119 réponses à ce sujet

[Christmas Ape]

[quote]GuardianAngel470 wrote...
I'd like to reiterate how silly I find any action taken against Cerberus because of their moral ambiguity. This is War for the survival of all life everywhere, morals take a back seat to logic. You need to do what you need to do to survive, it's like eating the elderly in a survival situation or cutting off your arm to get out from under a fallen boulder. Despite how loathsome cannibalism is to most of the world, in a survival situation you do what you have to.[/quote]
[quote]That said, I would destroy Cerberus without a second thought if I were given the opportunity.[/quote]Fortunate for all organic life you weren't given the opportunity in ME1.[quote]They're reckless, they take unnecessary risks towards goals that make no sense. They also don't prepare properly for possible failure scenarios. They act as if Murphy's Law has never entered their brains.[/quote]"The enhanced defensive readiness of humanity in the face of our new existance on the galactic theater" makes no sense to you? Do you study history?
As to failure scenarios, the organization is absolutely prepared; recover what's useful and burn the rest. This was spelled out in the aftermath of Lazarus. That this results in a few less researchers from time to time is regrettable but we're talking numbers in the billions for the end results. Price of progress.
[quote]Their track record is appalling. I've never heard of an organization with more failures and more fatal results be defended so vehemently.[/quote]So the answer to that question about history is "no".
[quote]Rachni: Seriously, did they not read the history books? The rachni were a SPACE FARING species when they were discovered. How could they possibly assume they weren't intelligent? It's as if they were taken completely unawares.[/quote]The non-unreasonable assumption that an arthropod species would confine sapience to the queens, and possibly the few males, particularly given that only being able to take the fight to the queens ended the war. I think everyone expected a hive-mind. We were wrong.[quote]Their space station was overrun and the rachni spread out into the galaxy. All operatives were killed.[/quote]A few dozen sterile rachni broke free and escaped. Large numbers were wiped out by Shepard's investigation.
[quote]Thorian Creepers: Based on what ExoGeni was doing with Zu's Hope, Cerberus should have known that the Thorian exerted control of subjects and thralls telepathically.[/quote]Do you really feel it was reasonable to assume that spore-based telepathic control would extend across light-years? The entire premise behind that incident still defies explanation.[quote]What could they honestly hope to gain? Shock troops? Whatever it was they were trying to do, they failed because of an obvious connection.[/quote]Because of magic. The Creepers going mad as a result of the Thorian's death is the worst pseudo-science in the franchise.
[quote]If they really wanted expendable shock troops, why not an AI controlled army of Mechs?[/quote]Materials cost, time to build them, potential AI risks, potentially hackable by the enemy, not even a fraction as effective on a psychological warfare basis. If the Creepers are plant organisms, rather than mutated sapients, you could force-grow them on stations and deploy them by automated shuttle.
[quote]So far, EDI has proved willing to help and overall benign, it seems this would be the best option.[/quote]I don't imagine EDI was done yet. Also, Reaper-tech isn't exactly something you just duck down to the local kiosk for.
[quote]Husks: A bit more ambiguous, given the fact that understanding husks is important.[/quote]Hey, you're starting to think about these things.
[quote]However, they were again being used as shock troops, so it wasn't an academic pursuit but a military one, which is stupid.[/quote]...never mind. A purely academic study of husks is a waste of time; their viability as weapons defines both their offensive value and our capabilities to engage and destroy them.[quote]The husks can't be controlled currently[/quote]Pssst. Learning these things is accomplished via research; Shepard's not selling tickets for the Virimire beacon. They're 'machine cultists' in the logs of a few ships prior to Eden Prime. Get 'Reapers' out of your head, even in relation to Cerberus, until the end of Mass Effect.
[quote]and even if they could they'd require a human or otherwise body for each husk, and if you simply trained that person with a weapon and tactics, they would be more effective.[/quote]'We could use corpses' is perfectly reasonable as a hypothesis given the process itself is fatal. And no, training a corpse and giving it a gun doesn't make it more effective.
Besides; if arming them was that much more effective, would one of the most commonly cited "most hated ME2 enemies" be husks as opposed to mercenaries?
[quote]Jack: Seriously, the experiments conducted here were moronic. Lower core temperatures to see what it would do? We already know what that would do, it would kill them.[/quote]Untrue for several values of "lower". Clearly whoever was running Teltin was operating on the basis of testing until destruction, but the fact remains that the response of element zero nodules to reduced core temperature was a complete mystery.
[quote]You can't use a corpse for biotics, no matter what biotic benefit is gained.[/quote]No, but a death by hypothermia confirms there's no effect on biotic nodules up to the point the human body can no longer sustain the cold. It also lays to rest any questions of biotic resilience to environmental extremes by virtue of the element zero. You can't say for certain until you test.[quote]And the fact that TIM didn't know what was happening is either suspicious or simply indicative of a larger problem.[/quote]That his level of oversight doesn't adhere to your personal standards isn't his problem. He was dissatisfied with the progress reports, the recordings mention that explicitly, and demanded more direct information. Do you expect him to go shuttling around the galaxy to every project with a hiccup so he can prove it's up to snuff?
[quote]Lazarus: Shepard is by far the most important person in the galaxy. As is later discovered, the geth want his leadership, the krogan leader owes him loyalty, paragons have the rachni, and all around species answer to him. So why, if he is so important, didn't TIM ensure that security clearances were adequately investigated? My dad works for the military as a private contractor, from his description of security clearance questions, Wilson would have been caught before he could be a problem. They could also have prepared better against the possibility of infiltration. Yes, Shep was saved, but every other person on the station was killed. Not exactly a rousing success.[/quote]This may or not be an intentional scrub to get rid of any secondary agents while not revealing to the Shadow Broker they were aware of his compromising the base. Sometimes it's better to know exactly where the enemy's agents are, even if that's right in the middle of your operation. At least you can see him.
Also, that's great for your dad and all, but the entire history of the Cold War suggests spies can slip through the cracks and reveal damaging information to the enemy.
[quote]Grayson: This one is from the novel Retribution. TIM injects a former operative with Reaper self-replicating nanotechnology and sticks around to watch because Grayson betrayed him. That in and of itself is indicative that TIM isn't the ruthlessly logical character he wants you to believe he is.[/quote]Oh god - tIM's a real human being who occasionally makes decisions to satisfy himself? Say it ain't so! I demand my brutally pragmatic emotionless boss! The only person who could save humanity must be completely inhuman.
[quote]The only real protection against unforseen circumstances is an assassin named Kai Leng, ex N7. TIM and Leng sit there and study Grayson, help along his eventual possession with drugs, and when turians attack the station they are completely unprepared to eliminate Grayson. One would think that when dealing with Reaper tech in any form the best course of action is extensive preparation and failsafe systems. There were none. No remote activated plasma jets, no atmosphere venting system, no station self destruct, nothing. Once Leng is separated from Grayson, there were no other options.[/quote]I haven't read Retribution, so I can't say much for certain, but this sounds like one of those things that happens because otherwise there's no story at all.
"I think I just saw someone throw a body down that well! We should go check it out!"
"But what if they kill us too?"
"You're right, let's just keep driving."
And then the movie was over. That was sure worth $10.
[quote]TIM and Cerberus don't prepare for the unforeseen, they don't consider that "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong".[/quote]A motto which would see us eating whole lizards jammed onto sticks over the fires created by lightning strikes because if we bring it into the cave we could all be burned by the gods!
[quote]They simply charge ahead with no regards to safety, no regards to the consequences of failure, just the end goal and how to reach it the fastest and the easiest.[/quote]We're almost three thousand years behind the asari and more than a thousand behind the turians. We don't have the luxury of 50-year projects when it comes to species security. When you can abandon a failure with a single nuclear missile strike from low orbit because the entire planet is uninhabitable anyway, the consequences of failure are generally speaking going to be pretty minimal - I'll grant you there are exceptions but you can't act like they're conducting these experiments in upstate New York.
[quote]I'm all for unethical experiments if they are done safely and actually provide something useful. As I said, in survival situations, morals get thrown out the window and run over with a semi packed with elephants.[/quote]Ah, hindsight, 20/20 and somehow relevant to decisions made beforehand. It's very hard to judge the value of an experiment before it begins - that's why you conduct experiments.

