2146 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

I find it difficult to see why you think I'm the morally bankrupt one here. Are you saying that you'd let hundreds of innocents die to save a family member?

[DPSSOC]

General User wrote...
But if everything made sense there'd be no racism to begin with.

QFT

General User wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

Imagine a box of doughnuts (mmm doughnuts) now in that box there are a finite amount of doughnuts.  This means that every doughnut that you have is one that someone else can't, agreed?  Well the same is true with power, there is only so much power at any given time though it does fluctuate over time (finite but not static).  If the lot of one group is improved they gain power, influence in the case of politics.  Now the more people who have a particular level of influence the less ability each individual at that level has to effect events (1 voice in a group of 4 carries more weight than 1 voice in a group of 10).  So whenever someone gains power or influence someone else, perhaps multiple someone elses, suffers a loss.  This is not only a reality of politics but a law of physics.  Just as matter cannot be created or destroyed only transformed, power cannot be created or destroyed simply redistributed.

Politics aren’t governed by the laws of physics, they aren’t even governed by the laws of politics (bud, ump, bump, thank you I’ll be here all week)! I don’t get the analogy of the donut box. If there aren’t enough donuts, or even enough of a specific type of donut, why not just get another box? Who says we all have to eat from the same box of donuts anyway? What if somebody wants a full-on breakfast, or just a coffee? You can’t put people in boxes, no matter how delicious those boxes contents might be (remember to tip your waitress, thank you).

 

I'll admit I was a little hungry when I thought up the doughnut analogy but it can be replaced by any finite thing that everybody wants (most people enjoy doughnuts).

Edit: And everything is governed by the laws of physics.

General User wrote...
Your breakdown of influence and how it is disseminated in groups is flawed in that it assumes all voices in any size group will carry equal weight, they do not. For better or worse, the brave, the wise, the intelligent, or simply the charismatic (or loud as the case may be) will always have more (or disproportionate if you prefer) influence.

True.

General User wrote...
I really can’t follow that (political) power and influence are synonymous. Of course political power can be created or destroyed! The Americans have their Bill of Rights, the French have The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, and so forth.  Political power is destroyed and created all the time.

The bill of rights and similar documents are not creating political power, simply taking it from one group and giving it to another.  By giving the people rights you limit what the aristocracy is able to do, reducing their influence on events (if not by much).  Any time a group gains influence one or more other groups lose it.  By giving women and blacks equal rights you increase their power while reducing the power of white men (who can no longer do whatever they please without opposition).

General User wrote...

And I agree, however we must accept the fact that the races are in competition and we can't change the nature of the game by simply refusing to play.

On a philosophical level you’re wrong, new modes of thought and ways of living are constantly being thought-up/tried/modified/abandoned/renewed. The nature of the game is always changing because the nature of it's players are always changing.

Yes but do any of those new modes rise from people who simply refuse to get involved?  You can't change the political system simply by refusing to involve yourself in it; you need to play the game by the existing rules to have any chance of changing them in the future.  In politics the most direct way to do that is march in, wrestle power away from the top, and declare the new rules (this however is bloody and normally short lived).

Modifié par DPSSOC, 09 octobre 2010 - 01:24 .

[Xilizhra]

My family was obliterated on Mindoir, my probable future wife is an asari, my friends are few and cross-species, the Alliance kicked me out, and genetics don't hold my allegiance.

[Zulu_DFA]

[quote]Shandepared wrote...
I see the identity of my kin as being unimportant; rather, I consider everyone in the galaxy to be my kin.[/quote]
[/quote]

And the Reapers need hugs, right? And a couple of cookies.

[Xilizhra]

And the Reapers need hugs, right? And a couple of cookies.

If the circumstances warrant, why not?

I don't think you quite see where I'm coming from here...

Yes, yes, I don't advance humans over everything else so I'm a race traitor.

[Arijharn]

Xilizhra wrote...

I see the identity of my kin as being unimportant; rather, I consider everyone in the galaxy to be my kin.

Does that mean you kill your family every time a merc levels his pistol at you?

Wouldn't you go crazy if you try to relate to everyone in the galaxy? I mean... you must either be very brave, very stubborn or insane!

[Xilizhra]

It isn't perfect, though I like to think that I would defend myself against any family member who tried to attack me. I will say that I try to avoid combat whenever possible (not often).

