302 réponses à ce sujet

[Ahglock]

MrFob wrote...

Inverness Moon wrote...

*snipped for length*

As for the rest of that stuff, you can hardly ask whether or not those actions were worth it without all the facts.

As for all of it, that is exactly the problem. Maybe these action would be justified if they were taken in desperation. With some crisis at hand that leaves noone a choice (I'd rather avoid it but who knows).

The problem with cerberus is, it commits to disgusting acts of violence and unethical practices without being forced to do so. Pragia was apprx 15-20 years ago. There was no big threat to humanity then. Same goes for Akuze. When Cerberus infected colonists, bread Rachni and killed Kahoku in ME1, the illusive man was not aware of the reaper threat (TIM doesn't know what exactly happened at the citadel at the beginning of Ascension which is after the end of ME1). The actions against the quarians and the violation of Gillian is not some desperate attempt to save humanity. In the book, TIM quite clearly commits to this operation for one reason alone: the accumulation for power.
Even if you would postulate that he sees the other galactic races as a threat to humanity, there is a political system and diplomatic relations in place by the time he does all of that. That is like a nation on earth today performing horrible experiments, political assassinations and acts of terror and violence because they want to gain an advantage over everybody else. If that is not wrong, then I am glad you are not a world leader (well, I hope you are not (joking here, not insulting) ).
Also, if you read the passages of Retribution that are written from TIMs point of view, the priorities of the man become quite clear and it is certainly not the good of all (not even all of humanity).

So yeah, to sum up, the argument "the ends justify the means" is not valid because there are no "honorable" or even reasonable ends to cerberus actions. It is simply an institution that is omitted to the power of one species, possibly even one man and is willing to violently trample down any and all resistance to achieve that goal. I oppose such an attitude.

Yeah that is the problem with the vast
majority of cerebus actions being justified.  The reapers were
not around yet, so you don't need to take super unethical actions in
order to survive.  Basically you have to justify the actions
based more on the idea of putting humans at least on an equal stage
to other races in the galaxies politics etc.  And unless
the books add a lot there isn't much detail on this.  What is the
fate/role of humans in the galaxy pre-shepard saving the universe. 
Are they like a colony or puerto rico, or are they more like
apartheid victims etc. The latter seems unliekly so the extreme measures don't seem justified to me. 

[Landon Frost]

Ahglock wrote...

Landon Frost wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

Phaedon wrote...


Actually, joint research operations (and gifting ships) are a very diplomatic move and it's used even today.
Especially for the turians who are like 'Well, lol, sorry for the Relay 314 incident"

You generally don't gift the most advanced something in the universe as part of diplomacy.  If the turians were in a point of uncondisional surrender sure, but when they are amoung the top dogs who quite frankly don't even really like the humans I don't see them giving their best tech and the best ship out there.  Joint research sure, but not their best stuff and the research would end up in their hands if they were the primary contributors.  The humans would have gained technical knowledge without the actual end device if they were providing less.  Stil valuable and worth while, but not getting more than the other party. 

The Turians worked with the Alliance as part of a joint effort.  I believe the Council agreed to aiding with the Normandy construction, which meant the Turians (as the primary council military) were told to cooperate.

It still does not track that they would build and gift to the allaince the most advanced ship in the universe.  It makes more sense that they contibuted but much if not all the most advanced parts came from the people who kept it.  The turians don't like huimans they think they are trying to take too big of place in the galaxy and then you give them the most advanced ship in the galaxy helping them take a bigger place?  Possible, sure.  But I think it is more likely that humans who have access to science but who are not constrianed by hundreads of years of preconceived notions of what is possible thinks outside the box and creates the snazzy parts like the drive and cloaking. 

The Tantalus drive core is a human invention, no turian involved.  Turians were only involved in the design and layout of the Normandy, not the ingenius technologies involved in its constructions.  You learn this when you talk to Tali, who commends Humanity on its innovation and unique ability to adapt existing technology to new heights.  Mass effect drives have been in use by the council races for far longer than humans.  But humans are the ones that adapted the larger core to a smaller vessel.  For that matter, humans are the ones that brought the use of fighter craft to the council races.

