302 réponses à ce sujet

[Stazro]

Inverness Moon: I'm sorry that my choice of words upset you. I shouldn't have spoken as polemically as I did and I see that now. I thought it was a good way to get people out of their "comfort zones", but it may have been too much.



I didn't mean to say TIM was the same or close to Hitler, but they climb on the same ladder, with a number of rungs between them. No one doubts that somewhere on that ladder Hitler overstepped the boundary of what can be justified and what cannot (the fact that this is common sense was the reason I brought him up in the first place).

The question is, on which heigth of the ladder that boundary lies. What we know is that TIM and with him Cerberus have no qualms with comitting murder and torture and a diverse assortment of other crimes in numerous instances. That is fact and needn't really to be discussed. There are, however, those among the "Cerberus apologists" according to whom all these crimes don't matter, because they were justified.

That brings me back to the question: If all of that is still "OK", on which rung of the ladder would you put the limit, after which there is no more justification? We know there is a limit, there has to be a limit, because else we could commit any atrocity in the book till we reach the top of the ladder and still claim it's all for the greater good.

[Zulu_DFA]

Cerberus is bad? What do you mean "bad"?

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 29 novembre 2010 - 09:37 .

[Inverness Moon]

Stazro wrote...

Inverness Moon: I'm sorry that my choice of words upset you. I shouldn't have spoken as polemically as I did and I see that now. I thought it was a good way to get people out of their "comfort zones", but it may have been too much.

I didn't mean to say TIM was the same or close to Hitler, but they climb on the same ladder, with a number of rungs between them. No one doubts that somewhere on that ladder Hitler overstepped the boundary of what can be justified and what cannot (the fact that this is common sense was the reason I brought him up in the first place).
The question is, on which heigth of the ladder that boundary lies. What we know is that TIM and with him Cerberus have no qualms with comitting murder and torture and a diverse assortment of other crimes in numerous instances. That is fact and needn't really to be discussed. There are, however, those among the "Cerberus apologists" according to whom all these crimes don't matter, because they were justified.
That brings me back to the question: If all of that is still "OK", on which rung of the ladder would you put the limit, after which there is no more justification? We know there is a limit, there has to be a limit, because else we could commit any atrocity in the book till we reach the top of the ladder and still claim it's all for the greater good.

Consider this: what can not be justified in order to prevent galactic extinction?

Because the whole situation is very simple for me. Since the Battle of the Citadel, Cerberus has made an invaluable contribution to the fight against the reapers. You can hate what they've done all you want, but if it turns out all of that was necessary to bring back Shepard and help stop the reapers then it is all justified in my opinion.

Cerberus did what they did because they believed a significant threat to humanity existed in one form or another in the present or the future. The reapers proved them right. Now then, when we talk about justification of their actions, we're no longer talking about theories, morals, philosophy, or whatever, we're talking about facts.

People who talk theoretically about what horrible actions can be justified and what can't aren't the ones facing extinction.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 30 novembre 2010 - 05:10 .

[BrandNewMan]

Wikileaks is clearly a subsidiary of Cerberus.

[tywinsregards]

Inverness Moon wrote...

Stazro wrote...

Inverness Moon: I'm sorry that my choice of words upset you. I shouldn't have spoken as polemically as I did and I see that now. I thought it was a good way to get people out of their "comfort zones", but it may have been too much.

I didn't mean to say TIM was the same or close to Hitler, but they climb on the same ladder, with a number of rungs between them. No one doubts that somewhere on that ladder Hitler overstepped the boundary of what can be justified and what cannot (the fact that this is common sense was the reason I brought him up in the first place).
The question is, on which heigth of the ladder that boundary lies. What we know is that TIM and with him Cerberus have no qualms with comitting murder and torture and a diverse assortment of other crimes in numerous instances. That is fact and needn't really to be discussed. There are, however, those among the "Cerberus apologists" according to whom all these crimes don't matter, because they were justified.
That brings me back to the question: If all of that is still "OK", on which rung of the ladder would you put the limit, after which there is no more justification? We know there is a limit, there has to be a limit, because else we could commit any atrocity in the book till we reach the top of the ladder and still claim it's all for the greater good.

Consider this: what can not be justified in order to prevent galactic extinction?

Because the whole situation is very simple for me. Since the Battle of the Citadel, Cerberus has made an invaluable contribution to the fight against the reapers. You can hate what they've done all you want, but if it turns out all of that was necessary to bring back Shepard and help stop the reapers then it is all justified in my opinion.

