343 réponses à ce sujet

[Zulu_DFA]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
Because even if you can't slap high treason on him legally or morally, Anderson is still political traitor to the Alliance. Compare him to Kasumi's boyfriend. That guy wasn't such an honored officer in the Alliance as Anderson, but still chose to die rather than divulge its dirty secrets.

Exposing the wrong-doing of your government is not treason.

No?

Maybe in your country...

But in the Systems Alliance it causes death "of natural causes".

That doesn't make it treason, that makes it something that someone will kill you for. 

It's not treason unless you're convicted of treason.  Treason has a legal definition, in law, and unless you're convicted of treason, you're not a traitor. 

Oh my, have you even read the what you quoted?

All right, I repeat. Despite the fact, that legally and in some moral systems Anderson may remain clean, he is still a traitor to the political entity called the Systems Alliance. You need to wake up and understand, in the world of big politics where Anderson virtually exists, "fighting the good fight" is almost always the worst (& morally too) thing to do. And, when it comes to big politics, all things "legal" have bearing only limited to PR.

I did read it.

That is the same kind of thinking that lets governments in the real world self-justify torture and abuse on a daily basis.  It's the same kind of thinking that gave us waterboarding and extraordinary rendition.  It looks good in fiction, when TIM or Jack Bower are "saving the world", but it's a load of crap in the real world, and ends up doing far more harm than any good it supposedly accomplishes.

 
The kind of thinking that lets governments in the real world justify torture and abuse is that nobody can stop them. What I demonstrate here is a simple acknowledgement of this fact of real life. And it's what makes the Mass Effect series story worth playing through (in spite of multiple holes in the plot) - the acknowledgement of facts of real life. The Systems Alliance ain't some elven kingdom with rose bunnies, and TIM ain't an evul necromancer who animates dead because he hates rose bunnies, and that's what makes them interesting.

[GodWood]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

GodWood wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
Sure, whatever. This thread is making me physically ill.

Umm, why?

You cut the answer to your question in quoting my post.   Go back and read it again.

I still don't get it...

[Arijharn]

You mean the teams that gave us the understanding of how to deal with Hypothermia? The understanding of limb re-attachment procedures? How to deal with shock and a better (although admittedly rather vague) understanding of genetics? Or how about the defibrillator?



Newsflash Asheer; the **** deathcamps did actually contribute to understanding of modern medicine, even if that makes you desperately uncomfortable. It even gave us the Hippocratic Oath... in a round about way.



Obviously Aushwitz and co is a stain on humanity's history, but even amongst that misery some good still came out of it.

[Whatever42]

Asheer_Khan wrote...

I wonder if any pro cerberus fanatic can answer me at simple question...

What difference is between heads of Teltin facility and Mengele and his "medical" team from Aushwitz (taking aside fact that Himmler wasn't clever in off to call Aushwitz rogue facility as tim do with Pragia) ?

With the exception of Teltin, every other Cerberus facility I've seen was staffed entirely by volunteers, who were fully aware of the risks. You could certainly argue that TIM's lack of oversight and pressure to produce results led to Teltin but you would have a very hard time making any credible case that it was anything more than a rogue operation.

The U.S. government tested radiation and poison gas on its unwitting soldiers. No one is seriously suggesting destroying that and their crimes are greater than anything I have yet seen of Cerberus.

Cerberus is crucial in the fight against the Reapers today. Regardless of their past amorality and sloppy oversight, they are not nationalist socialists and dealing them a blow endangers the entire galaxy.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 30 septembre 2010 - 02:38 .

[Mox Ruuga]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Orwell wasn't talking about torture, using people as guinea pigs without their consent, assassinating people to cover your crimes, etc.  Orwell spent most of his life trying to fight, by actions or by the written word, the kinds of regimes that do the things that people are trying to justify in this thread. 

Orwell is talking about war, and self-defense.  He's talking about people who argue against all use of force, from the safety provided by the willingness to use force in defense.

