465 réponses à ce sujet

[Zulu_DFA]

Sbri wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
No need to facepalm here. By the 1980s the Soviets had no will to win the Cold War, although economically they could try and push it, especially if they hadn't alienate the Chinese comrades earlier. In 1950-70s it was a tight competition, with very uncertain result. I don't say that the human experiments were indeed a critical factor, but there were no means to tell at the time.

 You are correct, there is no way to know. But history sure points to the fact that such experiments have not helped other regimes survive.  So it comes down to a question of ethics.

History shows that when those "other regimes" did not survive, the writers of the history were so overly eager to lay their hands on the results of those experiments that they couldn't keep this fact out of all historical documents.

Sbri wrote...

Do you do acts you know unethical but MIGHT help you, but will defititly kill unwilling victims? Or do you instead choose to act ethically and either find alternatives, or go without? Understand you have no way to know if the torture and murder will in fact help you.  Do you want your life, your well being decided on a MIGHT? Would you want to discover that your health had been compomised on a might? That you faced death for a might?

The question is not what I, the little guy on the receiving end of all things want. The question is what that big guy up there on the hill wants. It's called "hierarchy".

[eldav]

Shepard is a alliance/concil spy and will stop cerbrerus and led the final assault against the reapers.

[Zulu_DFA]

Sbri wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
Actually I do understand you paragons. The fear is strong that BioWare is going to troll you and won't make Ceberus any bit more "politically correct", but at the same time will make them again in some way instrumental to defeat the Reapers... And as soon as the Reapers are defeated, the game will end, depriving you of opportunity to get at TIM.

Wait, what? I'm not asking that Cerberus be made any more "politically correct". I like how they are portrayed, and think that TIM is one of the most interesting characters Bioware has done. I don't want them changed at all.  I think that they will be instrumental in the destruction of the Reapers.  If Shepard is the only one that can stop the Reapers, the Cerberus gets all the credit for saving the galaxy. 
The question we were debating was whether or not Cerberus was "evil". Were their actionsacceptable? There's no need for an ad hominum attack.

Well, pardon moi for the generalization then. It's just that many paragons hate Cerberus so much (as in the thread title), and want to destroy it so much, that they seem to forget about the Reapers at times, and when they remember, it's like the pesky Reapers are in the way of accomplishing really important and worthy task.

[Nashiktal]

I'm Paragon and I don't hate cerberus as much as I hate the idiotic underlings who can't seem to stay on task. I feel bad for TIM.



You see, I don't mind working with/for cerberus. I just hate how Bioware shoehorned me.



I also hate how P and R is used improperly. As it stands, P and R = Good and Evil, just named differently.

[Barquiel]

General User wrote...

From your earlier posts, may I assume that you believe “galactic peace/stability” is a goal in whose name atrocities (pick your favorite) are justified?

It depends on what kind of atrocities you're talking about.

The genophage? Yes, I think it was justified (the krogan started the war, they used asteroids as weapons)

[Dionkey]

Read Retribution. He is the biggest lying POS in the galaxy. He talks to Shepard out his ass. Anything you think bad about him in the game is magnified 10 fold in the book. There is no limits for where he will go.

[Xilizhra]

Well, pardon moi for the generalization then. It's just that many paragons hate Cerberus so much (as in the thread title), and want to destroy it so much, that they seem to forget about the Reapers at times, and when they remember, it's like the pesky Reapers are in the way of accomplishing really important and worthy task.

There's no real point in talking about how much we want to defeat the Reapers in ME3; it's going to happen regardless. Cerberus is less certain, which is why it's talked about more.

[Dionkey]

Xilizhra wrote...

Well, pardon moi for the generalization then. It's just that many paragons hate Cerberus so much (as in the thread title), and want to destroy it so much, that they seem to forget about the Reapers at times, and when they remember, it's like the pesky Reapers are in the way of accomplishing really important and worthy task.

There's no real point in talking about how much we want to defeat the Reapers in ME3; it's going to happen regardless. Cerberus is less certain, which is why it's talked about more.

Not totally true. As a paragon myself I am sure I have a good chance at beating the reapers but Bioware also doesn't want to disapoint and make it a cliche ending. Shepard may find a way to just seal them in darkspace for a long time but doesn't defeat them. Something like that will happen I assure. The Reapers aren't done with the in the ME series after 3.

[Xilizhra]

We won't necessarily get to destroy them, but we will get to defeat them.

[lovgreno]

I realy can't hate them considering how much losers they are and the fact that there are good intentions and idealism behind their actions. So I rather pity them instead. TIMmy is a rather tragic figure as his high flying dreams about human dominance are probably more harmed than helped by him and Cerberus due to his ignorance and isolation.