[Arijharn]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Who needs logic or faith when you trillions of allies to back up your threats? I want to ask a question. Of those that kept the base, who also saved the Rachni and kept Legion? Who didn't kill Wrex? Who tried to make sure the galaxy's largest evacuation fleet doesn't get trashed by the geth?

I did all of those things. I saved Wrex, I saved the Rachni and I saved Legion. This doesn't mean I want to throw away a prospect of turning the tide of an eventual conflict against the Reapers away though.

From a logical point of view, superior numbers as well as superior strategic coherence should equal or exceed EQUIVALENT tech.

Considering we don't actually know that much about that tech (and we probably wont without testing), I find that to be an illogical conclusion because it's based off presumptions. At least, I wouldn't want to test your theory by potentially throwing away fleets in the course of finding out if I was right or not, because there's a word for it; it's called 'negligence.'

Unless of course both the Geth and the Rachni are actually traitors and the quarians ignore all warnings and go to war with the Geth.  I which case EQUIVALENT tech would win out.

I would dearly like to have the Geth and Rachni live up to their statements of support, but I can't exactly be sure until either I allow Legion to speak not as the voice of Legion, but as all the (True) Geth and perhaps a meeting with the Rachni Queen (which would be... interesting). Before then though, it's just words... like the Treaty with the Grey Wardens that lead you to strongly encourage those factions to actually help you out rather than just them fulfilling their pledge.
If I told you that I will give you a brand new bike for free, would you necessarily just accept my word for it?

[Zulu_DFA]

Xilizhra wrote...

And the Reapers need hugs, right? And a couple of cookies.

If the circumstances warrant, why not?

O ya. Whatever it takes. By any means necessary. The end justifies the means.

Xilizhra wrote...
Yes, yes, I don't advance humans over everything else so I'm a race traitor.

Pretty much, because even Anderson himself at the begining of ME1 states that the Council does exactly that - solves problems at the expense of others, particularly Humanity.

But to me, Human dominance is not so much a matter of kin, as it is a matter of greater good. The Mankind is clearly depicted in the series as a wind of change in the Galaxy, that's been growing decrepit. So my Shepard's ardent humanism is very well justified, whereas Anderson's growing frustration with what ME's Humanity is is very erroneous even regardless of his duty to the Alliance.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 09 octobre 2010 - 01:59 .

[Xilizhra]

But to me, Human dominance is not so much a matter of kin, as it is a matter of greater good. The Mankind is clearly depicted in the series as a wind of change in the Galaxy, that's been growing decrepit. So my Shepard's ardent humanism is very well justified, whereas Anderson's growing frustration with what ME's Humanity is is very erroneous even regardless of his duty to the Alliance.

Opinions. I don't see humanity as a terribly bright light; so far, I'm the only truly exceptional one on the galactic stage, unless you want to count TIM.

[Arijharn]

Shandepared wrote...
Personally I think it's my duty to uphold the needs of my kin before the needs of anyone else. After all, if I don't do it no one will. The same concept applies to my country or in the case of Mass Effect, my species.

While I'm quoting Shand, I guess I'm really talking to Xil---(rharrgh, I have no idea how to spell your name if I'm not actually quoting you, sorry!)
Case in point; I don't really care that much about America other than:
- It helps my country stay wealthy.
- I have friends living there.
I'm not really concerned about the USA's national interests.

Wait, there was a point I was trying to make. Basically I think you have to keep things grounded... as nice as it may make you feel (maybe you really are an altruist?) , it's almost as if you're trying to 'anthropomorphise the galaxy.'

[Zulu_DFA]

Xilizhra wrote...

But to me, Human dominance is not so much a matter of kin, as it is a matter of greater good. The Mankind is clearly depicted in the series as a wind of change in the Galaxy, that's been growing decrepit. So my Shepard's ardent humanism is very well justified, whereas Anderson's growing frustration with what ME's Humanity is is very erroneous even regardless of his duty to the Alliance.

Opinions. I don't see humanity as a terribly bright light; so far, I'm the only truly exceptional one on the galactic stage, unless you want to count TIM.

Pffft!.. I'm talking of the whole species here. Which has nothing to do with a few extraordinary specimens.

The Council itself acknowledged that giving Humanity preferrential treatment. Only they hoped to keep Humanity on a leash.

And Harbinger acknowledges that as well. I'd say that's something.

[Xilizhra]

Humans have elastic genetic material; that's about it. And the Council's preferential treatment was largely because of human aggression.

