160 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

I apologize if I have said anything to offend you, but I find your tone unnecessarily hostile.

Your boorishness does you no credit.

Mhmm.

[Zavox]

Eddo36 wrote...
Awww someone asking another to end a discussion. How cute.

Anyways, follow your "hindsight" and the universe won't be doomed as it would otherwise. Spoken like a true ME1 Councillor.

Haha, you can continue if you want, I only advised you to drop the subject for your own good.

Krogan Rebellions happened before humanity came on the galactic stage, start of the rebellions due to Krogan agressive expansion, no threat posed to humanity at the moment.

Rachni Wars happened before humanity came on the galactic stage, start of the wars due to Rachni agression (reaper indoctrination), no threat posed to humanity at the moment.

Geth Wars/the Morning War happened before humanity came on the galactic stage, fleet send by the Council to the edge of the Perseus Veil to hold the expected invasion of Council space at bay. Geth do not go beyond the veil, Council sees threat as relatively passed. Humanity enters the galactic stage, Geth haven't been heard from in 300 years, no reasonable threat posed to humanity at that moment.

Any other race you want to try out? I'm all for it.

There's no reason to prepare for war if there's no evidence to point that it's likely and imminent. If there is, the earth would be in a constant arms race as we were in the Cold War. Therefore I agree with how the Council acted in ME1, I do however not agree with how they act in ME2. There's enough evidence to warrant full-scale mobilization and focus on arms research and construction.

[Eddo36]

Remember the Salarians were keeping tabs on the Genophage, and even modifying it so the Genophage stays.

And the Council couldn't see beyond the Persues Veil. They don't know how many Geth are there. Can be one Geth, or could be one trillion Geth ships. They nearly wiped out the Quarians after the Quarians tried to wipe the Geth out.

But on your methods, if you had a loaded gun, and someone else that attacked you in the past had a loaded gun as well but haven't done anything yet, will you let him shoot you before you can shoot him? If the answer is no, he can shoot and your race will be wiped out regardless if you were morally right or not. As would have been the case in ME. Not that I agree with former President Bush's politics, but as he says, pre-emptive strike is a valid option. Or keep holding that moral high ground and get wiped.

Modifié par Eddo36, 02 janvier 2011 - 05:19 .

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]Zavox wrote...

Smartass is not really a rude word per se, It's commonly used when someone gives an argument as you did. (Look it up if you don't believe me). But fine, I'm sorry if I offended you, it wasn't my intention to do so.
[/quote]Calling someone a smart ass is nothing but a personal attack. It is not a logical argument, nor an analysis. Whether I am offended or not is irrelevant: offense is the only reason you would use that sort of incendiary language.


[quote]
They did stop being a threat. Commonly when you have an active embassy in someones country or in this case the citadel and heavy political ties, one doesn't expect war with said races.[/quote]If you're ignorant about history and the normal relations between states, sure.

Embassies are historically held and maintained up to the moment immediately before war, or even as the war is commenced. Embassies are the norm regardless of relations: ever since the embassy system became a universal practice of the normal relations between states, the occassions in which wars happen between nations without embassies is far surpassed by the number of occassions. Nations that like eachother keep embassies. Nations that hate eachother often keep embassies as well. Having an embassy in no way entails that you have good relations with someone, or that you don't have bad relations with someone. The US maintained it's embassy with the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War. The US maintained it's embassy with Imperial Germany even as it began its arms buildup aimed against it.


[quote]
One example would be the Baterians, those were a threat for a while (dealt with by the Alliance, mind you), there's no political activity or an embassy with them, is there? One closes their embassy and severs political ties if they are on bad terms with someone.[/quote]Not upheld by history at all. Embassies have a varied history of management in times of crisis: while removing an embassy is certainly a sign of bad ties, it is not a requisite, a default, or even a standard course of action. Embassies, after all, serve to manage affairs despite and especially during times of bad relations. Embassies are simply one of many tools of government interaction and dealing with other nations.

[quote]
While true in some part, one doesn't prepare for conflict before it's suspected... In your view the United States of America would at the very moment prepare for war with the United Kingdom, because one could never know eh?
[quote]Not at all: the interests of the US and United Kingdom are not only aligned, relations are both solid and alliances sustained with the popular support of not only both governments on a tentative, but supported by the populations as well.

The US, however, certainly is at this moment prepared and preparing for a potential conflict with China, with which it maintains an Embassy, because US and Chinese interests are not congruant, and despite ties they are not firmly allied with popular support for such on either side

[quote]
Secondly, preparing for war, achieves only that, war. One good reason why the other races are so negative about Cerberus.[/quote]History would take issue with your claim. Preparing for conflict doesn't cause it, while not preparing for problems certainly doesn't prevent them from occuring.
.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 02 janvier 2011 - 09:59 .