[Ahglock]

Landon Frost wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

Landon Frost wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

Phaedon wrote...


Actually, joint research operations (and gifting ships) are a very diplomatic move and it's used even today.
Especially for the turians who are like 'Well, lol, sorry for the Relay 314 incident"

You generally don't gift the most advanced something in the universe as part of diplomacy.  If the turians were in a point of uncondisional surrender sure, but when they are amoung the top dogs who quite frankly don't even really like the humans I don't see them giving their best tech and the best ship out there.  Joint research sure, but not their best stuff and the research would end up in their hands if they were the primary contributors.  The humans would have gained technical knowledge without the actual end device if they were providing less.  Stil valuable and worth while, but not getting more than the other party. 

The Turians worked with the Alliance as part of a joint effort.  I believe the Council agreed to aiding with the Normandy construction, which meant the Turians (as the primary council military) were told to cooperate.

It still does not track that they would build and gift to the allaince the most advanced ship in the universe.  It makes more sense that they contibuted but much if not all the most advanced parts came from the people who kept it.  The turians don't like huimans they think they are trying to take too big of place in the galaxy and then you give them the most advanced ship in the galaxy helping them take a bigger place?  Possible, sure.  But I think it is more likely that humans who have access to science but who are not constrianed by hundreads of years of preconceived notions of what is possible thinks outside the box and creates the snazzy parts like the drive and cloaking. 

The Tantalus drive core is a human invention, no turian involved.  Turians were only involved in the design and layout of the Normandy, not the ingenius technologies involved in its constructions.  You learn this when you talk to Tali, who commends Humanity on its innovation and unique ability to adapt existing technology to new heights.  Mass effect drives have been in use by the council races for far longer than humans.  But humans are the ones that adapted the larger core to a smaller vessel.  For that matter, humans are the ones that brought the use of fighter craft to the council races.

Okay then you and I are on the same page then I think.  Though I did not remember that conversation with Tali.  My only comment was based on the degree of involvement from the turians and humans.  Some think the turians invented more of the ship than humans did, others including me think humans probably invented more of the core super secret systems.  Sorry for any confusion. 

[MadCat221]

I recall reading somewhere that fighters were used by the Citadel races before humanity came onto the scene, just not as a mainstay like humans did. That's what took the Turians aback in the second battle of Shanxi: They got zerg-rushed by the sheer number of fighters and their point defense systems just couldn't keep up.

Modifié par MadCat221, 23 novembre 2010 - 06:01 .

[Landon Frost]

Maybe it was that only humans used carriers then? I dunno.. point is fighters were not a big thing until humans showed what a massive support they were.

[The_11thDoctor]

Cerberus=BAD.



Read the books and play the games... Cerberus= BAD. Yes they have humanity in mind, but their methods are cruel. There are some Cerberus agents that arent so bad, but most are cut throats. If it wasnt for the galaxy needing saving, Shepard wouldnt have joined them, period! The Alliance was too busy sticking their head in the sand and Shep was forced to work with them.

[Inverness Moon]

Ahglock wrote...

Yeah that is the problem with the vast majority of cerebus actions being justified.  The reapers were not around yet, so you don't need to take super unethical actions in order to survive.  Basically you have to justify the actions based more on the idea of putting humans at least on an equal stage to other races in the galaxies politics etc.  And unless the books add a lot there isn't much detail on this.  What is the fate/role of humans in the galaxy pre-shepard saving the universe.  Are they like a colony or puerto rico, or are they more like apartheid victims etc. The latter seems unliekly so the extreme measures don't seem justified to me. 

It doesn't matter if the reapers were known at the time, because Cerberus predicted a threat to humanity whether that be a military threat or a cultural threat. The reapers simply verified their beliefs. I'm sure many people dismissed Cerberus because they thought humanity was fine and there was nothing to worry about that warranted such extreme measures. Once they find out about the reapers and how Cerberus faced the problem head on instead of dismissing it, they're going to think twice.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

aang001 wrote...