[GuardianAngel470]

[quote]Christmas Ape wrote...

[quote]GuardianAngel470 wrote...
I'd like to reiterate how silly I find any action taken against Cerberus because of their moral ambiguity. This is War for the survival of all life everywhere, morals take a back seat to logic. You need to do what you need to do to survive, it's like eating the elderly in a survival situation or cutting off your arm to get out from under a fallen boulder. Despite how loathsome cannibalism is to most of the world, in a survival situation you do what you have to.[/quote]
[quote]That said, I would destroy Cerberus without a second thought if I were given the opportunity.[/quote]Fortunate for all organic life you weren't given the opportunity in ME1.[quote]They're reckless, they take unnecessary risks towards goals that make no sense. They also don't prepare properly for possible failure scenarios. They act as if Murphy's Law has never entered their brains.[/quote]"The enhanced defensive readiness of humanity in the face of our new existance on the galactic theater" makes no sense to you? Do you study history?
As to failure scenarios, the organization is absolutely prepared; recover what's useful and burn the rest. This was spelled out in the aftermath of Lazarus. That this results in a few less researchers from time to time is regrettable but we're talking numbers in the billions for the end results. Price of progress.
[quote]Their track record is appalling. I've never heard of an organization with more failures and more fatal results be defended so vehemently.[/quote]So the answer to that question about history is "no".
[quote]Rachni: Seriously, did they not read the history books? The rachni were a SPACE FARING species when they were discovered. How could they possibly assume they weren't intelligent? It's as if they were taken completely unawares.[/quote]The non-unreasonable assumption that an arthropod species would confine sapience to the queens, and possibly the few males, particularly given that only being able to take the fight to the queens ended the war. I think everyone expected a hive-mind. We were wrong.[quote]Their space station was overrun and the rachni spread out into the galaxy. All operatives were killed.[/quote]A few dozen sterile rachni broke free and escaped. Large numbers were wiped out by Shepard's investigation.
[quote]Thorian Creepers: Based on what ExoGeni was doing with Zu's Hope, Cerberus should have known that the Thorian exerted control of subjects and thralls telepathically.[/quote]Do you really feel it was reasonable to assume that spore-based telepathic control would extend across light-years? The entire premise behind that incident still defies explanation.[quote]What could they honestly hope to gain? Shock troops? Whatever it was they were trying to do, they failed because of an obvious connection.[/quote]Because of magic. The Creepers going mad as a result of the Thorian's death is the worst pseudo-science in the franchise.
[quote]If they really wanted expendable shock troops, why not an AI controlled army of Mechs?[/quote]Materials cost, time to build them, potential AI risks, potentially hackable by the enemy, not even a fraction as effective on a psychological warfare basis. If the Creepers are plant organisms, rather than mutated sapients, you could force-grow them on stations and deploy them by automated shuttle.
[quote]So far, EDI has proved willing to help and overall benign, it seems this would be the best option.[/quote]I don't imagine EDI was done yet. Also, Reaper-tech isn't exactly something you just duck down to the local kiosk for.
[quote]Husks: A bit more ambiguous, given the fact that understanding husks is important.[/quote]Hey, you're starting to think about these things.
[quote]However, they were again being used as shock troops, so it wasn't an academic pursuit but a military one, which is stupid.[/quote]...never mind. A purely academic study of husks is a waste of time; their viability as weapons defines both their offensive value and our capabilities to engage and destroy them.[quote]The husks can't be controlled currently[/quote]Pssst. Learning these things is accomplished via research; Shepard's not selling tickets for the Virimire beacon. They're 'machine cultists' in the logs of a few ships prior to Eden Prime. Get 'Reapers' out of your head, even in relation to Cerberus, until the end of Mass Effect.
[quote]and even if they could they'd require a human or otherwise body for each husk, and if you simply trained that person with a weapon and tactics, they would be more effective.[/quote]'We could use corpses' is perfectly reasonable as a hypothesis given the process itself is fatal. And no, training a corpse and giving it a gun doesn't make it more effective.
Besides; if arming them was that much more effective, would one of the most commonly cited "most hated ME2 enemies" be husks as opposed to mercenaries?
[quote]Jack: Seriously, the experiments conducted here were moronic. Lower core temperatures to see what it would do? We already know what that would do, it would kill them.[/quote]Untrue for several values of "lower". Clearly whoever was running Teltin was operating on the basis of testing until destruction, but the fact remains that the response of element zero nodules to reduced core temperature was a complete mystery.
[quote]You can't use a corpse for biotics, no matter what biotic benefit is gained.[/quote]No, but a death by hypothermia confirms there's no effect on biotic nodules up to the point the human body can no longer sustain the cold. It also lays to rest any questions of biotic resilience to environmental extremes by virtue of the element zero. You can't say for certain until you test.[quote]And the fact that TIM didn't know what was happening is either suspicious or simply indicative of a larger problem.[/quote]That his level of oversight doesn't adhere to your personal standards isn't his problem. He was dissatisfied with the progress reports, the recordings mention that explicitly, and demanded more direct information. Do you expect him to go shuttling around the galaxy to every project with a hiccup so he can prove it's up to snuff?
[quote]Lazarus: Shepard is by far the most important person in the galaxy. As is later discovered, the geth want his leadership, the krogan leader owes him loyalty, paragons have the rachni, and all around species answer to him. So why, if he is so important, didn't TIM ensure that security clearances were adequately investigated? My dad works for the military as a private contractor, from his description of security clearance questions, Wilson would have been caught before he could be a problem. They could also have prepared better against the possibility of infiltration. Yes, Shep was saved, but every other person on the station was killed. Not exactly a rousing success.[/quote]This may or not be an intentional scrub to get rid of any secondary agents while not revealing to the Shadow Broker they were aware of his compromising the base. Sometimes it's better to know exactly where the enemy's agents are, even if that's right in the middle of your operation. At least you can see him.
Also, that's great for your dad and all, but the entire history of the Cold War suggests spies can slip through the cracks and reveal damaging information to the enemy.
[quote]Grayson: This one is from the novel Retribution. TIM injects a former operative with Reaper self-replicating nanotechnology and sticks around to watch because Grayson betrayed him. That in and of itself is indicative that TIM isn't the ruthlessly logical character he wants you to believe he is.[/quote]Oh god - tIM's a real human being who occasionally makes decisions to satisfy himself? Say it ain't so! I demand my brutally pragmatic emotionless boss! The only person who could save humanity must be completely inhuman.
[quote]The only real protection against unforseen circumstances is an assassin named Kai Leng, ex N7. TIM and Leng sit there and study Grayson, help along his eventual possession with drugs, and when turians attack the station they are completely unprepared to eliminate Grayson. One would think that when dealing with Reaper tech in any form the best course of action is extensive preparation and failsafe systems. There were none. No remote activated plasma jets, no atmosphere venting system, no station self destruct, nothing. Once Leng is separated from Grayson, there were no other options.[/quote]I haven't read Retribution, so I can't say much for certain, but this sounds like one of those things that happens because otherwise there's no story at all.
"I think I just saw someone throw a body down that well! We should go check it out!"
"But what if they kill us too?"
"You're right, let's just keep driving."
And then the movie was over. That was sure worth $10.
[quote]TIM and Cerberus don't prepare for the unforeseen, they don't consider that "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong".[/quote]A motto which would see us eating whole lizards jammed onto sticks over the fires created by lightning strikes because if we bring it into the cave we could all be burned by the gods!
[quote]They simply charge ahead with no regards to safety, no regards to the consequences of failure, just the end goal and how to reach it the fastest and the easiest.[/quote]We're almost three thousand years behind the asari and more than a thousand behind the turians. We don't have the luxury of 50-year projects when it comes to species security. When you can abandon a failure with a single nuclear missile strike from low orbit because the entire planet is uninhabitable anyway, the consequences of failure are generally speaking going to be pretty minimal - I'll grant you there are exceptions but you can't act like they're conducting these experiments in upstate New York.
[quote]I'm all for unethical experiments if they are done safely and actually provide something useful. As I said, in survival situations, morals get thrown out the window and run over with a semi packed with elephants.[/quote]Ah, hindsight, 20/20 and somehow relevant to decisions made beforehand. It's very hard to judge the value of an experiment before it begins - that's why you conduct experiments.
[/quote]