Cerberus didn't torture the Collectors to death. They didn't assassinate the Collector General to cover up something. They didn't use Harbinger as a guinea pig.

They were the only ones with the will to act, when the Alliance and the Council sat on their butts, doing nothing while hundreds of thousands of ordinary humans were turned into gray ooze. Hundreds of thousands on Freedom's Progress alone. Seriously, those idiots claimed that "pirates" were behind those massive attacks.  And whatever passes for the press in the 22nd century didn't raise any questions about those "theories"...

In this case, Cerberus WERE the "rough men doing violence, so good men could sleep peacably during the night".

I don't think Bioware wrote the Council and Alliance very flatteringly at all. Hell, it seems the Council in particular went insane during the two years Shepard was dead. But thats the way the story was written, and no moral outrage about "unsavory methods" changes the fact that Cerberus saved the Galaxy while all the good people did nothing.

And now Anderson has crippled the only org with the will to face the ugly truth about the coming apocalypse, and possibly turned public opinion among humanity against the Turians even further.

Modifié par Mox Ruuga, 30 septembre 2010 - 02:40 .

[Flamewielder]

FuturePasTimeCE wrote...

Flamewielder wrote...

The Alliance brass is understandably pissed: I doubt the US government would be happy if the Secretary of State had secretely asked the Canadian Security & Intelligence Service to investigate and prosecute american corporations suspected of gun running for some anti-american terrorist organization... It's a matter of sovereignty; even anti-Cerberus Alliance officials would be angry.

What else have the Turians discovered in their investigation? How much intelligence regarding the Alliance military and strategic planning was revealed to them? Will this provide some kind of marketing advantage to Turian corporations competing with Human ones? Will the Turians use this knowledge to better position themselves to compete against the Humans in the colonization race?

We understand what motivated Anderson, but most Alliance officials have dismissed the Reaper threat as Geth disinformation. Anderson may look good as far as the Coucil is concerned, but he's made ennemies among his own government (even among anti-Cerberus brass).

soooooooooooo?

Wether Anderson ends up being formally accused of treason will depend on whether the Alliance government perceives him as a threat or not. Or if the Terra Firma MP's manage to force the issue and demand his head just so the investigation itself can be used to fan the flames of xenophobia among humans. Proving charges of treason would be difficult and would hinge on investigators securing evidence that Alliance interests were compromised and Alliance law was broken by Anderson when no immunity was granted to him.
In the end, being proven guilty of treason or not is irrelevant: it is enough that Anderson collaborated with the Turians for his carreer to be over and for Terra Firma to boost xenophobic sentiment with it.

Essentially, a bunch of amoral Cerberus member/sympathizers will get punished (good from a virtue ethics standpoint), while Cerberus itself will gain even more grassroot sympathy/support (bad from a consequentialism ethics standpoint). Will it improve humanity as a whole, making it a more virtuous galactic citizen? I doubt it.

My bone against Cerberus is not its aims, it's the unconscionable acts performed by some of their members and their abysmal scientific track record... Would my paragon Shep approve of what Anderson did? For the principle of the thing, yes. Would my renegade Shep approve? No, as it only boosts support in the long run for Cerberus and ultimately serves to further ostracize Humanity among the galactic community.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Mox Ruuga wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Orwell wasn't talking about torture, using people as guinea pigs without their consent, assassinating people to cover your crimes, etc.  Orwell spent most of his life trying to fight, by actions or by the written word, the kinds of regimes that do the things that people are trying to justify in this thread. 

Orwell is talking about war, and self-defense.  He's talking about people who argue against all use of force, from the safety provided by the willingness to use force in defense.

Cerberus didn't torture the Collectors to death. They didn't assassinate the Collector General to cover up something. They didn't use Harbinger as a guinea pig.

So everything that Cerberus was doing in ME1, at Teltin, at Overlord, etc, etc, etc, etc, it all means absolutely nothing?  Are we supposed to pretend that stuff didn't happen?