Cerberus=BAD.

Read the books and play the games... Cerberus= BAD. Yes they have humanity in mind, but their methods are cruel. There are some Cerberus agents that arent so bad, but most are cut throats. If it wasnt for the galaxy needing saving, Shepard wouldnt have joined them, period! The Alliance was too busy sticking their head in the sand and Shep was forced to work with them.

They're a black ops, paramilitary group. All of the races have a form of Cerberus. Also, calling agents cut throats isn't necessarily a bad thing. I personally desire the black ops group advancing my interests to be cut throat.

[HopHazzard]

Inverness Moon wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

Yeah that is the problem with the vast majority of cerebus actions being justified.  The reapers were not around yet, so you don't need to take super unethical actions in order to survive.  Basically you have to justify the actions based more on the idea of putting humans at least on an equal stage to other races in the galaxies politics etc.  And unless the books add a lot there isn't much detail on this.  What is the fate/role of humans in the galaxy pre-shepard saving the universe.  Are they like a colony or puerto rico, or are they more like apartheid victims etc. The latter seems unliekly so the extreme measures don't seem justified to me. 

It doesn't matter if the reapers were known at the time, because Cerberus predicted a threat to humanity whether that be a military threat or a cultural threat. The reapers simply verified their beliefs. I'm sure many people dismissed Cerberus because they thought humanity was fine and there was nothing to worry about that warranted such extreme measures. Once they find out about the reapers and how Cerberus faced the problem head on instead of dismissing it, they're going to think twice.

All that means is that Cerberus had foresight. That doesn't make them good. Good at what they do, yes. Good from a moral standpoint? Not so much.

[Phaedon]

[quote]Ahglock wrote...
You generally don't gift the most advanced something in the universe as part of diplomacy.  If the turians were in a point of uncondisional surrender sure, but when they are amoung the top dogs who quite frankly don't even really like the humans I don't see them giving their best tech and the best ship out there.  Joint research sure, but not their best stuff and the research would end up in their hands if they were the primary contributors.  The humans would have gained technical knowledge without the actual end device if they were providing less.  Stil valuable and worth while, but not getting more than the other party. 

[/quote]

Most advanced ? The Normandy is just a frigate, with the ability to hide it's heat emissions. They can still see look out of a window or find her with ladar in close range. Really, why are people giving so much credit to the Normandy or the Thanix ?

[quote]That isn't even their second objective. TIM's primary objective is to protect the future of humanity, to do this he believes humans need to become the dominant force in the galaxy. This does not mean humans need to conquer or rule it. This also need not come at the expense of anyone else. A perfect example is the collector base which could make humanity the most advanced species in the galaxy without even having to bother with other race. So long as that technology is used for self-defense I see no problem with it.

Many people think TIM wants himself or humans to rule the galaxy and oppress other species or whatever, but those courses of action do not line up with TIM's goals for obvious reasons.[/quote]
The bolded text shows that you answered to yourself. If you want to be dominant, you have to dominate, politically or not. And ah, yes 'self defence', like Ministry of 'Defence' ? And considering what Cerberus has managed to do with just a handgun and a scapel, I say no. 

[quote]I don't see how this is related to what I said. But here is an excerpt: "In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society. Describing morality in this way is not making a claim about what is objectively right or wrong, but only referring to what is considered right or wrong by people. For the most part right and wrong acts are classified as such because they are thought to cause benefit or harm, but it is possible that many moral beliefs are based on prejudice, ignorance or even hatred. This sense of the term is addressed by descriptive ethics."[/quote]
You said it yourself in the end. Morals are based on the members of society, and if you want to put it that way 'social taboos'. With morals themselves, you have a limited freedom, yes, stuff like 'doing drugs' can be perceived as either morally good or bad, whereas, killing people is bad. And it seems to me that the latter is what Cerberus is doing.