Technologically, we aren't behind anybody. Humans won a major scientific honor recently. Our species may have been late to the party, but we are already providing innovative technology.

As for the rest, I must not have conveyed my point well enough. Experiments are fine, but you either need a goal or a means to mitigate risks.

TIM and his operatives do the latter very rarely. That was my point. Because of Retribution, which is part of ME canon and since ME2 is over, it can be used to assess Cerberus as an organization, I know that my distrust for their lack of precaution is well founded. Grayson could have ruined all Shepard's plans because he was a direct link to the Reapers in Dark Space.

Whether it was an excuse for a story is irrelevant, it happened. It is canon. And any engineer or scientist really will tell you that Murphy's law is not a motto. Ever wonder why toyota's brakes failed and they had to recall them? Ever wonder why your toshiba laptop is buggy and crashes all the time? Ever wonder why that bridge collapsed because of a strong wind? Murphy's Law. The engineers didn't plan for everything that they could think of that could go wrong, and so it did.

Murphy's Law isn't a motto, it's a fact of life. That's why TIM can't be trusted to remain in power of any sort. He is a liability to my operations both politically and strategically, the latter being the more important. 

[Moiaussi]

[quote]GuardianAngel470 wrote...

I'd like to reiterate how silly I find any action taken against Cerberus because of their moral ambiguity. This is War for the survival of all life everywhere, morals take a back seat to logic. You need to do what you need to do to survive, it's like eating the elderly in a survival situation or cutting off your arm to get out from under a fallen boulder. Despite how loathsome cannibalism is to most of the world, in a survival situation you do what you have to.[/quote]

Based on that, why fight the reapers at all? Why not just run, colony ship, stay FTL not using the relays, onboard refinery to keep the fuel up, and simply run and hide. No trail in that you simply don't tell anyone where you are going. You could even change course randomly at some point and not even record flight paths. If the reapers were omniscient they would have found Ilos. They aren't. 

And morals are actually logical. They are not arbitrary or by accident. Details may vary, but core tenets are common across pretty much all cultures. Most of them are common sense.

[quote]That said, I would destroy Cerberus without a second thought if I were given the opportunity. They're reckless, they take unnecessary risks towards goals that make no sense. They also don't prepare properly for possible failure scenarios. They act as if Murphy's Law has never entered their brains.

