85 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

I'm glad that none of your Shepards are saving the galaxy in my universe, then.

[DPSSOC]

They'll still save the galaxy, yeah they aren't happy about being brought back but they recognize they've got a job to do. Once the Reapers are dealt with though, unless something changes drastically in ME3, most of them are punching their own clock.

[JaylaClark]

Xilizhra wrote...

I'm glad that none of your Shepards are saving the galaxy in my universe, then.

I think that this is one of the things Drew and Mac took out of our hands when defining our Shepards, come to think of it.  Every Shepard is locked in as caring about at least humanity, if not the entire galaxy, because if they didn't do that then ... there's no story.  Shepard might not even care enough to go after Saren in the first game, let alone put aside his/her differences with Cerberus to fight the Collectors.  (While Shepard shows too little angst about being dead and then undead, in my opinion, in general this is a good thing... and to some extent it's even a good thing it gets glossed over, considering how many people hate the death/reset aspect anyway.)

[AkiKishi]

adneate wrote...

The lines are in the context of her being frustrated with a hold out
client, hardly a rounding codemnation of the character as an immoral
monster. Sometimes people are mad and they say things in anger they
don't mean or they exaggerate to make a point.

So the 2% of the character overwhelms the 98% and you think that's a great piece of writing? It's so contrived and forced that I doubt a fan fiction writer in Grade 9 would think is was a well crafted twist.

M Night Shyamalan would consider that twist, a "Bit of a stretch."

Yes they will because most of the time the situation is not a serious one. Threatening to send a commando squad, that's a major over reaction in anyones book.

It's not 2% Remember it's been 2 years since you saw her and she's changed as % for ME2 goes without LotSB it's almost 100% with the DLC it drops to maybe 50%.
It's certainly not trivial like 2%.

DPSSOC wrote...

Not really that different, your forcing a life upon someone.  Only difference is in one case it's their own and in another it's a child.

Kind of reminds me of the Buffy episodes after her resurection.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 20 février 2011 - 09:56 .

[Suron]

it's obvious DPSSOC that you are not interested in even having a discussion..you're trying to ram your own (narrow) viewpoint on the matter.

If you are mortally wounded..unconscious...and the ONLY way to save your life is to hack off your legs or some such....consent is implied when you are unable to do so when it comes to saving a life...that's fact..son.

Liara didn't just "give up" your body to Cerberus...she rescued it from the Collectors..who would have done god knows what with it...and gave it to Cerberus because they had a chance of bringing him back to life.

you're argument and reasoning behind such is not only asinine but not even well thought out. That "invasive surgery" crutch was shattered before you leaned on it.

If your significant other was incapacitated, unconscious and otherwise unable to give consent to some kind of method of saving their life....you're actually saying you'd let them just die because they can't consent to it?

and are you telling me that if I told someone to save my sig others life, even though they couldn't consent themself, that I would just as likely backstab them in some other way?

it's not even remotely the same..and as I said you're entire argument and reasoning is downright dumb.

do you even smell the crap you're shoveling?

Modifié par Suron, 20 février 2011 - 10:07 .

[Suron]

actually I have a real-life example of this.

my mother had an aneurysm burst..she wasn't of her own mind..we allowed, without her consent, for the hospital to do invasive brain surgery..where they coiled the rupture closed...which saved her life.

she then had to have a tick or stint (whatever) put into her head and tubed down into her stomach to relieve some built up fluid...she has a permanent bulge on the side of her head because of this where the device is...because it's more risky to open her head up again to remove it now that it's not needed then to just leave it there.

so you're telling me that because I (Liara) consented for my mother (Shepard) in order for the hospital (Cerberus) to save her life (bring him back to life) via invasive surgery (invasive surgery via cybernetic implants/etc) that I'd also go behind her back (she'd go behind his back) and betray her in some way (she'd betray shepard) all because I (Liara) allowed some doctors (cerberus) to save my mothers (shepards) life?

get lost man...at this point..you're just a troll.

