234 réponses à ce sujet

[Zulu_DFA]

Nightwriter wrote...

Cerberus and Cerberus supporters don't seem to care how bad the things they do are. Why do you care what people call Cerberus as a consequence of those actions?

1. The OP doesn't look like a "Cerberus supporter" to me.

2. We here care for the truth, not Cerberus propagnda. In fact, I believe that it's the care for truth that brings people to the Cerberus ranks in the end, while it's carelessness about the truth combined with adherence to certain preconceptions that makes people hate Cerberus.

[Nightwriter]

Ieldra? Ieldra has pro-Cerberus beliefs.

Cerberus = the holy pursuit of the truth? Rofl. Ah, these internetz.

[Aradace]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Aradace wrote...
Secondly, you have to realize what the Alliance is trying to do here.  The "masses" as a whole, dont realize the "real" definition of the word "terrorist".  So, in order to build more backing for themselves, they brand any organization that directly or indirectly opposes them as "terrorists" so as to get the mass populous behind the Alliance.

I'm fully aware of that. I was trying to cut through the political bullsh*t and make it less likely for people to buy into it, different opinions of Cerberus in general notwithstanding.

Sadly, the masses at large wont see through the political BS like you or I and they'll support the Alliance simply because they're "The Alliance, how can they be bad?" Unfortunately, I cant say much more than that without getting into my own personal stance on government and politics lol.

[Zulu_DFA]

Nightwriter wrote...

Ieldra? Ieldra has pro-Cerberus beliefs.

Cerberus = the holy pursuit of the truth? Rofl. Ah, these internetz.

Ieldra has pro-Miranda beliefs and is moderate about Cerberus. Of course, it may look like fanatical support to a hater .

Holy and truth don't mix.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 01 octobre 2010 - 05:34 .

[Nightwriter]

"Pro-Cerberus beliefs" means "pro-human beliefs", man. You're saying Ieldra does not have those? Guess I was mistaken.

What's with all this stupid hater stuff? I think we need to stop dividing ourselves into fanatics and haters. Either you're a Cerberus zealot or a Cerberus hater? Lame.

I shall not be nailed down with your stereotypes! I'm a free bird! Free bird!

I like Cerberus because:

- They make me feel safe. Even someone like me thinks it's damn cool knowing TIM's constantly watching out.
- They protect humanity when humanity’s bastions themselves fail.
- They’re swift. They respond to threats quickly and overwhelmingly.
- They're crafty.
- They have a stylish fashion sense.
- They have a "f*ck you" attitude toward the establishment that I cannot help but enjoy.

I dislike Cerberus because:

- They make humanity look bad.
- Their goals do not justify their individual experiments.
- They commit atrocities I cannot tolerate.
- They fail to inspire trust.
- They do not appear to care about the welfare of other species, and I do.
- Our goals are different.
- They are ambitious about defense and power where I am only ambitious about defense.

[CaptainZaysh]

This argument is based on a flawed premise, which is that there is a commonly agreed definition of terrorism. As wikipedia will tell you:

Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur also has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the 'only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.'

To me they are a terrorist group since they are not a government and they employ violence intended to bring about political change.

[Dean_the_Young]

Nightwriter wrote...

Cerberus and Cerberus supporters don't seem to care how bad the things they do are. Why do you care what people call Cerberus as a consequence of those actions?

Quid pro quo, why do you care what we think about what you think?

In my case, at least, I prefer accuracy when describing bad things: it's impossible to weigh considerations and negatives if one simply accepts the worse anyone describes it as or not. If losing those false malluses changes someone's viewpoint, that's their issue.

Yes, it would take a lot to convince me that a massively racist terrorist group with delusions of conquest is a graver threat than a genocidal goliath which has yet to be matched. Priorities, you know? But then, Cerberus isn't even that, so seeing other people base their conclusions around that false premise is aggravating. Not so much because of the conclusion they draw, but how they go about it.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 01 octobre 2010 - 12:02 .

[Ieldra]

Nightwriter wrote...
Ieldra? Ieldra has pro-Cerberus beliefs.

It isn't that easy:

(1) I do support the advancement of humanity by every possible definition *except*  the ones that include oppression of non-humans. Being politically more powerful than any other faction in the galaxy, however, is desirable.
(2) I do not support the torturing of children, forced implantation of Reaper tech, turning humans into Husks or similar things in order to further that goal.

In the OP of this thread, I have deliberately and explicitly left the judgment of Cerberus' goals and methods open, because there are other threads that deal with that. It was the misperception as "terrorists" I wanted to correct. That they are not terrorists doesn't necessarily make them any better, as much as being branded "terrorists" does make them any worse except in the perception of the uninformed. 

BTW:
I care about how they're called because "terrorist" is a term used in political propaganda since the aftermath of 9/11, so much that people don't know what it means anymore. Call anyone a terrorist, and reason flies out of the window and everyone starts frothing at the mouth. With topics like Cerberus, it's important to cut through the political propaganda for a reasonable debate, regardless of whose side you're on.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 octobre 2010 - 12:24 .

