard on this naivety, because if even in popular games, you try to show that being good can bit your ass back, it would convince more people that getting thing done without moral is the best solution.

I don't know about other debaters in this thread, but I know a lot of people have entered this debate on the basis of what they'd do in real life if they found themselves in a situation like the one Shephard does. If the game was played purely using rational decisions I honestly would think the game would be less enjoyable overall which is probably why it isn't.

As is, I claim a 'moral' victory as such due to this thread and others like it because I know of a lot of people who while they say they'd make the paragon decision because of x reason, in 'real life' they'd save it.

Siegdrifa wrote...
Yes paragon take selfish decision, but, they are understandble, it's a bet on the faith that someone can learn from his mistake to improve himself.

But yeah, i agree with you, if it's involve trillion of being, this kind of bet sound "stupide" and moral is surely unbalanced in front of big numbers.

While true that this is what paragons would want to have happen (and most likely will), the pro-CB people have only ever argued that it's by meta-gaming that people make this decision (which is against the spirit of these threads -- i.e., putting yourself in Shep's shoes).

People like to quote philosopher's in this sort of setting, especially nietsche's 'monsters' but the thing about philosophers is that they were never placed in a situation where their philosophies are tested (and themselves) so I honestly don't see the value of spouting off some famous 'dude's' sayings, because at the end of the day that 'dude' didn't have to contend with a race of sentient alien warships waiting in dark space and waiting every 50k years to extinguish all life either.

I get and understand people's distrust of TIM (hell, I don't fully trust him either) but people to me at least, manufacture all sorts of reasons of why you should distrust him to the point of excluding the only help currently available to you, and the only means of hopefully gaining an edge on the Reapers because due to the fact that we're already on the 'technology pathways' that the Reaper's desire us to be on (our dependence on the Mass Relay's, the dependence on the Citadel) then it would require something that would be out of the norm in order for us to triumph.

Siegdrifa wrote...
In the end, i take it for what it is possible to do in this game, because no matter what we do, it's a game that let you play it the way you want.
Not many people would actualy do this paragon or that paragade if they faced a situation that would invole real life.
Like one of my teacher said, "you discover who someone really is only in the storm with 15m tall weave, when it's calm you will never find out". Meaning, only extrem situaion revel the deepest core of our personnality.

This is probably what bugs me the most... that people just aren't true to what I would call the basic foundation of life: survival. Some people truly are altruists and give of themselves without thought of reward, but that isn't the same thing as galactic level genocide. The idea behind the Reapers is that there is no second chance, there are no Ark's that the galaxy can hide in and weight up centuries as the Reapers finish up and retreat to dark space, it is, in the immortal words of Corporal Hicks from Aliens "Game over man, Game over!"

I can't fathom people who say: "I don't care if it's the only way to victory, if it's not to my ethics I wont do it!" because at the end of the day it's just as how Mosor said it: it's not just you who's about to bite the bullet. You can find ways to attempt to absolve yourself afterwards anyway if you feel desperately about it, but no one is going to come back from utter decimation.

Siegdrifa wrote...
To get back at the base, in the game we are still not sure that it will be the key to save the galaxy and that we could use it properly, because this base is not like finding the sharper sword we ever saw (we would know how to handle it and use it effectively), we don't know how it works, we don't know yet how to handle it, we don't know yet how powerfull it is, we don't know yet if in reality it's no in fact a grenade ready to blow at our face (remember the IFF? i doubt that reaper technologie would actualy be taken that easly without side effect).
In this case, a "let's keep it to win at all cost" is as selfish as "let's destroy it to be sure it cannot be a future menace".

There are no absolutes, I think this is something everyone can agree with. It's not so much about whether this guarantee's victory (because otherwise it would damn everyone who chose not to keep it) but about aligning things more favourably as Shephard knows the situation for victory. This is at least what I've been arguing, it's what Shandepard has been arguing, Mosor and I believe Dean_The_Young, and we aren't the only ones who are pro-CB.

To know that there's something of potential Military worth and not utilizing it is frankly something that I would feel would get you court-martialed. It's conduct absolutely unbecoming of a senior member of the military forces. Sure, Shephard might not care but he'd have to ask him or herself: "Now what?" Shephard can't ask him or herself that question with as much confidence I feel if he did destroy it.

Modifié par Arijharn, 04 octobre 2010 - 11:17 .

[DarkSeraphym]

Elite Midget wrote...

Ummm... TIM 'is' prepareing for the Reapers. The Collectors were the agent of the Reapers and he spent the whole time wipeing the Collectors out as a first strike against the Reapers. Him wanting the Collector Base was because he wanted to prepare, in his own way, to defeat the Reapers and place humanity as the rulers of the Universe.