[Zavox]

Eddo36 wrote...

Remember the Salarians were keeping tabs on the Genophage, and even modifying it so the Genophage stays.

And the Council couldn't see beyond the Persues Veil. They don't know how many Geth are there. Can be one Geth, or could be one trillion Geth ships. They nearly wiped out the Quarians after the Quarians tried to wipe the Geth out.

But on your methods, if you had a loaded gun, and someone else that attacked you in the past had a loaded gun as well but haven't done anything yet, will you let him shoot you before you can shoot him? If the answer is no, he can shoot and your race will be wiped out regardless if you were morally right or not. As would have been the case in ME. Not that I agree with former President Bush's politics, but as he says, pre-emptive strike is a valid option. Or keep holding that moral high ground and get wiped.

I don't see how the Salarians keeping tabs on the Genophage make a difference to our discussion, could you enlighten me?

Which is why the council send a massive fleet to the Perseus Veil when the Quarians were nearly wiped out, to hold off the expected invasion of council space. When that didn't happen they pulled back as they saw the threat as passed. Which you can definately count as passed after 300 years of no invasion or contact. There's no evidence they would mount an attack, so the only course of action is to keep tabs on the situation.

Ehm, wrong comparison much? Your comparison involves a major threat, there's was no such thing for humanity after the First Contact War. Your example entertains the idea that once a hostile force, always a hostile force (or atleast respond to them as such). Glad it doesn't work like that in the real world, or UK and USA wouldn't be the allies they are now. Or are you suggesting the UK and USA should keep building their forces, trying to get the edge over each other while having friendly ties? It just doesn't work that way, and as such we can expect it doesn't work that way in Mass Effect either. (Pre-emptive strike is only used when war is imminent, so no, not a valid example either.)

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Calling someone a smart ass is nothing but a personal attack. It is not a logical argument, nor an analysis. Whether I am offended or not is irrelevant: offense is the only reason you would use that sort of incendiary language.

Yes, I already understood that that's your view on it from before, yet it's an absurd view. I didn't want to get into this kind of argument, therefore I just gave you a simple apology which you apperantly can't accept and let go. So let me explain my stance on this.

If I would tell you you were an ignorant person because of an argument you gave, and following such I would explain why that argument doesn't hold up, it's nothing more than stating my opinion of you and your opinion and giving it a bit more strength. I didn't even use a vulgar word for it either, so I can't see why you would see it as a personal attack or offensive behavior. Also, it's the result of an analysis, of which the analysis I stated. If I were to say you're an [insert opinion of person], but not explain my view as to why that is, I can understand your reasoning. As that has nothing to do with the discussion and thus is a personal attack.

Anyway, if you can't accept a simple apology then I feel we're done here.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

If you're ignorant about history and the normal relations between states, sure.

Embassies are historically held and maintained up to the moment immediately before war, or even as the war is commenced. Embassies are the norm regardless of relations: ever since the embassy system became a universal practice of the normal relations between states, the occassions in which wars happen between nations without embassies is far surpassed by the number of occassions. Nations that like eachother keep embassies. Nations that hate eachother often keep embassies as well. Having an embassy in no way entails that you have good relations with someone, or that you don't have bad relations with someone. The US maintained it's embassy with the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War. The US maintained it's embassy with Imperial Germany even as it began its arms buildup aimed against it.

*sigh*. Embassies are historically actually only rarely held and maintained up to the moment immediately before war, and that's mainly only because it was a surprise attack (Pearl Harbor and such). Even today you can see different countries severing ties with other countries way before an attack (Isreal/USA - Iran for example). Nations that hate eachother often keep embassies? There's several examples in recent history which show the exact opposite, latest being the embassy of Libya in Nigeria after some absurd comments from the Libyan president. Or the attack on the aid fleet by Israel, try and look up how many diplomats were expelled by different countries after that. Closing embassies and/or expelling diplomats is a severing of political ties and as such is often an indication of a conflict between 2 countries which could (rarely) culminate in war.

I however never said it's impossible for countries to keep embassies in time of hate and strife. Look to my wording again if you will. (hint: commonly).

Lastly, I'd hate to go back to the 'personal attack' discussion, but I feel it's a necessary point to make. Look at your own wording in this discussion, you're resorting to calling me ignorant to history if I continue my line of reasoning, which is an ad hominem. You were the one who was not willing to bring a bit more punch to arguments, in turn sadly mistaking it for insults. I feel you kind of negate your previous opinion on this subject by doing the exact same as what you so much condemned (in the same post, no less).