The limited freedom of morals doesn't exist in the written version of them; law. But that's another story.

[quote]Phaedon wrote...

Was Pragia good ?
Was Overlord good ?
Was Akuze good ?
Was unleashing harmful radiation and killing colonists good ?
Was Ascension good ?
Was planting people with Reaper parts good ?
Was killing marines good ?
Was killing Kahoku good ?
Was attacking a fleet filled with millions of innocents good ?
Was the political assasination good ?

No.

The ends don't justify the means, it is the means that justify the ends.[/quote]The ends certainly do justify the means in this case. The end is the prevention of galactic genocide.

I can't rate the success of Pragia since we don't know what Cerberus got out of it beyond Jack and how that data is being used.

Overlord certainly had good intentions. We already saw the damage the heretic geth did to the Citadel, what could be next?

Implanting Grayson with reaper technology was completely justified as far as I'm concerned considering we have yet to figure out a way to fight or even defeat the reapers.

Cerberus also did not "attack a fleet filled with millions of innocents," they attacked a single ship in a surgical operation. Exaggeration does not make you any more credible. If Cerberus wanted to kill a bunch of quarians they would have used their opportunity to attack one of the liveships with a nuke or something.

As for the rest of that stuff, you can hardly ask whether or not those actions were worth it without all the facts.[/quote]
And that is what TIM wants you to believe.

Out of this list:
[quote]Was Pragia good ?
Was Overlord good ?
Was Akuze good ?
Was unleashing harmful radiation and killing colonists good ?
Was Ascension good ?
Was planting people with Reaper parts good ?
Was killing marines good ?
Was killing Kahoku good ?
Was attacking a fleet filled with millions of innocents good ?
Was the political assasination good ?[/quote]

The red stuff had nothing to do with the Reapers, so the 'Let's kill people to prevent genocide' is out. It is bad. There are no more facts. You have the facts.

Means? Abduction, torture and murder of children. Ends ? A single biotic.
Means? Murder of soldiers who enlisted on the SA to protect their family on earth. Ends ? Testing a trap ? I really can't see an end noble enough for mass murder.
Means? Destruction of a colony, countless victims. Ends ? A few good biotics.
Means? Abduction of a kid. Ends ? A single biotic.
Means? Same as Akuze.
Means? Torture and murder of an admiral who tried to find who killed his men. Ends ? Getting away with mass murder.
Means? Attack on a flotilla full of millions of innocents. Ends ? Getting a single man.
Means? Murder. Ends? Putting an extremist as the head of a political party.

Distinguishing between good and evil doesn't get any easier. 

Modifié par Phaedon, 23 novembre 2010 - 06:05 .

[Inverness Moon]

HopHazzard wrote...

All that means is that Cerberus had foresight. That doesn't make them good. Good at what they do, yes. Good from a moral standpoint? Not so much.

I don't care if they're good from a moral standpoint, since morals are relative. What I care about is that they're good from a preventing galactic extinction standpoint, which they are.

But, like I said before, I don't think its very moral to not take steps necessary to prevent galactic extinction.

Phaedon wrote...

The bolded text shows that you answered to yourself. If you want to be dominant, you have to dominate, politically or not. And ah, yes 'self defence', like Ministry of 'Defence' ? And considering what Cerberus has managed to do with just a handgun and a scapel, I say no. 

Answered myself? I wasn't asking a question, I was telling you that "human dominance" does not mean ruling the galaxy through military force as some like to assume. That is an illogical course of action.

Secondly, the Alliance is the military force of humanity in the galaxy. Technology necessary for protecting humanity and Earth through force is going to go to the Alliance since they're the ones with the fleets. I'm not at all worried about them deciding to start conquering the galaxy any more than I would have expected the United States to begin conquering the world after WW2 since it was the only country with a nuke.

Phaedon wrote...