[Nightwriter]

Ieldra2 wrote...

It isn't that easy:

(1) I do support the advancement of humanity by every possible definition *except*  the ones that include oppression of non-humans. Being politically more powerful than any other faction in the galaxy, however, is desirable.
(2) I do not support the torturing of children, forced implantation of Reaper tech, turning humans into Husks or similar things in order to further that goal.

Well your views are ten kinds of kickass. Why am I only discovering this now?

It's all the Miranda discussions, isn't it. We never think to talk about Cerberus.

[Zulu_DFA]

Nightwriter wrote...

I like Cerberus because:

- They make me feel safe. Even someone like me thinks it's damn cool knowing TIM's constantly watching out.
- They protect humanity when humanity’s bastions themselves fail.
- They’re swift. They respond to threats quickly and overwhelmingly.
- They're crafty.
- They have a stylish fashion sense.
- They have a "f*ck you" attitude toward the establishment that I cannot help but enjoy.

I dislike Cerberus because:

- They make humanity look bad.
- Their goals do not justify their individual experiments.
- They commit atrocities I cannot tolerate.
- They fail to inspire trust.
- They do not appear to care about the welfare of other species, and I do.
- Our goals are different.
- They are ambitious about defense and power where I am only ambitious about defense.

But these are different sides of the same coin! How could you expect them to be able to respond to threats quickly and overwhelmingly If they were only ambitious about defence and not power? Especially when the "threats" they might be called to respond to couldn't care less about any constraints?

[HazelrahFiver]

The problem is that a group of people performing actions cannot be a conspiracy. A conspiracy is not a physical thing, nor the label for a group of people. Actions they have taken, and more accurately the ramifications of those actions can be a conspiracy, but not the actual organization. While it is confusing to label Cerberus as terrorists, it is the closest thing that fits. They do not work with the Alliance or Council (the two forms of government that humans adhere to) and often instill radical violence, killing people and destroying objects in their wake.

[Dean_the_Young]

Nightwriter wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

It isn't that easy:

(1) I do support the advancement of humanity by every possible definition *except*  the ones that include oppression of non-humans. Being politically more powerful than any other faction in the galaxy, however, is desirable.
(2) I do not support the torturing of children, forced implantation of Reaper tech, turning humans into Husks or similar things in order to further that goal.

Well your views are ten kinds of kickass. Why am I only discovering this now?

It's all the Miranda discussions, isn't it. We never think to talk about Cerberus.

Those are pretty close to mine, and you don't call me kickass.

[Nightwriter]

Aw. Poor Dean.

I guess I just can't recall you ever saying you support humanity's advancement except where it includes the oppression of non-humans. That's just such a succinct, reasonable thing to say.

Plus, there seems to be this group who defends all of Cerberus's actions no matter what and argues that the sacrifices were necessary, and this other group that admits when Cerberus does something wrong, and I got the impression you were in the first group. Maybe I was wrong.

[Dean_the_Young]

HazelrahFiver wrote...

The problem is that a group of people performing actions cannot be a conspiracy. A conspiracy is not a physical thing, nor the label for a group of people. Actions they have taken, and more accurately the ramifications of those actions can be a conspiracy, but not the actual organization. While it is confusing to label Cerberus as terrorists, it is the closest thing that fits. They do not work with the Alliance or Council (the two forms of government that humans adhere to) and often instill radical violence, killing people and destroying objects in their wake.

Not quite. A group of conspirators can carry out a conspiracy without a single goal, and any group can carry out such a conspiracy: terrorists, NGO's, governments, black agencies, etc.

Terrorist groups are public political actors, in the sense they want to be known, make their objectives known publicly (and target the public), even though they resort to secrecy as defense. Terrorism is public politics by terrorism.

Cerberus, while it has political objectives, doesn't go about them in the public manner necessary to truly be considered a terrorist group. The most public action Cerberus stands accused of is the e-zero sabatoge events, which have not been considered as terrorizing or even as an attack by the victims (and beneficiaries), and was certainly not about harming the populace as much as bringing forth more biotics.

For the rest, though, Cerberus's involvement is rarely, if ever, known, and the targets far more singular discrete. Jack's mother never knew her daughter was kidnapped: the Asari biotic supremacist didn't know why or how her biotics failed: the Pope's death (which even aided relations with the Salarians!) was blamed on natural causes. 

Cerberus is a military-industrial-political cabal of public and private actors, which acts on the basis of not being known or recognized by the public.

[Dean_the_Young]

Nightwriter wrote...

Aw. Poor Dean.

I guess I just can't recall you ever saying you support humanity's advancement except where it includes the oppression of non-humans. That's just such a succinct, reasonable thing to say.