Cerberus did what they did because they believed a significant threat to humanity existed in one form or another in the present or the future. The reapers proved them right. Now then, when we talk about justification of their actions, we're no longer talking about theories, morals, philosophy, or whatever, we're talking about facts.

People who talk theoretically about what horrible actions can be justified and what can't aren't the ones facing extinction.

Exactly and quite frankly if u wanna call anybody hitler, i'd start with the STG or the turians. Genophage?seriously??

[Schneidend]

"Bad"? No. "Misguided?" Much more accurate.



But, with my Shep on board, Cerberus is doing whatever it takes to save the galaxy from cybernetic space Cthulus.

[BluSoldier]

Landon Frost wrote...

I haven't read the books... but in ME2 I would say they are not bad.. just more pro-active and working very aggressively. I would much rather be on a Cerberus ship than an Alliance one... (based only on the games. Not the books).

That is because they are trying to turn you to their side.  My Shepard bashed Cerberus and helped the Alliance whenever possible.

[Terraneaux]

Schneidend wrote...

"Bad"? No. "Misguided?" Much more accurate.

But, with my Shep on board, Cerberus is doing whatever it takes to save the galaxy from cybernetic space Cthulus.

As opposed to TIM's plan, which involved performing experiments on live humans to see how acid worked.  I don't know, maybe he should have asked a chemist.

[Inverness Moon]

Terraneaux wrote...

Schneidend wrote...

"Bad"? No. "Misguided?" Much more accurate.

But, with my Shep on board, Cerberus is doing whatever it takes to save the galaxy from cybernetic space Cthulus.

As opposed to TIM's plan, which involved performing experiments on live humans to see how acid worked.  I don't know, maybe he should have asked a chemist.

This is a good example of how people make stuff up when they don't have all the facts in order to picture Cerberus the way that they want.

[Dean_the_Young]

Is Cerberus bad? Yes. Worse? Not compared to the Reapers, the Spectres, or the Council.



Big problems first. The omni-genocidal aliens, and then the accepted genocide-policy aliens and their official right of execution, torture, or whatever-the-heck-they-want. Unethical xeno-nationalist scientists already criminalized and hunted are far lower down on the 'should be brought to justice for the harm they've done' chain.

[Dean_the_Young]

And I hope we aren't still comparing a man who believed in an entirely imaginary, non-existent superiority complex and wanted to enslave or kill everyone who was not part of that group to a man who favors a demonstrated, real, practical ability but has made no such claims or movements to enslave or kill everyone who is not part of the group.



Because that is a really, really stupid analogy when the basis of comparison when subjects H and T is that H believes in something that doesn't exist or provide any such benefit and wanted to kill or enslave everyone who doesn't qualify, while subject T believes in something that does exist and provide real, tangible benefits and has not made any indication of wanting to kill or enslave anyone who doesn't qualify.

[Dean_the_Young]

BluSoldier wrote...

Landon Frost wrote...

I haven't read the books... but in ME2 I would say they are not bad.. just more pro-active and working very aggressively. I would much rather be on a Cerberus ship than an Alliance one... (based only on the games. Not the books).

That is because they are trying to turn you to their side.  My Shepard bashed Cerberus and helped the Alliance whenever possible.

...which helps Cerberus objectives, which include a better Alliance.

So really, you bashed Cerberus and then did their desires anyway.

[Klimy]

Bad - no, more like very evil fascist extremists. They should be annihilated in ME3.

[Dean_the_Young]

Besides the whole fascism part, at least.

[Barquiel]

Yes, they are bad...



I certainly hope we get a chance to dismantle cerberus in ME3 (or at least a chance to replace TIM)

[mosor]

I actually trust TIM more than most characters. He doesn't hide what he is or his goals. Besides, he smokes and drinks. You can't trust someone who doesn't drink.

[tywinsregards]

mosor wrote...

I actually trust TIM more than most characters. He doesn't hide what he is or his goals. Besides, he smokes and drinks. You can't trust someone who doesn't drink.

besides the drinking part, thats why i trust TIM more than a lot charcters. Cerberus and TIM are the type of group that will blately tell you that they want something done for watever reason while the alliance will tell you to do something, forget to mention the person that u meet is a complete a-hole and terrorist, and forget to tell you they wanted him dead( lord darius). There similar to ONI in halo and i dont see too many people saying that there actions were unjustified.

[Lord Zeuss]

@OP - Yes. That is all.

[Boondoxx]

The ends justify the means

[miltos33]

They are definitely ruthless but not necessarily bad.