You said it yourself in the end. Morals are based on the members of society, and if you want to put it that way 'social taboos'. With morals themselves, you have a limited freedom, yes, stuff like 'doing drugs' can be perceived as either morally good or bad, whereas, killing people is bad. And it seems to me that the latter is what Cerberus is doing.

The limited freedom of morals doesn't exist in the written version of them; law. But that's another story.

Morals are relative, as I said before. People are always going to have different opinions on what Cerberus is doing because of that. But what Cerberus is doing is attempting to prevent galactic extinction, which makes them good in my book.

Phaedon wrote...

And that is what TIM wants you to believe.

Proof?

Phaedon wrote...
Out of this list:

Was Pragia good ?
Was Overlord good ?
Was Akuze good ?
Was unleashing harmful radiation and killing colonists good ?
Was Ascension good ?
Was planting people with Reaper parts good ?
Was killing marines good ?
Was killing Kahoku good ?
Was attacking a fleet filled with millions of innocents good ?
Was the political assasination good ?

The red stuff had nothing to do with the Reapers, so the 'Let's kill people to prevent genocide' is out. It is bad. There are no more facts. You have the facts.

Means? Abduction, torture and murder of children. Ends ? A single biotic.
Means? Murder of soldiers who enlisted on the SA to protect their family on earth. Ends ? Testing a trap ? I really can't see an end noble enough for mass murder.
Means? Destruction of a colony, countless victims. Ends ? A few good biotics.
Means? Abduction of a kid. Ends ? A single biotic.
Means? Same as Akuze.
Means? Torture and murder of an admiral who tried to find who killed his men. Ends ? Getting away with mass murder.
Means? Attack on a flotilla full of millions of innocents. Ends ? Getting a single man.
Means? Murder. Ends? Putting an extremist as the head of a political party.

Distinguishing between good and evil doesn't get any easier. 

Everything Cerberus does has to do with protecting humanity from a perceived threat. The reapers are the threat they predicted.

You also don't know if Jack was all they got out of the Pragia experiment, that is even highly unlikely.

Also, describing Akuze as "murder of soldiers who enlisted on the SA to protect their family on earth." Is you making an unfounded assumption about their motives in order to try to support your argument. That does not help your credibility.

I also already explained to you that Cerberus attacked a single ship in the flotilla. Patching on "millions of innocents" is just another way for you to try to support your argument with an inaccurate emotional appeal.

I have no interest in arguing with you if you can't do it logically and honestly.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 23 novembre 2010 - 07:51 .

[Phaedon]

Inverness Moon wrote...
I don't care if they're good from a moral standpoint, since morals are relative. What I care about is that they're good from a preventing galactic extinction standpoint, which they are.

But, like I said before, I don't think its very moral to not take steps necessary to prevent galactic extinction.

Morals are not entirely relative. You only have limited freedom in defining 'good' and 'bad'. I knew this was going to happen. We are going to argue over what is good or bad, then start questioning TIM's knowledge of certain Cerberus projects etc etc, this has happened countless times before. Let's leave semantics out of this please.

Answered myself? I wasn't asking a question, I was telling you that "human dominance" does not mean ruling the galaxy through military force as some like to assume. That is an illogical course of action.

Secondly, the Alliance is the military force of humanity in the galaxy. Technology necessary for protecting humanity and Earth through force is going to go to the Alliance since they're the ones with the fleets. I'm not at all worried about them deciding to start conquering the galaxy any more than I would have expected the United States to begin conquering the world after WW2 since it was the only country with a nuke.

I still think that you contradicted yourself. Political domination can not be good for all parties involved. By definition, a single party gets the majority of the power. There have already been problems with the human-led council.

Morals are relative, as I said before. People are always going to have different opinions on what Cerberus is doing because of that. But what Cerberus is doing is attempting to prevent galactic extinction, which makes them good in my book.

Not entirely. Complete failure to distinguish bad from good is a serious issue. And how exactly did they foresee the 'galactic extinction' ?

Everything Cerberus does has to do with protecting humanity from a perceived threat. The reapers are the threat they predicted.