I have. Multiple times. Especially against claims that war or oppression against alien species is in human interests. I go into long, dispariging threads about that silly idea it's practical.

Plus, there seems to be this group who defends all of Cerberus's actions no matter what and argues that the sacrifices were necessary, and this other group that admits when Cerberus does something wrong, and I got the impression you were in the first group. Maybe I was wrong.

That description includes about three different groups, really. Your impression about the first group may be because I take a stance against people claiming the two rogue groups (the Overlord doctor and Teltin) who acted without TIM's knowledge or consent should be equated with Cerberus policy.

It also might come from a position, less commonly spelled out, between bad and worst, and whatever Cerberus is the Reapers are worst.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 01 octobre 2010 - 12:47 .

[lastpatriot]

I would have to agree that on a pure definition standing, the OP is correct.  I still don't agree with their methods
though.  In reality, they are more of an extremist group than anything else.

Modifié par lastpatriot, 01 octobre 2010 - 12:47 .

[Nightwriter]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

But these are different sides of the same coin! How could you expect them to be able to respond to threats quickly and overwhelmingly If they were only ambitious about defence and not power? Especially when the "threats" they might be called to respond to couldn't care less about any constraints?

Wat.

How could I expect them to defend us if they're only worried about defense?

I is corn-fused.

[Nightwriter]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I have. Multiple times. Especially against claims that war or oppression against alien species is in human interests. I go into long, dispariging threads about that silly idea it's practical.

I'll take your word for it. I believe you.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

That description includes about three different groups, really. Your impression about the first group may be because I take a stance against people claiming the two rogue groups (the Overlord doctor and Teltin) who acted without TIM's knowledge or consent should be equated with Cerberus policy.

It also might come from a position, less commonly spelled out, between bad and worst, and whatever Cerberus is the Reapers are worst.

I don't blame TIM or Cerberus for Overlord. At most they pushed Archer too hard, but that's par for the course, man. You don't produce, you get shut down.

Teltin I feel a little iffier about... TIM had to know that children were being abducted and experimented on. I have a hard time believing that the Teltin cell totally fooled him as to what they were doing to children there.

I think I would buy the whole "the Reapers are worse" thing more if BioWare was more successful at creating feelings of threat.

[Zulu_DFA]

Nightwriter wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

But these are different sides of the same coin! How could you expect them to be able to respond to threats quickly and overwhelmingly If they were only ambitious about defence and not power? Especially when the "threats" they might be called to respond to couldn't care less about any constraints?

Wat.

How could I expect them to defend us if they're only worried about defense?

I is corn-fused.

All right.

For defence you need power. To power up your defences.

And it's not just a pun. On a high level of thinking, political power and electrical power are the same. You can literally compare political power of different countries by such things as electricity output and fossil fuels consumption. Of course, there are exceptions. For example, Vatican weighs heavier than many counties that dwarf it by the electricity output. But there again a famous Stalin's line comes to mind. When told that the Pope wasn't fascinated by his policies, he retorted: "Really? And how many regiments does the Pope have?"

[Nightwriter]

Not power, POWAH. As in greed, ambition, lust for POWAH.

[Gingi]

anyone read the last ME book about TIM?just checking i havent,"evolution or something"

[Zulu_DFA]

Nightwriter wrote...

Not power, POWAH. As in greed, ambition, lust for POWAH.

It's the same thing.

In the "lust for power" the bad thing is not the power, it's the lust. Because it's a passion, it's a weakness. It diminishes power, by clouding judgement. And I think TIM's aware of that. To me it seems he can control his ambition and prevent it from becoming lust. If not, well, bad for him, there comes his dowfall.

[Nightwriter]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Not power, POWAH. As in greed, ambition, lust for POWAH.

It's the same thing.

In the "lust for power" the bad thing is not the power, it's the lust. Because it's a passion, it's a weakness. It diminishes power, by clouding judgement. And I think TIM's aware of that. To me it seems he can control his ambition and prevent it from becoming lust. If not, well, bad for him, there comes his dowfall.

I want power.

I just don't want total Sauron power.

I'll settle for some Gandalf the White power. No one f*cks with Gandalf. But they still like him. This is desirable.

[Zulu_DFA]

Nightwriter wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Not power, POWAH. As in greed, ambition, lust for POWAH.

It's the same thing.

In the "lust for power" the bad thing is not the power, it's the lust. Because it's a passion, it's a weakness. It diminishes power, by clouding judgement. And I think TIM's aware of that. To me it seems he can control his ambition and prevent it from becoming lust. If not, well, bad for him, there comes his dowfall.

I want power.

I just don't want total Sauron power.

I'll settle for some Gandalf the White power. No one f*cks with Gandalf. But they still like him. This is desirable.

Gandalf's got the POWAH of AWESOME, something Sauron hadn't. So Gandalf was more powerful than Sauron. It it were otherwise, Sauron would have won.