[Killjoy Cutter]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...


I did read it.

That is the same kind of thinking that lets governments in the real world self-justify torture and abuse on a daily basis.  It's the same kind of thinking that gave us waterboarding and extraordinary rendition.  It looks good in fiction, when TIM or Jack Bower are "saving the world", but it's a load of crap in the real world, and ends up doing far more harm than any good it supposedly accomplishes.

 
The kind of thinking that lets governments in the real world justify torture and abuse is that nobody can stop them. What I demonstrate here is a simple acknowledgement of this fact of real life. And it's what makes the Mass Effect series story worth playing through (in spite of multiple holes in the plot) - the acknowledgement of facts of real life. The Systems Alliance ain't some elven kingdom with rose bunnies, and TIM ain't an evul necromancer who animates dead because he hates rose bunnies, and that's what makes them interesting.

At least in a democracy, the people CAN stop them, if they don't allow themselves to be scared into believing that it's necessary or luled into complacency with bread and circuses.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 30 septembre 2010 - 03:32 .

[Mox Ruuga]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Mox Ruuga wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Orwell wasn't talking about torture, using people as guinea pigs without their consent, assassinating people to cover your crimes, etc.  Orwell spent most of his life trying to fight, by actions or by the written word, the kinds of regimes that do the things that people are trying to justify in this thread. 

Orwell is talking about war, and self-defense.  He's talking about people who argue against all use of force, from the safety provided by the willingness to use force in defense.

Cerberus didn't torture the Collectors to death. They didn't assassinate the Collector General to cover up something. They didn't use Harbinger as a guinea pig.

So everything that Cerberus was doing in ME1, at Teltin, at Overlord, etc, etc, etc, etc, it all means absolutely nothing?  Are we supposed to pretend that stuff didn't happen?

The point was, that no matter how heinous (and yes, it was heinous), that stuff was small potatoes compared to the coming apocalypse. Against which Cerberus was the only faction willing to act. Everyone else is playing blind, deaf, and dumb.

The Alliance and the Council were rewritten as criminally negligent and completely gutless, allowing the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Of what use is the Alliance, if it cannot fulfill its major mission, protecting humanity in the Galaxy? How come there was no press outrage? Rioting in the streets? Rival parties raising hell? The story about "pirates" abducting entire developed colonies was obvious BS, but no one beyond Cerberus did anything. Not the government, not the "allies" whose hide humanity just saved.

The council and whatever the governing body of the Alliance is called, they are the ones with blood on their hands. I'd say there's a case to be made calling them worse than Cerberus, in actual fact.

"If Hitler invaded hell, I would make at least a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons."

- Winston Churchill

[Killjoy Cutter]

Mox Ruuga wrote...

"If Hitler invaded hell, I would make at least a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons."

- Winston Churchill

Well, in this case, it seems that one would have to make a favorable reference to the Reapers, then.

[Mox Ruuga]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Mox Ruuga wrote...

"If Hitler invaded hell, I would make at least a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons."

- Winston Churchill

Well, in this case, it seems that one would have to make a favorable reference to the Reapers, then.

Come on.

Now you're being obtuse on purpose...

[Killjoy Cutter]

Mox Ruuga wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Mox Ruuga wrote...

"If Hitler invaded hell, I would make at least a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons."

- Winston Churchill

Well, in this case, it seems that one would have to make a favorable reference to the Reapers, then.

Come on.

Now you're being obtuse on purpose...

No, going where the anology takes us.

[Whatever42]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Mox Ruuga wrote...

"If Hitler invaded hell, I would make at least a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons."

- Winston Churchill

Well, in this case, it seems that one would have to make a favorable reference to the Reapers, then.

Churchhill was an imperialist through and through. He wasn't so mad at Hitler for being evil but challenging British power. The British Empire had tremendous amounts of innocent blood on their own hands.

But on topic, you really think that galatic extinction is preferable to letting Cerberus continue to exist for a few more years? Seriously?