After a long series of catastrophes regarding experiments gone wrong because the operatives in the cells went essentially rogue, you would expect TIM to wise up and take a more active role of operations.

Their track record is appalling. I've never heard of an organization with more failures and more fatal results be defended so vehemently. Let's ignore the moral implications for a moment while we look at some of Cerberus' past operations.[/quote]

Pretty much agreed. Even in the case of Shepard's ressurection, it was a nutsy risk when you think about it. Shep might have simply been lucky the first time.

[qutoe]Rachni: Seriously, did they not read the history books? The rachni were a SPACE FARING species when they were discovered. How could they possibly assume they weren't intelligent? It's as if they were taken completely unawares. Their space station was overrun and the rachni spread out into the galaxy. All operatives were killed.[/quote]

It was not a given how intelligent (or not) the drones were without a Queen's guidance. They certainly aren't 'as' intelligent, and likely cannot reproduce. According to the Noverian queen, they are 'mad', which would limit their effectiveness. Still, your basic point is correct. They shouldn't have assumed a lack of intelligence.

[quote]Thorian Creepers: Based on what ExoGeni was doing with Zu's Hope, Cerberus should have known that the Thorian exerted control of subjects and thralls telepathically. What could they honestly hope to gain? Shock troops? Whatever it was they were trying to do, they failed because of an obvious connection. If they really wanted expendable shock troops, why not an AI controlled army of Mechs? So far, EDI has proved willing to help and overall benign, it seems this would be the best option.[/quote]

Again, no known species has telepathy anywhere near that range. Asari telepathy is touch only. Krogan are biotic, but have none. Humans are not known to have telepathy either. In addition, Exogeni was covering up the Thorian's existance, and Saren was trying to do so permanently. It is possible that Cerberus didn't know much if anything about the Thorian itself.

[quote]Husks: A bit more ambiguous, given the fact that understanding husks is important. However, they were again being used as shock troops, so it wasn't an academic pursuit but a military one, which is stupid. The husks can't be controlled currently and even if they could they'd require a human or otherwise body for each husk, and if you simply trained that person with a weapon and tactics, they would be more effective.[/quote]

It is unclear why they wouldn't use mechs to examine husks, dragon's teeth, and a lot of other reaper based tech, including the dead reaper.

[quote]Jack: Seriously, the experiments conducted here were moronic. Lower core temperatures to see what it would do? We already know what that would do, it would kill them. You can't use a corpse for biotics, no matter what biotic benefit is gained. And the fact that TIM didn't know what was happening is either suspicious or simply indicative of a larger problem.[/quote]

Actually the experiments with Jack were immoral, but not moronic. Asari are generally biotic as are Krogan. Humans have the potential. Learning how to unlock and/or enhance that potential is arguably wise. Core temperatures can be lowered safely to some degree now, which is useful medically in some circumstances. With much better medical science, that would be safer. Remember, when they were doing those experiments, a lot less was known about biotics.

[quote]Lazarus: Shepard is by far the most important person in the galaxy. As is later discovered, the geth want his leadership, the krogan leader owes him loyalty, paragons have the rachni, and all around species answer to him. So why, if he is so important, didn't TIM ensure that security clearances were adequately investigated? My dad works for the military as a private contractor, from his description of security clearance questions, Wilson would have been caught before he could be a problem. They could also have prepared better against the possibility of infiltration. Yes, Shep was saved, but every other person on the station was killed. Not exactly a rousing success.[/quote]

More than that, Shepard was the most important person for ME1, but it is not a given that he would be for ME2 (other than writer's promises). And then to limit him by cutting off a major source of resources (spreading the rumour that Shep was working for Cerberus), setting Shep up for ambush on the collector vessel, etc...

It is theoreticly possible TIM was behind the mech attack. With proper programing, he could have made sure the mech's didn't actually kill Shepard, and it would have been a reasonable simulation to test Shepard's combat skills post recovery. 

[quote]Grayson: This one is from the novel Retribution. TIM injects a former operative with Reaper self-replicating nanotechnology and sticks around to watch because Grayson betrayed him. That in and of itself is indicative that TIM isn't the ruthlessly logical character he wants you to believe he is. The only real protection against unforseen circumstances is an assassin named Kai Leng, ex N7. TIM and Leng sit there and study Grayson, help along his eventual possession with drugs, and when turians attack the station they are completely unprepared to eliminate Grayson. One would think that when dealing with Reaper tech in any form the best course of action is extensive preparation and failsafe systems. There were none. No remote activated plasma jets, no atmosphere venting system, no station self destruct, nothing. Once Leng is separated from Grayson, there were no other options.[/quote]

A highly indoctrinated Saren even managed more competence than that with the Rachni Queen.

[quote]TIM and Cerberus don't prepare for the unforeseen, they don't consider that "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong". They simply charge ahead with no regards to safety, no regards to the consequences of failure, just the end goal and how to reach it the fastest and the easiest. [/quote]

One of the biggest things is a similar lack of proper oversight to what the Council had over Spectres.

[quote]I'm all for unethical experiments if they are done safely and actually provide something useful. As I said, in survival situations, morals get thrown out the window and run over with a semi packed with elephants. [/quote]

Morals don't exist by accident. Throwing them out in the face of danger risks additional dangers from your allies who now no longer have reason to trust you as well as the risk of throwing away resources that you might need later unneccessarily. It is perilous and shouldn't be done lightly, even when facing extinction.

[GuardianAngel470]

Well, if there's one thing I've accomplished, it's unifying the two polar sides of the argument in disagreement with me.

That alone is worth a lot.

Modifié par GuardianAngel470, 23 octobre 2010 - 10:48 .

[tallinn]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

I want to know how many of the Cerberus supporters here would volunteer as test subjects for such experiments. The arguement is that this is neccessary research, correct? So they should feel it their duty to volunteer, right?

Can you give a basis for why the two must be connected, other than a vague 'if they don't say yes to both, they must be hypocrites neenirneenir'?

Lets assume there is an answer to Moiaussi's question and it turns out there are no volunteers among the supporters. As the experiments are qualified as "necessary" the next question would be: are they willing to force someone into being the test subject? Or would they agree that if there are no volunteers the experiments can't happen. despite their necessity? And if they advocate enforcement then the question is raised if they themselves would try to opposite enforcement imposed on their own? One cannot say we need a test subject, if necessary obtained by force, as long as it is not me.