The Conduit obviously wasen't based on what the Reapers envisioned. That's why they didn't even know it existed or what it even did untill Saren became their puppet. Than there are the beacons that they didn't know about untill they started looking for them when the Keepers evolved outside their original plan.

Look, that's all I'm going to say to you now. You obviously care only for your idea that Cerberus is full of saints and that nothing can go wrong with the Collector Base to even entertain what I have to say. So take your flimsy arguements somewhere else and don't ever respond to my posts ever again since they're so wrong compared to your views which must be the only correct ones since any other are flimsy and flawed in your eyes.

I'm a little confused myself on where your argument is going now, mostly with paragraph two. The post that was in question was where you mentioned the fact that the Reapers likely put backdoors or internal potential threats into the base in the event that they lost control of it. However, the poster (I forget his name, I apologize for that) mentioned that the Reapers are not exactly known for thinking that their plans could ever fail. So, are you arguing for the point that the Reapers could have bugged the base or for the point that the Reapers wouldn't have thought of that possibility? No offense, but your second paragraph actual weakens the former argument because it acknowledges the fact with multiple references in the game that the Reapers had to scramble when they realized that something in their master plan didn't go down to the wire.

I'm not trying to sound rude, just trying to figure out exactly what your arguments are. I think you may have unknowingly just weakned your own argument and thought I would point it out.

[Siegdrifa]

[quote]Arijharn wrote...

I didn't think a paragon had the 'choice' to pick and choose which people are worth saving, if anything that sounds more of a Renegade decision. Also; as a paragon wouldn't one put faith more in legal establishments for deciding guilt such as a court of law, whereas Renegades would be more judge-jury-executioner.
[/quote]
What i usulaly saw in my plathrough is often someone that you can kill as a regenade, try to redemp himself as a paragon. That's why i said it's naive because i don't find the proportion to influence people to improve them self that high in real life.

[quote]Arijharn wrote...
I don't know about other debaters in this thread, but I know a lot of people have entered this debate on the basis of what they'd do in real life if they found themselves in a situation like the one Shephard does. If the game was played purely using rational decisions I honestly would think the game would be less enjoyable overall which is probably why it isn't.

As is, I claim a 'moral' victory as such due to this thread and others like it because I know of a lot of people who while they say they'd make the paragon decision because of x reason, in 'real life' they'd save it.
[/quote]

That's why i said (or try to) even if take action that look rationnal in this game, to the basis of what we would do, we can't be sure we would act like it in real life.
Meaning, even if i choose paragon most of the time because it fit my personnality, may be i wouldn't make paragon choice in real life in extrem case. It's like renegade who are quick to pull the trigger after saying a bad ass sentence. It's jus a game, some people may be conviced they act in ME like they would do in real life, but real life decision is much more complicate to take especialy when it involve death.




[quote]Arijharn wrote...
People like to quote philosopher's in this sort of setting, especially nietsche's 'monsters' but the thing about philosophers is that they were never placed in a situation where their philosophies are tested (and themselves) so I honestly don't see the value of spouting off some famous 'dude's' sayings, because at the end of the day that 'dude' didn't have to contend with a race of sentient alien warships waiting in dark space and waiting every 50k years to extinguish all life either.
[/quote]
May be we should let the "philosophie" appart, because many people tend to interpret it in different ways.
The first philosopher known add some big trouble with the society, because they were tryng to put some "moral" in all this "beasty" humanity.
But what you say about they never tested their philosophie especilay with race of sentient alien warships is true 100%
And we are in the same case as them, we are playing a game, not actualy saving the galaxy, that's why their decision can't be trusted in case they didn't experiment and it goes for our decisions too  : )
Their is still the possibility that the decision mach, but it's a "possibility".

[quote]Arijharn wrote...
I get and understand people's distrust of TIM (hell, I don't fully trust him either) but people to me at least, manufacture all sorts of reasons of why you should distrust him to the point of excluding the only help currently available to you, and the only means of hopefully gaining an edge on the Reapers because due to the fact that we're already on the 'technology pathways' that the Reaper's desire us to be on (our dependence on the Mass Relay's, the dependence on the Citadel) then it would require something that would be out of the norm in order for us to triumph.
[/quote]
You say "only help currently available", i have no doubt you feel that and i agree this is a "logical" reasoning conclusion, but in my case, i have no doubt that there will be another way.
I don't want to go into quoting philosopher but it's the mirror of truth shatered in pieces, each part show something different but still each are true, so the question is, is this "only help" the only pieces left ?
You can belive "yes" and it could make sens, it's already in front of you, it SEEM granted.
Me i bet on another pieces, may be i'll be right, may be i'll be wrong, may be it will be better, may be it will be badder; but it's okay, it'sjust a video game.
That why i assume we will get new pieces,

[quote]Arijharn wrote...
This is probably what bugs me the most... that people just aren't true to what I would call the basic foundation of life: survival. Some people truly are altruists and give of themselves without thought of reward, but that isn't the same thing as galactic level genocide. The idea behind the Reapers is that there is no second chance, there are no Ark's that the galaxy can hide in and weight up centuries as the Reapers finish up and retreat to dark space, it is, in the immortal words of Corporal Hicks from Aliens "Game over man, Game over!"