[Zulu_DFA]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...


I did read it.

That is the same kind of thinking that lets governments in the real world self-justify torture and abuse on a daily basis.  It's the same kind of thinking that gave us waterboarding and extraordinary rendition.  It looks good in fiction, when TIM or Jack Bower are "saving the world", but it's a load of crap in the real world, and ends up doing far more harm than any good it supposedly accomplishes.

 
The kind of thinking that lets governments in the real world justify torture and abuse is that nobody can stop them. What I demonstrate here is a simple acknowledgement of this fact of real life. And it's what makes the Mass Effect series story worth playing through (in spite of multiple holes in the plot) - the acknowledgement of facts of real life. The Systems Alliance ain't some elven kingdom with rose bunnies, and TIM ain't an evul necromancer who animates dead because he hates rose bunnies, and that's what makes them interesting.

At least in a democracy, the people CAN stop them, if they don't allow themselves to be scared into believing that it's necessary or luled into complacency with bread and circuses.

Care to bring up an example when the people in a democracy didn't allow themselves to be scared or lulled into complacency and stopped the government from anything?

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Mox Ruuga wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Mox Ruuga wrote...

"If Hitler invaded hell, I would make at least a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons."

- Winston Churchill

Well, in this case, it seems that one would have to make a favorable reference to the Reapers, then.

Come on.

Now you're being obtuse on purpose...

No, going where the anology takes us.

So, your interpretation of the analogy leads to:

"The Reapers are going to liberate the Galaxy from Cerberus."

Great.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 30 septembre 2010 - 04:18 .

[Mox Ruuga]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

No, going where the anology takes us.

Come on... Churchill would have made a similar quote slightly altered had Stalin attacked first. The meaning would have been intact. For some reason, you've just chosen to start nitpicking...

[Killjoy Cutter]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Mox Ruuga wrote...

"If Hitler invaded hell, I would make at least a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons."

- Winston Churchill

Well, in this case, it seems that one would have to make a favorable reference to the Reapers, then.

Churchhill was an imperialist through and through. He wasn't so mad at Hitler for being evil but challenging British power. The British Empire had tremendous amounts of innocent blood on their own hands.

But on topic, you really think that galatic extinction is preferable to letting Cerberus continue to exist for a few more years? Seriously?

1)  It's not an either-or choice, especially at the point in time when it happens in the ME universe.  The Collectors have been dealt with.  Shepherd has the Normandy 2.0, and (as of LotSB) access to that entire network. 

2)  Becoming what you're fighting against is no better than losing.

3)  Too many people in here sound like Donovan Hock fans.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...


I did read it.

That is the same kind of thinking that lets governments in the real world self-justify torture and abuse on a daily basis.  It's the same kind of thinking that gave us waterboarding and extraordinary rendition.  It looks good in fiction, when TIM or Jack Bower are "saving the world", but it's a load of crap in the real world, and ends up doing far more harm than any good it supposedly accomplishes.

 
The kind of thinking that lets governments in the real world justify torture and abuse is that nobody can stop them. What I demonstrate here is a simple acknowledgement of this fact of real life. And it's what makes the Mass Effect series story worth playing through (in spite of multiple holes in the plot) - the acknowledgement of facts of real life. The Systems Alliance ain't some elven kingdom with rose bunnies, and TIM ain't an evul necromancer who animates dead because he hates rose bunnies, and that's what makes them interesting.

At least in a democracy, the people CAN stop them, if they don't allow themselves to be scared into believing that it's necessary or luled into complacency with bread and circuses.

Care to bring up an example when the people in a democracy didn't allow themselves to be scared or lulled into complacency and stopped the government from anything?

Now you're just being a hipster-cynic.  Take off those 80s shades and study American history with objective eyes.

(I'll get some examples when I have time to make them solid, I'm posting while waiting for reports to run.)

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 30 septembre 2010 - 04:17 .