[Saremei]

It is my view that if the Illusive Man was killed, Cerberus would only become much more diabolical and violent. Give the man some credit. He pulls the plug on the horrific programs that individual cells undertake. The illusive man doesn't tell the cells what to do in order to meet a goal, he just gives them a goal, funding, and allows them to find a way to accomplish it. That is proven in both Overlord and Jack's loyalty mission.



Killing the Illusive Man would be killing the man holding the leash of the demon dog.

[betd2]

I figured the best way to kill Cerberus would be to give them the collector station. given Cerberus' record with tech they'll all be husks by the end of the month.





^(Is not serious)

[Moiaussi]

Saremei wrote...

It is my view that if the Illusive Man was killed, Cerberus would only become much more diabolical and violent. Give the man some credit. He pulls the plug on the horrific programs that individual cells undertake. The illusive man doesn't tell the cells what to do in order to meet a goal, he just gives them a goal, funding, and allows them to find a way to accomplish it. That is proven in both Overlord and Jack's loyalty mission.

Killing the Illusive Man would be killing the man holding the leash of the demon dog.

And if he was killed and replaced ala the shadow broker?

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...
The tests that are allegedly neccessary require test subjects. For the most part Cerberus does not use volunteers, they use whoever is available.

Assuming that they do use volunteers though, if the research is really that neccessary, wouldn't it be the duty of everyone in support of said neccessity to line up to volunteer?

Of course not. Supporting a premise doesn't then demand you implement it yourself: you certainly support the right of police to arrest people for the public good, but I doubt you in anyway believe that means theyshould volunteer to be arrested for the rest of their livesto justify the principal of the stance.

There is also the point about not being suited for carrying out research on yourself: any organic, for example, would make a poor test subject for AI warfare experiments. Non-biotics are useless test subjects forbiotic research. And, of course, if you kill yourself and all your means of doing something, it isn't going to get done at all. Example, if all police men were obligated to arrest themselves to justify the right to arrest people. There wouldn't be policemen to do what needed to be done then.

If they are not, how 'neccessary' do the really feel it is?

The willingness to/not to is irrelevant to the necessity (or the basis) of anaction. Whether an action is necessary and whether it is done are not directly linked.

Take a look into Mass Effect's many delimmas.Take Zaeed's loyalty mission: to kill Vido, you have to let the workers die. This is necessary. While few people believe that letting Vido live is a good thing, and would happily kill him, many don't do what is necessary to kill him. This they didn't want to doesn't mean that it wasn't necessary, nor does it mean that they didn't want to kill Vido.

It is much easier to be in favour of the sacrifices of others than of yourself.

Of course. That doesn't mean that sacrifices aren't necessary and shouldn't be compelled at all: the only dickering is about how much is justified by what. It's certain a valid area for debate, but it isn't an invalid foreclosed issue in the first place.

I don't want to be taxed. I do support taxes. Neither is contradictory, and institutions can be made that keep my opposition to being texed from, well, preventing me from being taxed when I would object to it at the time.

Fortunately (and infortunately) we can collectively build insistutions we can not overthrow: we can build the means so that what we think is for the greater good for others can be impressed on ourselves in our personal reluctance. We can build the means to overcome our own selfish reluctance, if that's how you perceive it.

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Of course not. Supporting a premise doesn't then demand you implement it yourself: you certainly support the right of police to arrest people for the public good, but I doubt you in anyway believe that means theyshould volunteer to be arrested for the rest of their livesto justify the principal of the stance.

There is also the point about not being suited for carrying out research on yourself: any organic, for example, would make a poor test subject for AI warfare experiments. Non-biotics are useless test subjects forbiotic research. And, of course, if you kill yourself and all your means of doing something, it isn't going to get done at all. Example, if all police men were obligated to arrest themselves to justify the right to arrest people. There wouldn't be policemen to do what needed to be done then.

You are equating testing on solders or colonists who have not committed any crimes with incarcerating or executing prisoners? Pardon?

The willingness to/not to is irrelevant to the necessity (or the basis) of anaction. Whether an action is necessary and whether it is done are not directly linked.

If the testing is neccessary, why is it not neccessary on you? Don't pull lines like 'but I am not a biotic.' If you lived in the ME universe, you might well have at least biotic potential, and not all the tests were on biotics.

Take a look into Mass Effect's many delimmas.Take Zaeed's loyalty mission: to kill Vido, you have to let the workers die. This is necessary. While few people believe that letting Vido live is a good thing, and would happily kill him, many don't do what is necessary to kill him. This they didn't want to doesn't mean that it wasn't necessary, nor does it mean that they didn't want to kill Vido.

How is the fate of a crime boss related to saving the galaxy from the Reapers? Your definition of 'neccessary' is completely one of convenience. Noone is arguing that letting Vido go is a good thing in and of itself. I still argue that if Zaheed hadn't set the fire in the first place, my infiltrator Shepard could have taken Vido out cleanly.

And you call letting the workers die 'neccessary?'

Zaheed himself isn't even 'neccessary', loyalty or no. Vido is a bad man, and taking him down would be a good thing, but there is no evidence at all that he is working for the Reapers even indirectly.

Of course. That doesn't mean that sacrifices aren't necessary and shouldn't be compelled at all: the only dickering is about how much is justified by what. It's certain a valid area for debate, but it isn't an invalid foreclosed issue in the first place.

I don't want to be taxed. I do support taxes. Neither is contradictory, and institutions can be made that keep my opposition to being texed from, well, preventing me from being taxed when I would object to it at the time.

Fortunately (and infortunately) we can collectively build insistutions we can not overthrow: we can build the means so that what we think is for the greater good for others can be impressed on ourselves in our personal reluctance. We can build the means to overcome our own selfish reluctance, if that's how you perceive it.

But appearantly they are only 'neccessary' if someone other than you is sacrificed. That doesn't seem very 'neccessary.' That is merely you considering everyone other than you 'unneccessary,' in which case, what are you really fighting for, and why shouldn't Shepard be taking you down, since you deem Shepard as unneccessary? Or alternatively, why shouldn't everyone else in creation be taking your shepard down?