I'll go abduct children, it will save humanity some day. Again, how does this have something to do with the Reapers ? I see that you introduced the 'Cerberus foresaw the Reapers' plan to destroy organic life' concept recently in an attempt to explain that. How ? Proof ?

You also don't know if Jack was all they got out of the Pragia experiment, that is even highly unlikely.

So ? Facts are facts. They abducted children, tortured them and tried to force them into fighting in order to produce biotics. What does the quantity of the product change ?

Also, describing Akuze as "murder of soldiers who enlisted on the SA to protect their family on earth." Is you making an unfounded assumption about their motives in order to try to support your argument. That does not help your credibility.

Why did they enlist to the army then ? Anyway, if we are going to argue about this too, let me change it to 'murder of soldiers who enlisted on the SA'. So ?

I also already explained to you that Cerberus attacked a single ship in the flotilla. Patching on "millions of innocents" is just another way for you to try to support your argument with an inaccurate emotional appeal.

I have no interest in arguing with you if you can't do it logically and honestly.

A flotilla is usually in a close formation, but let's say that you are right. How does that make it good ?
(Not to mention that a single ship contains several innocents)

[Inverness Moon]

Phaedon wrote...

Morals are not entirely relative. You only have limited freedom in defining 'good' and 'bad'. I knew this was going to happen. We are going to argue over what is good or bad, then start questioning TIM's knowledge of certain Cerberus projects etc etc, this has happened countless times before. Let's leave semantics out of this please.

Yes, morals are entirely relative because what may be good for someone may be bad for someone else and vice versa. That is all I'm going to say on the matter.

Phaedon wrote...

I still think that you contradicted yourself. Political domination can not be good for all parties involved. By definition, a single party gets the majority of the power. There have already been problems with the human-led council.

I didn't suggest that political domination was the goal or the right way to go.

Phaedon wrote...

Not entirely. Complete failure to distinguish bad from good is a serious issue. And how exactly did they foresee the 'galactic extinction' ?

I'll go abduct children, it will save humanity some day. Again, how does this have something to do with the Reapers ? I see that you introduced the 'Cerberus foresaw the Reapers' plan to destroy organic life' concept recently in an attempt to explain that. How ? Proof ?

I never said that Cerberus foresaw the reapers or galactic extinction specifically, but rather they foresaw a threat to humanity whether that be a military threat or a cultural one.

The reapers most certainly qualify as a threat, but of much greater magnitude than Cerberus could have imagined.

Phaedon wrote...

So ? Facts are facts. They abducted children, tortured them and tried to force them into fighting in order to produce biotics. What does the quantity of the product change ?

I was talking about what research they could have gotten out of the project, not necessarily people. I also was not suggesting that those results changed anything, but rather denying your assumption that Jack herself was the only thing that resulted from Pragia.

Food for thought: I don't think many details were revealed about the L5x or L5n implants that you use if you have biotics.

Phaedon wrote...

Why did they enlist to the army then ? Anyway, if we are going to argue about this too, let me change it to 'murder of soldiers who enlisted on the SA'. So ?

I don't know, so I'm not going to make assumptions in order to try to emotionally enhance my argument. I think that is dishonest.

Phaedon wrote...

A flotilla is usually in a close formation, but let's say that you are right. How does that make it good ?
(Not to mention that a single ship contains several innocents)

I'm not saying anything was good, I'm denying your use of fallacious logic. I corrected you on that point once before and you did it again. You have nothing on which to base your assumption that more ships or "millions of innocents" would have been in danger from the Cerberus operation.

[Phaedon]

Eh, this is the part that we start posting furious replies that lead to personal attacks.

I say we skip this part and try to actually produce a debate with an actual result. Our last couple of posts were arguing over semantics,without really introducing new arguments, which is pretty immature. 

So is Cerberus "bad" ? 
Do you agree that their operations that we have heard of until now where "bad" ? Productive or not, they were essentially bad. I am willing to agree that Cerberus is helpful, a necessary evil, at least until before LotSB. So are they "bad" ? Should we accept the previous statements, morally they are, whereas practically they are useful. They brought Shepard back, and built the new Normandy.