In ME1 Cerberus was a unnecesary evil to make Shepard look more heroic. In ME2 they were a necesary evil to make Shepard look more heroic. That is all they realy are: a plot device. Sometimes good in their role as menacing anti heroes (Much thanks to Sheens great performance) and sometimes not (Another experiment gone berserk? Looks like another job for Cerberus cleaner: Shepard).



So no, I don't think many actualy hate Cerberus. It also seems quite clear to me that even those paragon fans some likes to generalise as being naive realises that Cerberus is a necesary evil in ME2 and possibly in ME3 as well. Personaly I'm getting a bit bored of their wacky experiments and making enemies with everyone due to unnecesary brutality and transparent secrecy though. It's time for something new now.

[General User]

Barquiel wrote...

General User wrote...

From your earlier posts, may I assume that you believe “galactic peace/stability” is a goal in whose name atrocities (pick your favorite) are justified?

It depends on what kind of atrocities you're talking about.

The genophage? Yes, I think it was justified (the krogan started the war, they used asteroids as weapons)

Well… I’m something of an absolutist, I say no atrocities (the genophage counts) are ever justified for anything.
 
Frankly I find the idea that there is some sort of scale of which counter-atrocities are appropriate responses to which atrocities to be “a little silly” to say the least.
 
If, as you say, the genophage is a justified response to asteroid bombardment, then could one also say that asteroid bombardment is an appropriate response to the genophage? IOW, if “krogan extremists” dropped an asteroid on either the turian or salarian homeworld, killing billions, would this be justified/acceptable? I honestly don’t understand.
 
If asari patriots assassinated the Prime Minister of the Systems Alliance, in response to the infamous “all-human Council”, would that be justified/acceptable?
 
I’m with Garrus, I have a bit of trouble with shades of grey.

Modifié par General User, 03 janvier 2011 - 12:35 .

[Sbri]

Zulu_DFA wrote...
History shows that when those "other regimes" did not survive, the writers of the history were so overly eager to lay their hands on the results of those experiments that they couldn't keep this fact out of all historical documents.

  We had an interesting debate about this in a medical ethics class I took in collage.  Is it correct for anyone to use such research? The piece debated was work done in Germany testing the effects and possible cures for hypotherima.  Useful knowledge was discovered, but at the cost of horrific suffering by the subjects of the experiment. Is it ethical to use this knowledge to save others? I'm not sure there is a "correct" answer to this, or if there is we couldn't find it. I do find it interesting though that Shepard uses the exact framework of the debate in both the Paragon and Renegade endings of ME2, down to how several students on both sides worded their arguements.

Zulu_DFA wrote...
The question is not what I, the little guy on the receiving end of all things want. The question is what that big guy up there on the hill wants. It's called "hierarchy".

Which is why it is so vital that we on the receiving end hold those above us in the chain accountable for their actions.  If we don't want atoricites commited in our names or for our own "good" then we must oppose them.  If I don't want to be the possible victim of such work by my goverment, I darn well better work to ensure my goverment doesn't do them.  The same hold true for those on the other side of the debate. If you feel such actions are necessary, you should demand that those "on the hill" take them.  Just because someone has a position of authority, they are not and should not be free to do as they please.  Many a revolution has been built by those at the bottom demanding accountability from those on the top.

[Sbri]

General User wrote...

Well… I’m something of an absolutist, I say no atrocities (the genophage counts) are ever justified for anything.
 
Frankly I find the idea that there is some sort of scale of which counter-atrocities are appropriate responses to which atrocities to be “a little silly” to say the least.
 
If, as you say, the genophage is a justified response to asteroid bombardment, then could one also say that asteroid bombardment is an appropriate response to the genophage? IOW, if “krogan extremists” dropped an asteroid on either the turian or salarian homeworld, killing billions, would this be justified/acceptable? I honestly don’t understand.
 
If asari patriots assassinated the Prime Minister of the Systems Alliance, in response to the infamous “all-human Council”, would that be justified/acceptable?
 
I’m with Garrus, I have a bit of trouble with shades of grey.

What's the famous quote? "An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind?"
I do think that saying any such acts are "justified" is a very tenuous position to take.  I'm sure the people who dropped that asteroid felt that they had justification for their actions.  Who is correct?  The winners?  The person who commits the least heinous act? "Our side" whoever they are?
I'm with you, and atrocity as an atrocity. There is no justification.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Sbri wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
History shows that when those "other regimes" did not survive, the writers of the history were so overly eager to lay their hands on the results of those experiments that they couldn't keep this fact out of all historical documents.

  We had an interesting debate about this in a medical ethics class I took in collage.  Is it correct for anyone to use such research? The piece debated was work done in Germany testing the effects and possible cures for hypotherima.  Useful knowledge was discovered, but at the cost of horrific suffering by the subjects of the experiment. Is it ethical to use this knowledge to save others? I'm not sure there is a "correct" answer to this, or if there is we couldn't find it.