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Not upheld by history at all. Embassies have a varied history of management in times of crisis: while removing an embassy is certainly a sign of bad ties, it is not a requisite, a default, or even a standard course of action. Embassies, after all, serve to manage affairs despite and especially during times of bad relations. Embassies are simply one of many tools of government interaction and dealing with other nations.

I agree it's not a prerequisite, I never meant to make it sound as such. You yourself just said exactly what I've been trying to say, it's a sign. For the rest of your argument I refer you to what I've written above. Apperantly we hold different opinions about it being standard or not. I cannot for the sake of me find a counting of this, yet in light of recent history I find that I still like my opinion. Besides, countries don't tend to manage affairs with a country they don't want any business with, they do however manage affairs if they fear a war with said country and feels different solutions are still viable. (USA - Soviet Union).

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Not at all: the interests of the US and United Kingdom are not only aligned, relations are both solid and alliances sustained with the popular support of not only both governments on a tentative, but supported by the populations as well.

The US, however, certainly is at this moment prepared and preparing for a potential conflict with China, with which it maintains an Embassy, because US and Chinese interests are not congruant, and despite ties they are not firmly allied with popular support for such on either side

I know, yet you said:

"You don't look to drink during the middle of a long run, you don't look to study in the minutes before the test, and you don't start preparing for a war once it's already apparent."

So, really, I don't care how the relations between the USA and UK are. Your opinion is to prepare for war anyway, even though it's not apparent. I ask you, why are the USA preparing for a conflict with China, but not for the UK? (hint: threat) And how does this relate to say the Systems Alliance and the Turian Hierarchy.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

History would take issue with your claim. Preparing for conflict doesn't cause it, while not preparing for problems certainly doesn't prevent them from occuring.

Then I take issue with history. 

All humor aside though, if war is not apparent, preparing for war will make it more likely it will break out. In a less poetic way than my previous statement, we can say that preparing for war will only aggravate your possible enemy, there's no other result (it won't make him happy, that's for sure). One may be more prepared for war, but it's more likely to break out than it was without. If it doesn't break out, it's due to other reasons than you preparing for war. If preparing for war was the only reason and nothing else had an effect on the situation, you can be damned sure war will break out.

If war is apparent, preparing for war is obviously the right thing to do, but we weren't talking about that, or were we?

Modifié par Zavox, 03 janvier 2011 - 12:15 .

[Sable Rhapsody]

This is a touch random, but I had a dream last night that Kai Leng's evil (good?) twin or possibly Kai Leng himself was in DA2 instead of ME3 >< Very weird.

[darknoon5]

Kai Leng would be a great squadmate, precisely because he's amoral, however I think realistically only players who give the abse to TIM should be able to recruit him, and it should be optionable, as I can tell many people dislike him. He's easily one of the most badass and competant character's in the universe. His class could probably be something similar to Zaeed's I suppose.



Just wishful thinking though, unfortunately he probably won't appear. I know he's a racist idiot, but it'd be interesting to have a squadmate who isn't likeable-which we had with Zaeed, to some extent, but poorly done. In the ME2 adverts, they raved about how for Mordin, the end justified the means, how he was ruthless etc. when he was, excluding his recruitment and possibly loyalty mission, the exact oposite of ruthless.

[Eddo36]

Zavox, you might want to check on the rules buddy. Name-calling is against the terms of service we agreed upon when we registered, and will get you nowhere here or anywhere in life. When you decide to get over it, maybe we can continue a civil discussion.



http://social.biowar...page/site-rules

"No fighting, name calling, taunting or flame wars. There is no place for fighting and flaming others on these message boards. Disagreeing with other Community members is acceptable and understood, but actively fighting and/or flaming will not be tolerated. Topics that are designed to start a flame war (defined as abrasive and/or offensive argument that serves no purpose but to make people mad) or posts made that are discourteous and/or hostile to other Community members or the discussion at hand will be treated as Spam and deleted without warning. If someone acts in a hostile manner to you or to others, DO NOT engage a person or persons who is fighting. Contact staff or a volunteer moderator and let them handle the issue. What is considered fighting or flaming is up to the discretion of staff and volunteer moderators. A person or persons found to repeatedly fight or flame others may be banned from these forums at the discretion of the staff."



Anyways, back on topic. Morinth was a serial killer and you have the option to kill Samara and recruit her. Not that I liked her killing my Shepard with her "romance" however.

[Lunatic LK47]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

I would rather decorate the Normandy with his brains than have him join my team.