Modifié par Phaedon, 23 novembre 2010 - 10:54 .

[Inverness Moon]

Phaedon wrote...

Eh, this is the part that we start posting furious replies that lead to personal attacks.

I say we skip this part and try to actually produce a debate with an actual result. Our last couple of posts were arguing over semantics,without really introducing new arguments, which is pretty immature. 

Speak for yourself. I have no intention of resorting to personal attacks and I don't appreciate the implication.

Also, if you call me pointing out your logical fallacies semantics then I don't have any interest in arguing with you. 

[BaneTheSpecTRe]

Sole Survivor. So yeah, they're bad.

[nubbers666]

to me they are no better than the collectors



but its more of a yes and no

i can understand they want to advance humanity's interest at all cost but its the way they do it that i do not like

but some 1 has to be the bad guy and make the hard choices

[Phaedon]

Inverness Moon wrote...
Speak for yourself. I have no intention of resorting to personal attacks and I don't appreciate the implication.

Also, if you call me pointing out your logical fallacies semantics then I don't have any interest in arguing with you. 

Oh well.

Logical fallacies ?
The OP asked if Cerberus is bad. Morally.
I post a list of Cerberus' most controversial operations.
You say that morals are entirely relative.
Are you implying that Cerberus is morally good ?
That:

• Abduction, torture and murder of children
• Murder of soldiers
• Destruction of a colony
• Abduction of a kid
• Torture and murder of an admiral who tried to find who killed his men.
• Putting an extremist as the head of a political party.
• Murdering a religious leader

is good ?

There is nothing relative in this list, do you consider these actions good ? It's a simplified yes or no question.

[Zulu_DFA]

Phaedon wrote...

• Abduction, torture and murder of children
  
• Murder of soldiers
  
• Destruction of a colony -- never happened
  
• Abduction of a kid -- you are repeating yourself
  
• Torture and murder of an admiral who tried to find who killed his men. there was no torture
  
• Putting an extremist as the head of a political party.
  
• Murdering a religious leader

is good ?

There is nothing relative in this list, do you consider these actions good ? It's a simplified yes or no question.

The ends justify those means. It's all good.

[Phaedon]

If you really mean that, I am done with humanity. I'll go live with the wolves or something.

And abduct children cuz it's good lol.

(Not to mention that the Reaper threat was not introduced until the end of ME1)

[Inverness Moon]

Phaedon wrote...

Logical fallacies ?

• Claiming that Cerberus attacked the flotilla with "millions of innocents" when they only attacked a single ship in a surgical operation.
• Claiming that the victims of Akuze were all men who wanted to protect their families when you have no proof at all and Shepard as an example of someone that wouldn't fit that criterion.

I'm not going to argue with you if you can't be reasonable.

[Googlesaurus]

Does Cerberus have an identifiable goal beyond "+1 for humanity"?

[Zulu_DFA]

Phaedon wrote...

If you really mean that, I am done with humanity. I'll go live with the wolves or something.

And abduct children cuz it's good lol.

It's good for the wolves. Until the humans come and kill off the wolves. So I'd suggest you sticked with the humans.

[Phaedon]

Inverness Moon wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Logical fallacies ?

• Claiming that Cerberus attacked the flotilla with "millions of innocents" when they only attacked a single ship in a surgical operation.
• Claiming that the victims of Akuze were all men who wanted to protect their families when you have no proof at all and Shepard as an example of someone that wouldn't fit that criterion.

I'm not going to argue with you if you can't be reasonable.

Notice how, I don't 'assume' those stuff in my latest post. Not that I am accepting the opposite either since there is no proof for it either, but I think that the most neutral solution would be to say that "Cerberus killed a squad of SA soldiers" "Attacked a quarian  liveship"

[klossen4]

ugh this always fun

Modifié par klossen4, 24 novembre 2010 - 06:49 .