There is a correct answer to this. It would be absolutely wrong to not use this information to save a life had you the chance. The damage has already been done in entirety. Helpful information is available. Use it.

[JamieCOTC]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

Sbri wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
History shows that when those "other regimes" did not survive, the writers of the history were so overly eager to lay their hands on the results of those experiments that they couldn't keep this fact out of all historical documents.

  We had an interesting debate about this in a medical ethics class I took in collage.  Is it correct for anyone to use such research? The piece debated was work done in Germany testing the effects and possible cures for hypotherima.  Useful knowledge was discovered, but at the cost of horrific suffering by the subjects of the experiment. Is it ethical to use this knowledge to save others? I'm not sure there is a "correct" answer to this, or if there is we couldn't find it.

There is a correct answer to this. It would be absolutely wrong to not use this information to save a life had you the chance. The damage has already been done in entirety. Helpful information is available. Use it.

I agree, just as long as you don’t put it into the hands of a megalomaniacal tycoon hell bent on galactic domination.   My Paragon Shep probably would have saved the base if she could ensure it would never fall into the hands of Cerberus and TIM.  

[Sbri]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

There is a correct answer to this. It would be absolutely wrong to not use this information to save a life had you the chance. The damage has already been done in entirety. Helpful information is available. Use it.

  I happen to agree.  However there were some very strong and passionate arguements for the other side as well. I can not do them justice, and so I will not try. I would invite anyone who does feel that way to please present your views since I really can't do so to the level they deserve.  As I said, I found it interesting how the "Paragon" ending echoed the "this research is taited" arguement.  Keeping the base seemed to align with the "saving lives is paramount" line of thought.

[Jagri]

I don't know if this point has been made through the discussion but most those who support Cerberus do because it is working towards the goal of stopping the Reapers by any means yet however they haven't moved on to the point of setting aside there goals regarding human domainance in order to ensure the survival of the galaxy.



They are using Reaper Tech to simply advance themselves where as the most good would be within the hands of everyone to better fight the Reapers. I think more people would come to support Cerberus if they could show a bit of sacrifice for the common good rather then trying to take advantage of what could be the end of all advance life in the galaxy.

[wolfsite]

Sooner or later we will end up here

www.youtube.com/watch

[Sidac]

I like Cerberus a lot. TIM is awesome. All the races have their cold caluclating people, your just being shown the human version. While I feel that some of their projects are iffy people need to realize that they push the envelop instead of sitting on their thumbs like the council. They might seem extremeist and doomed to fail but thats the ONLY thing that pops up in the games is the failures of the organization instead of what civilization (human or otherwise) has gained from them.

[joker8]

being new to mass effect i didnt understand all the hate to Cerberus. then i played over load.

i wouldnt say there evil. but the way they go about things are just wrong. they seem like they have good intentions. but do the ends really justifies means? that seems to be their theme,

[Dionkey]

Sidac wrote...

I like Cerberus a lot. TIM is awesome. All the races have their cold caluclating people, your just being shown the human version. While I feel that some of their projects are iffy people need to realize that they push the envelop instead of sitting on their thumbs like the council. They might seem extremeist and doomed to fail but thats the ONLY thing that pops up in the games is the failures of the organization instead of what civilization (human or otherwise) has gained from them.

Things Cerberus has done:

Used the Collector Base to test on fellow humans
Used Grayson as a test subject for the reapers
Experimented on Thorian Creepers,Rachni and other Council races
Tried to make a Geth Human Hyrbid (Overlord)
Used children in terrible experiments (Jacks mission. Even though TIM wasn't aware he still had poor supervision on it.)

3/5 are tests on humans. Are they pro human or pro survival? To say they aren't xenephobic is a joke. TIM even mentions it himself in retribution that his followers are near Zealots and look at TIM as a prophet. Kai Leng is a perfect example, he despises Aliens in every way.

TIM and Cerberus are not patriotic, they are greedy,xenephobic and self centered.

Modifié par Dionkey, 03 janvier 2011 - 02:47 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Sbri wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

History shows that when those "other regimes" did not survive, the writers of the history were so overly eager to lay their hands on the results of those experiments that they couldn't keep this fact out of all historical documents.

  We had an interesting debate about this in a medical ethics class I took in collage.  Is it correct for anyone to use such research? The piece debated was work done in Germany testing the effects and possible cures for hypotherima.  Useful knowledge was discovered, but at the cost of horrific suffering by the subjects of the experiment. Is it ethical to use this knowledge to save others? I'm not sure there is a "correct" answer to this, or if there is we couldn't find it. I do find it interesting though that Shepard uses the exact framework of the debate in both the Paragon and Renegade endings of ME2, down to how several students on both sides worded their arguements.