[Asheer_Khan]

For them Hock, Khelam (aka Turian killer) and Saracino are "shiny examples of humanity"... .apparently.

[Whatever42]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

1)  It's not an either-or choice, especially at the point in time when it happens in the ME universe.  The Collectors have been dealt with.  Shepherd has the Normandy 2.0, and (as of LotSB) access to that entire network. 

2)  Becoming what you're fighting against is no better than losing.

3)  Too many people in here sound like Donovan Hock fans.

The Collectors are dealt with because Cerberus was there. At this point, there is still no credible replacement to Cerberus. And the SB information netork cannot replace Cerberus - it could not find the IFF, it could not create the Normandy 2.0 or crew her. In fact, we only have the SB network because of Cerberus. You really think it can provide what we need?

And even if the SB network is a great help, you think cutting our resources in half is a good thing? You would risk galactic extinction because of moral outrage?

I guess you already answered that question. Rather than have YOUR moral beliefs challenged, you would rather see us all die. Fair enough.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

1)  It's not an either-or choice, especially at the point in time when it happens in the ME universe.  The Collectors have been dealt with.  Shepherd has the Normandy 2.0, and (as of LotSB) access to that entire network. 

2)  Becoming what you're fighting against is no better than losing.

3)  Too many people in here sound like Donovan Hock fans.

The Collectors are dealt with because Cerberus was there. At this point, there is still no credible replacement to Cerberus. And the SB information netork cannot replace Cerberus - it could not find the IFF, it could not create the Normandy 2.0 or crew her. In fact, we only have the SB network because of Cerberus. You really think it can provide what we need?

And even if the SB network is a great help, you think cutting our resources in half is a good thing? You would risk galactic extinction because of moral outrage?

I guess you already answered that question. Rather than have YOUR moral beliefs challenged, you would rather see us all die. Fair enough.

If we have no morals we're willing to stick by when the stakes are high, then we're not worth saving.

EDIT:  And to some degree, TIM did everything he could to make sure that only Cerberus was dealing with the Reaper threat.  See, for example, Horizon, where the Alliance Navy could have been alerted and on-scene in time obtain irrefutable proof of the Collectors' involvement.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 30 septembre 2010 - 04:28 .

[Mox Ruuga]

Lol, Donovan Hock fans?

Can't you discuss this without the playground antics?

Did the people stop the Collectors, or put enough pressure on the government so that the human genocide in the Terminus was stopped? Or did it take a group of benighted "Rough Men" to do it?

What makes you think that the Council or the leaders of the Alliance will spring into action the next time a Reaper plot crops up? They will just do what they did before: nothing, and hope that the problem just vanishes like it did the last time. But what happens now, that the "Rough Men" have been eliminated?

[Mox Ruuga]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

If we have no morals we're willing to stick by when the stakes are high, then we're not worth saving.

The mentality of the Taliban at display.

[Whatever42]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
If we have no morals we're willing to stick by when the stakes are high, then we're not worth saving.

I can make a list of crimes we (allies) did in WWII that makes Cerberus look like boyscouts. I can make a list of activities on this war on terror that makes TIM look like Mother Teresa.

We are not worth saving today by your definition. So, basically, you're siding with the Reapers all the way. Well, its hard to argue with someone who sees the universe in such simplistic black-and-white terms.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Mox Ruuga wrote...

Lol, Donovan Hock fans?

Can't you discuss this without the playground antics?

Playground?

Listen to Hock's speech at the party.  He's saying exactly what many of the defenders of Cerberus are saying.

[jbblue05]

Asheer_Khan wrote...

For them Hock, Khelam (aka Turian killer) and Saracino are "shiny examples of humanity"... .apparently.

Their is no shining example of Humanity all their is is a grey area.

Its all perception.  If Shepard works with Cerberus to stop the Reapers Cerberus will go down as heroes.  If Shepard works against Cerberus (might doom the galaxy not focusing your war effort on the real enemy) Cerberus will just be a footnote and easily forgotten