[Maderas_]

The dilemma I think BioWare wants to present is that certain situations don't allow for fairytale delusions. Sometimes idealism has to give way to realism if you want to preserve more than your own conscience. The world isn't black and white, et cetera. I think they took it a bit too far with Cerberus and some of their nigh comic-bookish acts of villainy, but it provides for an interesting venue. I want my paragon to suffer negative consequences for some of his naive decisions the same way my renegade suffers for his unnecessarily ruthless ones. I doubt it will happen since it would anger the large subset of RPG enthusiasts who think playing anything outside the just and virtuous path in a video game makes them bad people in real life, but I can hope.

All that said, I find these arguments a tad silly. It's easy to debate morality whilst comfortably seated in front of a computer monitor, but most of us live comparatively pampered existences and wouldn't ever be in a position to actually exercise that supposed moral fiber. I don't think anybody ever truly knows what their scruples are until they're forced into an extreme situation and have to challenge them.

Also, I don't get the **** cross referencing. If you know enough about the Holocaust that you want to evoke it to trigger a shame response in the person you're debating, then you ought to know that it's distasteful and, frankly, disrespectful to make comparisons to things the ****s did in real life to things that happen in a fictional video game.

EDIT: "****" is censored now? Change it to "those guys who ran Germany during World War II", I guess.

Modifié par Maderas_, 04 décembre 2010 - 10:22 .

[Code_R]

I guess it depends whether you think torture, experiments and all the rest of their dealings are good or not. The ends don't justify the means, that's why being Paragon is less fun but doesnt stoop to their level, or Sarens level, or whoever... I hope we get to specterise TIMs whole operation in ME3.

[Ahglock]

Code_R wrote...

I guess it depends whether you think torture, experiments and all the rest of their dealings are good or not. The ends don't justify the means, that's why being Paragon is less fun but doesnt stoop to their level, or Sarens level, or whoever... I hope we get to specterise TIMs whole operation in ME3.

The end justifty the means is not an on off proposition.  Yeah normally they don't but at certain scales of danager they do.  Like galactic extinction.

The issue is for much if not most of Cerebus's activities we talk about they had no idea about the galactic extinction so it is irrelevant for the discourse of morality.  The people bringing up the galactic extinction argument for anything in ME1 are basically saying if I went to a day care centre and threw in explosives to kill my nonexistent kids because if I can't have them no one can I'd be a good guy if unknown to me a guy about to set off a bigger bomb which would kill more people was hiding in there and I killed him before he could remote detonate it.  No, I'm still evil but a lucky event just saved some people. 

[Commandant Bob]

The question is whether torturing or murdering people is the ONLY way to stop the Reapers. If yes, then Cerberus is justified and not "bad", because they had good intentions.

However, good intentions are only part of what make you good. Trying to find the best way to do things also counts.

For an example, think back to KOTOR... if i see a couple of punks beating up some Ithorian, and my first reaction is to shoot the kids(well, if i could), i would be bad, because i made no effort to find a better way to solve the problem. Likewise, Cerberus should look for alternative methods of problem solving.

[Ahglock]

Commandant Bob wrote...

The question is whether torturing or murdering people is the ONLY way to stop the Reapers. If yes, then Cerberus is justified and not "bad", because they had good intentions.
However, good intentions are only part of what make you good. Trying to find the best way to do things also counts.
For an example, think back to KOTOR... if i see a couple of punks beating up some Ithorian, and my first reaction is to shoot the kids(well, if i could), i would be bad, because i made no effort to find a better way to solve the problem. Likewise, Cerberus should look for alternative methods of problem solving.

When you are talking galactic extinction is it the only way is a bit too high of a standard.  The question is does it improve your chances.  The problem with is it the only way ideas is it is only apparent in 20/20 hindsight.   You go full paragon and win and yopu can say, look I still won and did not sacrifice my beleifs.  That is awesome when it works out, but if you lost saying  I did not sacrifice my beliefs is little consolation to the trillions of lives lost.   Before the event occurs you only have what is my best shot.

End of ME1 is a perfect exmaple of this.  Go for save everyone like a paragon, or go with the highest shot of victory like a renegade.  Personally I think the paragon way was grossly irresponsible, but everyone is different.  So in ME1 the renegade choice isn't the only way to win, but before oyu make your decisio  you have basically 2 options.  1.  Try to save everyone but have a higher chance of losing everyone.  2.  Sacrifice some but have a higher chance of not losing everyone.  In Me1 I think it was a bit skewed because the sacrifice some was a minute fraction of the total population. 

So when it comes to cerberus action that actually were intended to help in the fight against the reapers. Is it possible to save more people with a different strategy, maybe.  Bt if it has a higher chance of losing everyone, is it really worth keeping your values?  Probably not.