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Of course not. Supporting a premise doesn't then demand you implement it yourself: you certainly support the right of police to arrest people for the public good, but I doubt you in anyway believe that means theyshould volunteer to be arrested for the rest of their livesto justify the principal of the stance.

There is also the point about not being suited for carrying out research on yourself: any organic, for example, would make a poor test subject for AI warfare experiments. Non-biotics are useless test subjects forbiotic research. And, of course, if you kill yourself and all your means of doing something, it isn't going to get done at all. Example, if all police men were obligated to arrest themselves to justify the right to arrest people. There wouldn't be policemen to do what needed to be done then.

You are equating testing on solders or colonists who have not committed any crimes with incarcerating or executing prisoners? Pardon?

The difference is of scale of the violation of rights for future gain, not the concept. Certainly arresting someone is far less severe than killing them: then again, the possible consequence for not having police isn't extermination or subjugation either. Different costs and different consequences, same model.

If the testing is neccessary, why is it not neccessary on you? Don't pull lines like 'but I am not a biotic.' If you lived in the ME universe, you might well have at least biotic potential, and not all the tests were on biotics.

Why would in be necessary to do the tests on those who think it's necessary, as opposed to simply emotionally satisfying your desires?

This is the basis of what I first asked you about. The importance of necessary tests is that they are done, not on who they are done. Who they are done on can effect the ethics, but unless you can provide a reason why the testing would fail if it weren't done on the testers as well...

Not even most humans in the Mass Effect universe are biotic. Many Shepards aren't. What would be the point of a non-biotic being tested on? Who/what you test on depends on the category, and not all those who advocate something fit into that category.

How is the fate of a crime boss related to saving the galaxy from the Reapers? Your definition of 'neccessary' is completely one of convenience. Noone is arguing that letting Vido go is a good thing in and of itself. I still argue that if Zaheed hadn't set the fire in the first place, my infiltrator Shepard could have taken Vido out cleanly.

Which is a moot point of 'ifs, ands, and buts': at the time you have a choice, what is necessary to kill Vido is beyond your control to influence.

And you call letting the workers die 'neccessary?'

To kill Vido at that time? Yes. They were.

You can dispute the means, and you can dispute the goals, but you can't dispute the necessity of certain means to reach those goals. That isn't a subjective debate.

Zaheed himself isn't even 'neccessary', loyalty or no. Vido is a bad man, and taking him down would be a good thing, but there is no evidence at all that he is working for the Reapers even indirectly.

This is taking the situation beyond the scope of its analogy, and so I won't respond in depth.

But appearantly they are only 'neccessary' if someone other than you is sacrificed. That doesn't seem very 'neccessary.' That is merely you considering everyone other than you 'unneccessary,' in which case, what are you really fighting for, and why shouldn't Shepard be taking you down, since you deem Shepard as unneccessary? Or alternatively, why shouldn't everyone else in creation be taking your shepard down?

Who says is isn't necessary otherwise? Plenty of people refuse to do necessary things for various reasons. The consequence is that they fail that aspect, for varying consequences.

Take a necessary test. It needs to be done. Who it includes doesn't matter so much: it doesn't necessarily need to be any individual in particular. It just needs to be someone who meets the requirements.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 23 octobre 2010 - 07:27 .

[InHarmsWay]

tommyt_1994 wrote...

Rachni- Cerberus was looking to breed a line of shocktroopers for high risk scenarios but they didn't know how intelligent the rachni were so they abandoned them. Smart move.

Cause it's not like they were a space faring race.

[Dean_the_Young]

InHarmsWay wrote...

tommyt_1994 wrote...

Rachni- Cerberus was looking to breed a line of shocktroopers for high risk scenarios but they didn't know how intelligent the rachni were so they abandoned them. Smart move.

Cause it's not like they were a space faring race.

If intelligence was centered on the Queens, like the Thorian and its thralls, then being space-faring thralls means nothing.

[Moiaussi]

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

The difference is of scale of the violation of rights for future gain, not the concept. Certainly arresting someone is far less severe than killing them: then again, the possible consequence for not having police isn't extermination or subjugation either. Different costs and different consequences, same model.[/quote]

You feel scale is irrelevant? I take it you try to drown yourself every time you feel thisty and incinerate yourself every time you feel cold? Modern law is not any absolute violation of rights. It is a compromise of rights that is constantly being renegotiated. Its existance is part of the modern concept of morality, part of where our understanding of morality has evolved to. The vast majority of those who break the law do so with the knowledge that what they do is considered wrong, and of those who are not capable of understanding the difference are considered legally insane and treated as patients rather than as criminals. Compassion and circumstances are normally also taken into account in judgement and sentancing. It isn't a perfect system of course, but the morality behind it is pretty solid.

[quote]Why would in be necessary to do the tests on those who think it's necessary, as opposed to simply emotionally satisfying your desires?[/quote]

Because they are the ones who think they are neccessary. Otherwise is the testing really 'neccessary?' Or just an excuse to eliminate those who disagree with you?

[quote]This is the basis of what I first asked you about. The importance of necessary tests is that they are done, not on who they are done. Who they are done on can effect the ethics, but unless you can provide a reason why the testing would fail if it weren't done on the testers as well...

Not even most humans in the Mass Effect universe are biotic. Many Shepards aren't. What would be the point of a non-biotic being tested on? Who/what you test on depends on the category, and not all those who advocate something fit into that category.[/quote]

The question is who determines what constitutes 'neccessity.' By your logic, every attrocity ever committed by any human anywhere is completely justifiable as long as they considered it neccessary. 

Not all humans are equally biotic but even a non otherwise biotic shepard can be biotic by way of a bonus power. The point of testing is determining the extent.

[quote]Which is a moot point of 'ifs, ands, and buts': at the time you have a choice, what is necessary to kill Vido is beyond your control to influence.[/quote]

Say what? The only one declaring it neccessary was Zaheed. That seems a pretty poor criteria.

[quote]To kill Vido at that time? Yes. They were.

You can dispute the means, and you can dispute the goals, but you can't dispute the necessity of certain means to reach those goals. That isn't a subjective debate.[/qutoe]

Psst, your sending 100% of your earnings to me from now until the date of your death is 'neccessary.' You can't debate that. It isn't a subjective debate. Obviously we can debate what is or is not neccessary since this whole thread is doing so.

You stated that killing Vido was a neccessity. Now defend that position or back down from it.