I can't fathom people who say: "I don't care if it's the only way to victory, if it's not to my ethics I wont do it!" because at the end of the day it's just as how Mosor said it: it's not just you who's about to bite the bullet. You can find ways to attempt to absolve yourself afterwards anyway if you feel desperately about it, but no one is going to come back from utter decimation.
[/quote]
Because you focus a lot about life no matter what, not everybody share this "i want to survive at any cost, i want to liiiive !"
I'm not question your reason, they must be good for you, but it doen't mean they would be as good for other.
Some people like to do maths, some like to do literrature, it's not about right or wrong, good or bad, it's just different motivation.

[quote]Arijharn wrote...
[quote]Siegdrifa wrote...
To get back at the base, in the game we are still not sure that it will be the key to save the galaxy and that we could use it properly, because this base is not like finding the sharper sword we ever saw (we would know how to handle it and use it effectively), we don't know how it works, we don't know yet how to handle it, we don't know yet how powerfull it is, we don't know yet if in reality it's no in fact a grenade ready to blow at our face (remember the IFF? i doubt that reaper technologie would actualy be taken that easly without side effect).
In this case, a "let's keep it to win at all cost" is as selfish as "let's destroy it to be sure it cannot be a future menace".[/quote]
There are no absolutes, I think this is something everyone can agree with. It's not so much about whether this guarantee's victory (because otherwise it would damn everyone who chose not to keep it) but about aligning things more favourably as Shephard knows the situation for victory. This is at least what I've been arguing, it's what Shandepard has been arguing, Mosor and I believe Dean_The_Young, and we aren't the only ones who are pro-CB.

To know that there's something of potential Military worth and not utilizing it is frankly something that I would feel would get you court-martialed. It's conduct absolutely unbecoming of a senior member of the military forces. Sure, Shephard might not care but he'd have to ask him or herself: "Now what?" Shephard can't ask him or herself that question with as much confidence I feel if he did destroy it.[/quote]
[/quote].

You know, every people live their life with their own sensitivty.
For a same thing to happen, it can make someone laugh, and for someone with another sensibility, it can make him cry.
Witch is wrong ? none. They reacted honnestly with the sensitivity their are given.
Sensitivity define the world and your environement the way your persue it, yet many people persu it in a different way. Fighting agains each other about what is the good way to persu it is a waste of time.
So i undersand your way is logical and seem "good" with good reason.
I see you point as valid, as i see my point as valid too, but i just choose my point knowing it's a bet (in both case).

You shouldn't  put too much of "potential military worth". It is a strong valid argument, but this is a game made by people who are not (most of them) in the military way of thinking. Military wouldn't like bad ass eager to pull the triggrer as much as they wouldn't like paragond preacher.
Military is a JOB, and like any other other job, you do what you are asked to.
If you want to play ME like it, you can, and yeah, destroying the base would make you court matial.
But as a military (may be i'm wrong), the cammander of the ship is not the one going in the front line letting all his crew waiting for him to get back, when you are in command, the crew is not just a luxury taxy.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 04 octobre 2010 - 12:28 .

[Ieldra]

Arijharn wrote...
This is probably what bugs me the most... that people just aren't true to what I would call the basic foundation of life: survival. Some people truly are altruists and give of themselves without thought of reward, but that isn't the same thing as galactic level genocide. The idea behind the Reapers is that there is no second chance, there are no Ark's that the galaxy can hide in and weight up centuries as the Reapers finish up and retreat to dark space, it is, in the immortal words of Corporal Hicks from Aliens "Game over man, Game over!"

I can't fathom people who say: "I don't care if it's the only way to victory, if it's not to my ethics I wont do it!" because at the end of the day it's just as how Mosor said it: it's not just you who's about to bite the bullet. You can find ways to attempt to absolve yourself afterwards anyway if you feel desperately about it, but no one is going to come back from utter decimation.

QFT.

Except if you're religious and believe you'll be rewarded in the afterlife for sticking to your ideology even if it results in galaxy-wide extinction. Though how you can think you'll be rewarded for something like that by a just god escapes me.

This thread clearly shows that the main flaw of Paragon morality is inflexibility, a failure to adapt to circumstances, or an unwillingness to accept that circumstances influence the morality of a decision in the first place. Meta-reasoning aside (which I accept since this is a heroic story, but that's beside the point in this thread), there is no single convincing argument for destroying the base that doesn't depend on widely arbitary additional assumptions. People make up these implausble scenarios because they don't want to accept that keeping the base may, in this special set of circumstances, be the right decision. They rather say "No good will come from it because there must not come any good from it." Well, that's the way it works in stories. But if you're taking your fictional world seriously, then you must act as if it was all real. And in reality, that's an obvious fallacy.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 octobre 2010 - 01:56 .