Outstanding! A few guys died for these data, so let's let more guys die to make it up to those first guys...

Sbri wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

The question is not what I, the little guy on the receiving end of all things want. The question is what that big guy up there on the hill wants. It's called "hierarchy".

Which is why it is so vital that we on the receiving end hold those above us in the chain accountable for their actions.  If we don't want atoricites commited in our names or for our own "good" then we must oppose them.  If I don't want to be the possible victim of such work by my goverment, I darn well better work to ensure my goverment doesn't do them.  The same hold true for those on the other side of the debate. If you feel such actions are necessary, you should demand that those "on the hill" take them.  Just because someone has a position of authority, they are not and should not be free to do as they please.  Many a revolution has been built by those at the bottom demanding accountability from those on the top.

Revolutions happen only when the guys on the hill go blind or totally nuts. Until then the folks downhill reasonably believe that they have no way of seeing what's at the other side of the hill, or at the distance, so they let the  guys on top decide on the course of action. Once the course of action is decided on by the guys on the top, they either order everybody else around (in autocracies), or make everybody think that this course of action is what's best for everybody (in democracies). In both cases all the "atrocities" are kept secret and therefore the guys on the top are never accountable to anybody but their peers.

[Siegdrifa]

Zulu_DFA wrote...
The question is not what I, the little guy on the receiving end of all things want. The question is what that big guy up there on the hill wants. It's called "hierarchy".

Some century ago in my country, a wise man said to the king "no matter how high you sit, it's always on your butt".

[Sbri]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Revolutions happen only when the guys on the hill go blind or totally nuts. Until then the folks downhill reasonably believe that they have no way of seeing what's at the other side of the hill, or at the distance, so they let the  guys on top decide on the course of action. Once the course of action is decided on by the guys on the top, they either order everybody else around (in autocracies), or make everybody think that this course of action is what's best for everybody (in democracies). In both cases all the "atrocities" are kept secret and therefore the guys on the top are never accountable to anybody but their peers.

 I wonder if this is as true as it used to be.  In the days before the internet, you certainly have a valid point, though even then there is evidence that those "below" were not as in the dark as their leaders might wish.  Reforms to the process of the execution of war and treatment of soldiers were taken by the British in the 1850's after the horrible conditions they were forced to endure in the Crimea came to light in the papers is an example from 160 years ago. But back to my point, in this age of WikiLeaks, Twitter, and other forms of instant media it is becoming far harder to hide from the masses.  Iran discovered this during their last round of protests.  Even in places under far stricter control, it's amazing what is getting out.  China has as close to complete control over the internet as you can get, and even they can't control the flow of data to many of their citizens.  What remains to be seen is whether this will have the effect of causing a greater backlash against goverments and organizations.  It is possible that, as you say, the people will be convinced that it is in their interest that brutality continue, and therefore do nothing.  It is equally possible that people will rebel and remove the perpatrators from power.

[Zulu_DFA]

Sbri wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Revolutions happen only when the guys on the hill go blind or totally nuts. Until then the folks downhill reasonably believe that they have no way of seeing what's at the other side of the hill, or at the distance, so they let the  guys on top decide on the course of action. Once the course of action is decided on by the guys on the top, they either order everybody else around (in autocracies), or make everybody think that this course of action is what's best for everybody (in democracies). In both cases all the "atrocities" are kept secret and therefore the guys on the top are never accountable to anybody but their peers.

 I wonder if this is as true as it used to be.  In the days before the internet, you certainly have a valid point, though even then there is evidence that those "below" were not as in the dark as their leaders might wish.  Reforms to the process of the execution of war and treatment of soldiers were taken by the British in the 1850's after the horrible conditions they were forced to endure in the Crimea came to light in the papers is an example from 160 years ago. But back to my point, in this age of WikiLeaks, Twitter, and other forms of instant media it is becoming far harder to hide from the masses.  Iran discovered this during their last round of protests.  Even in places under far stricter control, it's amazing what is getting out.  China has as close to complete control over the internet as you can get, and even they can't control the flow of data to many of their citizens.  What remains to be seen is whether this will have the effect of causing a greater backlash against goverments and organizations.  It is possible that, as you say, the people will be convinced that it is in their interest that brutality continue, and therefore do nothing.  It is equally possible that people will rebel and remove the perpatrators from power.

Internet presents more of an opportunity than a problem to the guys on the top. It's easy to monitor, influence and control. Real troublemakers can be hunted down in a matter of hours if they are on home soil. With all the terrorism [beep-beep] craze, legislation has been passed giving green light to all kinds of electronic surveillance. The more you are dependent on the Internet, the more you are in the Big Brother's pocket.