[quote]This is taking the situation beyond the scope of its analogy, and so I won't respond in depth.[/quote]

You are claiming to be able to justify the suffering of others on the basis of 'neccessity.' If your definitions of neccessity are themselves questionable, then so is your justification. It also explains why you yourself wouldn't volunteer. You don't really believe in your own opinion in this matter strongly enough to sacrifice yourself for it.

[quote]Who says is isn't necessary otherwise? Plenty of people refuse to do necessary things for various reasons. The consequence is that they fail that aspect, for varying consequences.

Take a necessary test. It needs to be done. Who it includes doesn't matter so much: it doesn't necessarily need to be any individual in particular. It just needs to be someone who meets the requirements.
[/quote]

If you do not believe in the neccessity strongly enough to be willing to volunteer, how can you make the case that it is a neccessity?

[ADLegend21]

no, my sheps are putting Miranda in charge since her cell was the only one that's been seen that actually did it's job right.

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

You feel scale is irrelevant?

Of course not. As I have admitted serval times. Infact, I rather made a point about how scale matters.

Since the rest of the paragraph is based on a misinterpretation, it doesn't need to be addressed.

Because they are the ones who think they are neccessary. Otherwise is the testing really 'neccessary?' Or just an excuse to eliminate those who disagree with you?

That isn't an objective answer. Again, why is it necessary, project-will-fail-if-they-don't, to experiment on themselves?

For all its crimes, targetting and testing people on the basis of disagreement isn't a standard Cerberus policy. The only example that comes to mind being Grayson, who had already betrayed and harmed the group. Cerberus didn't pick the Akuze unit for a personal vendetta, didn't kidnap/buy biotics on basis of their politics,

The question is who determines what constitutes 'neccessity.'

Who ever determines what's necessary or not? Humans, who make the evaluations of what's needed and how much it matters.

By your logic, every attrocity ever committed by any human anywhere is completely justifiable as long as they considered it neccessary.

Nope. An atrocity is not justified simply because the actor believes it: it's justified or not based on thecontext that surrounds it, and the validity of the course. Genocide on completely fabricated pseudo-science theories and conspiracies that do not exist is not justified: genocide because of absolute, existential threat and extinction if you don't, is. (Yes. Reapers.)

Whether Cerberus's crimes (the ones that are crimes or are Cerberus's, anyway) are justifiable depends on the extent of the crime and the concern it addresses. Some won't be. Some will.

Not all humans are equally biotic but even a non otherwise biotic shepard can be biotic by way of a bonus power. The point of testing is determining the extent.

That's a game mechanic, not lore. By lore, the tech/soldier Shepards are non-biotics.

Say what? The only one declaring it neccessary was Zaheed. That seems a pretty poor criteria.

The game rather nicely corraborates it. If you save the workers, you fail. If you don't, you succede. As the story goes, the workers were a necessary cost to be able to kill Vido.

Whether you think killing Vido was important enough to do so doesn't matter to whether letting the workers die was necessary to do so.

Psst, your sending 100% of your earnings to me from now until the date of your death is 'neccessary.' You can't debate that. It isn't a subjective debate. Obviously we can debate what is or is not neccessary since this whole thread is doing so.

You stated that killing Vido was a neccessity. Now defend that position or back down from it.

No, I stated that letting the workers die was necessary to kill Vido.

My defense is the game, in which every other path of action at that choice (which is, well, one) lets Vido get away.

You are claiming to be able to justify the suffering of others on the basis of 'neccessity.' If your definitions of neccessity are themselves questionable, then so is your justification. It also explains why you yourself wouldn't volunteer. You don't really believe in your own opinion in this matter strongly enough to sacrifice yourself for it.

If I and those like me sacrifice ourselves at the first point for my opinions, who will be alive to carry them out, let alone carry out our other views?

It becomes ritual suicide, and nothing more.

If you do not believe in the neccessity strongly enough to be willing to volunteer, how can you make the case that it is a neccessity?

Because whether you volunteer and are selected or not is irrelevant to whether it will succede or be needed.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 23 octobre 2010 - 08:34 .

[Inverness Moon]

lovgreno wrote...

I think killing TIM is letting him off easy. Humiliating him in a public trial on the other hand would hurt his rather inflated ego much more. But more importantly that way you can get some usefull things he knows out of him.

A public trial would be the best way for TIM to go out. It would probably end up similar to Gold Roger's execution in One Piece.

If this is taking place after the reapers were defeated, all he would have to say is that it is because of him and Cerberus that Shepard was alive to save the galaxy.

[Zulu_DFA]

Inverness Moon wrote...

lovgreno wrote...

I think killing TIM is letting him off easy. Humiliating him in a public trial on the other hand would hurt his rather inflated ego much more. But more importantly that way you can get some usefull things he knows out of him.

A public trial would be the best way for TIM to go out. It would probably end up similar to Gold Roger's execution in One Piece.

If this is taking place after the reapers were defeated, all he would have to say is that it is because of him and Cerberus that Shepard was alive to save the galaxy.

A public trial for TIM could quite inflate a lot of little egos out there, but not hurt TIM at all. It would only give him a chance to become a martyr for the cause in the eyes of the Terra Firma electorate. And it would present quite a risk of getting some unwanted things out in the open... So no, if TIM is to go down, he'll be quietly replaced by another TIM, maybe a whole another "Cerberus".

[fongiel24]

Inverness Moon wrote...

lovgreno wrote...

I think killing TIM is letting him off easy. Humiliating him in a public trial on the other hand would hurt his rather inflated ego much more. But more importantly that way you can get some usefull things he knows out of him.

A public trial would be the best way for TIM to go out. It would probably end up similar to Gold Roger's execution in One Piece.

If this is taking place after the reapers were defeated, all he would have to say is that it is because of him and Cerberus that Shepard was alive to save the galaxy.

Given that Cerberus has the backing of some very wealthy, very influential people in the galaxy and has done some seriously messed up stuff while still with the Alliance (like Akuze), he could also stand up in court and say, "I've got a list of everyone I've ever collaborated with, knew what I was doing, and either supported it or did nothing to stop it."

How much damage would that do to the Alliance politically? I don't think anybody in the Alliance would want TIM's trial to be open to the public. They might as well as hand him a noose to hang them with. I'd wager that this is precisely why the Alliance has been so unsuccessful in tracking Cerberus down - they're not actually trying for fear of what TIM could do to them.