[smudboy]

Flamewielder wrote...

While being far from perfect, representative democracy is the closest thing to a goverment taking into account individual opinions. Legion may state that it is the tyranny of the majority over the minority and that is true to some extent. But even representative democracies will establish laws that attempt to embody what the ethical concensus is amongst the majority of adult citizens.

I'd say direct democracy is the best, which is what Geth use.

Oh, I think I'm in the wrong thread...

[Recombinant]

smudboy wrote...

Flamewielder wrote...

While being far from perfect, representative democracy is the closest thing to a goverment taking into account individual opinions. Legion may state that it is the tyranny of the majority over the minority and that is true to some extent. But even representative democracies will establish laws that attempt to embody what the ethical concensus is amongst the majority of adult citizens.

I'd say direct democracy is the best, which is what Geth use.

Oh, I think I'm in the wrong thread...

Pure democracy is just another form of tyranny, where instead of a single dictator, the majority subjugates the minority. It is just as evil as any form of dictatorship and is why we use our form of government, which is just a lesser if necessary evil. The Geth possess no true individuality as we understand it, hence they are more of a hive collective with a gestalt consciousness which makes governing a somewhat moot point.

Modifié par Recombinant, 04 octobre 2010 - 04:34 .

[Inverness Moon]

Elite Midget wrote...

Look, that's all I'm going to say to you now. You obviously care only for your idea that Cerberus is full of saints and that nothing can go wrong with the Collector Base to even entertain what I have to say. So take your flimsy arguements somewhere else and don't ever respond to my posts ever again since they're so wrong compared to your views which must be the only correct ones since any other are flimsy and flawed in your eyes.

You're behavior suggests that you're someone who thinks the world is black and white instead of shades of gray. Because, for some reason, you seem to think if I don't support blowing up the base that I must think Cerberus is full of saints and that nothing can go wrong.

Please, grow up.

[smudboy]

Recombinant wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Flamewielder wrote...

While being far from perfect, representative democracy is the closest thing to a goverment taking into account individual opinions. Legion may state that it is the tyranny of the majority over the minority and that is true to some extent. But even representative democracies will establish laws that attempt to embody what the ethical concensus is amongst the majority of adult citizens.

I'd say direct democracy is the best, which is what Geth use.

Oh, I think I'm in the wrong thread...

Pure democracy is the tyranny of the masses over the minority, it is just as evil as any form of dictatorship and is why we use our form of government, which is just a lesser if necessary evil. The Geth possess no true individuality as we understand it hence they are more of a hive collective with a gestalt consciousness which makes governing a somewhat moot point.

I guess I am in the right thread.

I have no idea what pure democracy is.  It doesn't matter if Geth possess true individuality or no (whatever that means.)  Each Geth program votes (a referendum), and achieve concensus.  This is direct democracy.  The referendums we've heard of so far have been following Sovereign, to re-writing or killing the Heretics.

[Recombinant]

smudboy wrote...

Recombinant wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Flamewielder wrote...

While being far from perfect, representative democracy is the closest thing to a goverment taking into account individual opinions. Legion may state that it is the tyranny of the majority over the minority and that is true to some extent. But even representative democracies will establish laws that attempt to embody what the ethical concensus is amongst the majority of adult citizens.

I'd say direct democracy is the best, which is what Geth use.

Oh, I think I'm in the wrong thread...

Pure democracy is the tyranny of the masses over the minority, it is just as evil as any form of dictatorship and is why we use our form of government, which is just a lesser if necessary evil. The Geth possess no true individuality as we understand it hence they are more of a hive collective with a gestalt consciousness which makes governing a somewhat moot point.

I guess I am in the right thread.

I have no idea what pure democracy is.  It doesn't matter if Geth possess true individuality or no (whatever that means.)  Each Geth program votes (a referendum), and achieve concensus.  This is direct democracy.  The referendums we've heard of so far have been following Sovereign, to re-writing or killing the Heretics.

I apologize if I was unclear. It was my understanding that each Geth in essence, routinely synced its data/memories with all other geth. Sort of making all Geth one unique individual and allowing for very little individuality in the sense of independent and unique motivation. By pure democracy I meant a political system in which every individual votes on every matter with equal say. Which would allow for a majority party to effectively subjugate all others to their own agenda. I would also say that it matters very much whether or not the geth posses individuality, as with out a conflicting opinion you cannot reach any form of meaningful consensus and without descent a group or society quickly stagnates.

Modifié par Recombinant, 04 octobre 2010 - 04:52 .