[General User]

DPSSOC wrote...

  I'll admit I was a little hungry when I thought up the doughnut analogy but it can be replaced by any finite thing that everybody wants (most people enjoy doughnuts).

Edit: And everything is governed by the laws of physics.

 



What about metaphysics, emotion, or spirituality?
Besides, natural resources are infinite (rather so large as to be practically infinite). “That’s right I said it!”

The bill of rights and similar documents are not creating political power, simply taking it from one group and giving it to another.  By giving the people rights you limit what the aristocracy is able to do, reducing their influence on events (if not by much).  Any time a group gains influence one or more other groups lose it.  By giving women and blacks equal rights you increase their power while reducing the power of white men (who can no longer do whatever they please without opposition).

Oh, I see what you’re getting at! You’re talking about individual rights vs. the power of the state, yes? I can see that. I was looking at varying bills of rights as destroying political power in that they place limits on the state. When you put it like that I can half-ass agree with you. I can’t commit the rest of the way since political power and group influence are so very different.
 
Take an asari matriarch, her legal standing is the same as any other UAR citizen, but because of who she is and the life she’s led, her voice carries weight. She wields great influence, but little power. There are similar people in contemporary human society.
 A powerful Roman general might be the flip side of that coin (I’m less confident of this analogy). He is, put broadly, the right arm of his state, but he takes all his orders from a Senate or Emperor (not always a sure thing with Roman generals). He commands great power but has relatively little influence.

Yes but do any of those new modes rise from people who simply refuse to get involved?  You can't change the political system simply by refusing to involve yourself in it; you need to play the game by the existing rules to have any chance of changing them in the future.  In politics the most direct way to do that is march in, wrestle power away from the top, and declare the new rules (this however is bloody and normally short lived).

Sure they do, all the time! Usually by setting up their own system then sending armed individuals back into their neighbors camps. This may include “wrestl[ing] power away from the top, and declar[ing] new rules” or something completely different. The former is admittedly more popular, but every so often the human mind changes, sometimes gradually, sometimes relatively overnight, our very ability to conceptualize the universe and our place within it is so radically altered that the existing power structures can no longer serve in any capacity and have to be torn down and replaced.
 
This all relates back to the Collector Base in that… I got nothing. Something to do with TIM, right? Eh, it's the weekend.

[Xilizhra]

Thankfully, I don't consider my genes to determine my political allegiance.

[Xilizhra]

Why is it tragic?

[Zulu_DFA]

General User wrote...
 A powerful Roman general might be the flip side of that coin (I’m less confident of this analogy). He is, put broadly, the right arm of his state, but he takes all his orders from a Senate or Emperor (not always a sure thing with Roman generals). He commands great power but has relatively little influence.

This example pretty much defeats you. There were plenty of Roman generals, who became emperors themselves or put and removed emperors as they pleased. In case you didn't know, the term "imperator" initially meant "commander-in-chief". So no, infuence IS the same as power. One may be directly measured in the other.

What you seem to refer as "influence" is "authority" - legal (such as that of elected or appointed per standard political procedure public officials) or moral (such as that of religious leaders, famous writers, scientists and so on.) That's only one source of power. It can be very significant, or not so much, ususally depending on how much power your rivals can accumulate from the same sources or other sources (such as brute force, like in case of Roman / Banana republic general, mob boss, etc.)

And come on, the idea that "natural resources are infinite (rather so large as to be practically infinite)" is nonsense. because the amount of biomass dependent on these resources is "potentially infinite". At any given point of time the resources available may exceed the needs of the current population or be insufficient. You don't want the latter to happen.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 09 octobre 2010 - 03:00 .

[Markinator_123]

Xilizhra wrote...

Why is it tragic?

Because nobody else will defend humanity beyond humanity itself

[Xilizhra]

There are plenty of other humans up for the task.

[GGRush]

Xilizhra wrote...

I see the identity of my kin as being unimportant; rather, I consider everyone in the galaxy to be my kin. Species and nation are unimportant. Effectively, it's "Right, your nation or mine."

Identity of kin is important whether you like it or not. To your Shepard, race may not define him/her, but there will always be some people more important than the others. Don't tell me that your squad is just as important as a random sapient life on an unknown planet, and number is the only thing that matters.
As for a random human and a random Turian, at least the random human is closer to home, is the one who will cry  for help while the Turian might not expect it. As long as humans identify with humans, identity of kin is important, whether you like it or not.