I'd like to add in cutting his balls off and selling them to a Krogan, and desecrating his corpse.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

I would rather decorate the Normandy with his brains than have him join my team.

I'd like to add in cutting his balls off and selling them to a Krogan, and desecrating his corpse.

Why does he deserve this?

[Eddo36]

Because he's Chinese, I'm guessing.

[Lunatic LK47]

Eddo36 wrote...

Because he's Chinese, I'm guessing.

Reported post, since I am Chinese myself. I don't deal with mustache-twirling KKK-caliber characters.

[Eddo36]

So am I. But you're the one who mentioned cutting off someone's genitalia.,,

[CmdrKankrelat]

I don't want him as a squadmember, but I'd love to fight him and all the other "zealots" on TIM's secret headquarters station. In the novel they make Kai Leng sound like a nigh-unstoppable beast. I'd like to see just how long he lasts against Shepard.

[Eddo36]

Not really, in the novel he just excelled at close combat and careful planning. There were times he survived at the nick of his teeth (end of novel).

[GuardianAngel470]

jlb524 wrote...

Hopefully enemy. I don't want him on my team.

I'd just hand him to Aria. XD

I did this in a fan fiction. After shooting off his hands first.

I don't want him and if I saw him, I'd kill him. Whereas tali's behavior is based on the near extinction of her race and Grunt's is based on cultural aspects (Genophage anyone?), Kai hates aliens because they are different. He is a racist while Tali and Grunt are prejudiced.

The difference being that both Tali and Grunt make exceptions (Legion and Garrus) while Kai hates them all.

Modifié par GuardianAngel470, 15 janvier 2011 - 09:32 .

[GuardianAngel470]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

I would rather decorate the Normandy with his brains than have him join my team.

I'd like to add in cutting his balls off and selling them to a Krogan, and desecrating his corpse.

Why does he deserve this?

Half of it was a humorous reference to a renegade interupt (whether he agreed with the statement or not) and half of it is probably because Kai is a terrible person that murders helpless, naked asari by slitting their throat.

Not to mention the crap he did to Anderson and Kahlee.

I don't necessarily agree with the act of desecrating his corpse, but I don't argue that the deserves it. For every action that we saw him commit in the book, there is at least one similar action that we don't hear about because of simple statistics.

[packardbell]

If he does then Daniel Dae Kim should voice him, he's a great actor.

[CroGamer002]

Renegade interrupt when you meet him

Paragon interrupt once he opens his mount

[Eddo36]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

I would rather decorate the Normandy with his brains than have him join my team.

I'd like to add in cutting his balls off and selling them to a Krogan, and desecrating his corpse.

Why does he deserve this?

Half of it was a humorous reference to a renegade interupt (whether he agreed with the statement or not) and half of it is probably because Kai is a terrible person that murders helpless, naked asari by slitting their throat.

Not to mention the crap he did to Anderson and Kahlee.

I don't necessarily agree with the act of desecrating his corpse, but I don't argue that the deserves it. For every action that we saw him commit in the book, there is at least one similar action that we don't hear about because of simple statistics.

What he did in this book was only in one short mission.

[GuardianAngel470]

Eddo36 wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

I would rather decorate the Normandy with his brains than have him join my team.

I'd like to add in cutting his balls off and selling them to a Krogan, and desecrating his corpse.

Why does he deserve this?

Half of it was a humorous reference to a renegade interupt (whether he agreed with the statement or not) and half of it is probably because Kai is a terrible person that murders helpless, naked asari by slitting their throat.

Not to mention the crap he did to Anderson and Kahlee.

I don't necessarily agree with the act of desecrating his corpse, but I don't argue that the deserves it. For every action that we saw him commit in the book, there is at least one similar action that we don't hear about because of simple statistics.

What he did in this book was only in one short mission.

Which is my point. All you see of him is from one short mission. We can derive his standard opperating procedures from the way he acts in that one mission and from the way TIM describes him (as a zealot) which in turn implies that the actions he does in the book are not an exception to his usual routine but in fact his usual routine.

If that is true, then we can assume that for every negative action he commits in the book he has commited at least one other similar action outside, otherwise he would not be as successful as he is in the book.  Theres also the fact that he has worked for Cerberus for decades, adding time as a factor.

[Eddo36]

Yep, perfect companion. If there was homosexuality in ME3, I might give it a try just for him.

[Kyle]

Because people don't want to be seen as standing by a xenophobic character, I guess it makes them xenophobic as well, I don't know. It is funny though, he doesn't have a problem that Anderson and Kahlee aren't the same skin color as him, I guess xenophobic people of the future are more progressive than that of today.