Modifié par fongiel24, 24 octobre 2010 - 01:32 .

[Ryzaki]

^I wish Paragon Shep could find that list. The epic blackmail opportunities alone...



Honestly at this point my Shep's given up on the council, Cerberus, and the alliance. He just wants to be left the hell alone.

[Kaiser Shepard]

This is how I want the series to end for both Shepard and the Illusive Man, from a topic I once made about playable epilogues:

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

2. This is the one I have in mind for my canon Shep, who started as a Paragade but slowly went full circle and became a Saren-ish Renegade. Still possessing a certain code of honor (anti-Cerberus, pro-cooperation, better safe than sorry), but knowing that there is no place in the galaxy for people that know what he and his illusive 'friend' know, he decides to tie up the one last loose end.

Cue to the Illusive Man's 'office' thingy with the sun and all: one of his assistants hands him one of orange data pad thingies. Suddenly a large explosion is heard, the screen shakes (which almost causes the assistant to fall) and the alarms go off. The station VI says something about an enemy ship moving closer, which causes TIM to yell  "Shepard!" before the main screen even turns on. Epic music starts playing. The camera goes to Shepard inside the Normandy, ordering Joker and EDI to ram the ship into the station. In doing so they effectively 'park' as close to TIM's office as possible.

A small mission (about 5 minutes) ensues, with casual-clothed Heavy Pistol-only Shepard (think Kasumi's mission) taking Miri and Jacob with him through two medium sized corridors, with what is left of the team staying behind to protect the Normandy or something. At the end of the second corridor, Miranda notes that the door in front of them leads to TIM's office, but lots of Cerberus soldiers show up and the Jacob tells Shepard that the duo has his/her back. Shepard goes into TIM's office, epic confrontational dialogue happens, both 'empty' their guns without being able to hit the other and an epic manly hand-to-hand fight with the Old Sun in the background ensues. Possibly with quick time events in the form of Paragon and Renegade interrupts implemented, where failing them wouldn't cause Shepard to directly lose the battle, but doing them correctly would have Shepard maintain the upper hand.

Eventually Shepard wins and kills TIM, possibly after Miranda comes in and ignores her former boss' plea for help. Shepard, tired and hurt from the fight, slowly limps to The Illusive Throne and drops down on it - mirroring what a certain sci-fi anti-hero did in 2004 - and smiles as the screen fades to black, implying that he became the new Illusive Man...

In my eyes the only worthy way to defeat the Illusive Man: with him knowing that "his" Cerberus and his ideals are about to die with him.

[Slayer299]

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
Arbitrary does not, however, mean invalid. Reciprocacity is a obvious basis for building moral systems from.
[/quote]

Actually I hate the fact that I used the word morals, it was the wrong word to use.


[quote]
I seem to have been unclear. I did not mean that underhanded is jingoisitic, but rather the use of jingoistic phrases when justifying actions that used to justify their actions.


Still not clear, I'm afraid.
[/quote]

This was originally a reply to fongiel_24 who stated that Cerberus methods were needed to help protect humanity from 'underhanded' methods by aliens. So I was asking for a reasoning other than "the ends justify the means", which I consider to be jingoistic.

[quote]
While I can technically agree with you about Teltin, how can you say that Overlord was a rogue operation? And I keep bringing them up because of what occurred at those two sites. One was the toture, experimentation of children to *try* and make powerful biotics. The other was very near to being a galaxy-wide disaster that would have crippled civilization. [/quote]And neither of them were sanctioned Cerberus policy. In Teltin they hid their actions from TIM and Cerberus, undeniable indications of wrongdoing. In Overlord, Asher admits to not having told TIM what he was doing (intending to brief it in a later, never realized presentation), and we also hear that he defied rules to do so.
[/quote]

I consider Teltin to have gone "rogue", even from TIM, however, my point about it was the atrocities commited.

[quote]
Being comfortable does not mean not accepting. It never has.
[/quote]

I fail to see the difference. If you are comfortable about something then you are accepting of whatever the consequences of an action are/were.


[quote]
Utility has a morality all of its own. We, as a civilization, already accept that smaller evils now are justified to prevent larger evils later: the imposition of restrictions on what we can do in the name of safety, the right for governments to maintain and use armies, romanticised vigilantiism in culture. Differences in acceptablitiliy will always be argued, but greater threats allow for greater costs.
[/quote]

Civilization accepts that smaller evils will always happen and there are times were a smaller evil now can be used to try and prevent a larger evil later. But what greater threat is Cerberus *protecting* humanity from, other than the *evil* races that inhabit the galaxy?

Does humanity need powerful biotics? The answer should be yes and researching that is a good thing. The same goes for the Geth problem which Overlord tried addressing. But time and time again Cerberus, in their *efforts* to protect humanity commit inhumane acts against humans! Humanity isn't facing a potential crisis vs anyone (reapers excluded), so why the need for those actions?

[quote]
How did Lazarus experiement go too far? Firewalker? The Arc Projector project? Cerberus armor? TIM's spy net? 
[/quote]

Amazingly they had some non-disastrous successes, this is true. 

[quote]
Hell, how were experiments on Thorians too far? Thorians are just thralls.
[/quote]

Thorians weren't even human any more either and I never counted that one.

[fongiel24]

Ryzaki wrote...

^I wish Paragon Shep could find that list. The epic blackmail opportunities alone...

Honestly at this point my Shep's given up on the council, Cerberus, and the alliance. He just wants to be left the hell alone.

If my Paragon Shep found this list, she might be tempted just to post it on the extranet. Given what we've seen of the Alliance thus far, I'm not impressed. It might be time to clean house.

[Ryzaki]

fongiel24 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

^I wish Paragon Shep could find that list. The epic blackmail opportunities alone...

Honestly at this point my Shep's given up on the council, Cerberus, and the alliance. He just wants to be left the hell alone.

If my Paragon Shep found this list, she might be tempted just to post it on the extranet. Given what we've seen of the Alliance thus far, I'm not impressed. It might be time to clean house.

True that. Its why I let Kasumi keep her Greybox. You never know when you might need it. 

[Xilizhra]

I agree. If the Alliance is infected that deeply, perhaps it needs purging.