Modifié par Suron, 20 février 2011 - 10:13 .

[DPSSOC]

Suron wrote...
If you are mortally wounded..unconscious...and the ONLY way to save your life is to hack off your legs or some such....consent is implied when you are unable to do so when it comes to saving a life...that's fact..son.

Again you run into the issue of time limitation.  You can't treat Shepard as you would someone who is mortally wounded because in that case their condition is deteriorating rapidly and you only have so much time to stabilize them.  A better metaphor would be, as I pointed out, coma patients.  The condition is not deteriorating (in most cases) and there is no time limitation.  You find me one case, just one, of a coma patient being given experimental therapy without given consent (next of kin, power of attorney obviously not theirs) and I will concede that what Liara did was ok.

Furthermore with a mortally wounded person any procedure done with implied consent is in order to restore that person's natural state.  Shepard is dead, his natural state has changed to dead.  Had Shepard merely been highly injured and comatose I'd be on your side, because his natural state would still be alive and awake.  

Suron wrote...
If your significant other was incapacitated, unconscious and otherwise unable to give consent to some kind of method of saving their life....you're actually saying you'd let them just die because they can't consent to it?

Certainly not, but again that's not Shepard's condition.  Shepard's life isn't in danger; he's stable meaning there is no need for an immediate decision to be made.  Liara has time to contact your next of kin/attorney and ask for their consent.  Now if you romance Liara then yes she could make that call for you on your behalf (well not really but let's move on).  The problem is that if Liara was not romanced she has absolutely no right to make that decision for you.

Suron wrote...
and are you telling me that if I told someone to save my sig others life, even though they couldn't consent themself, that I would just as likely backstab them in some other way?

No but that's not what Liara did.  We really need to get over the idea that Liara made the decision in a moment of crisis, she didn't.  She did not make the decision to "save your life"; in fact the best parallel I can think of is donating someones body to science.  This isn't a situation where you are in immediate danger and someone saves you without consent; you are dead and Liara is handing you over to an organization for experimentation.  And yes if you romanced Liara it's kind of ok (again not really but let's move on).

As for backstabbing them it's a matter of scope.  Let's say you're married and your partner buys a house without consulting with you.  Now let's say for the sake of argument that they don't feel bad about it and their only concern is that you might be mad at them.  Now tell me; if someone were willing to make a that kind of a decision on your behalf without your consent do you really expect them to seek your consent over what cereal to buy?

Edit: Suron with your example the hospital didn't have her consent but they did have yours.  As family you have the right to make medical decisions when your relatives can't.  I'll say it once more; Liara.  Does.  Not.  Have.  That.  Right.  Unless you've decided in your own head to give it to her (and we'll assume you've filled out all necessary paperwork).  Even a romanced Liara wouldn't have that right by default; common-law spouses don't have that right.

Modifié par DPSSOC, 20 février 2011 - 10:52 .

[Xilizhra]

Again you run into the issue of time limitation. You can't treat Shepard as you would someone who is mortally wounded because in that case their condition is deteriorating rapidly and you only have so much time to stabilize them. A better metaphor would be, as I pointed out, coma patients. The condition is not deteriorating (in most cases) and there is no time limitation. You find me one case, just one, of a coma patient being given experimental therapy without given consent (next of kin, power of attorney obviously not theirs) and I will concede that what Liara did was ok.

Bodies do deteriorate over time, Shepard's was already in terrible shape, and Lazarus was a risky project as it was. I don't think there was unlimited time.

Certainly not, but again that's not Shepard's condition. Shepard's life isn't in danger; he's stable meaning there is no need for an immediate decision to be made. Liara has time to contact your next of kin/attorney and ask for their consent. Now if you romance Liara then yes she could make that call for you on your behalf (well not really but let's move on). The problem is that if Liara was not romanced she has absolutely no right to make that decision for you.

Actually, depending on how much power Cerberus has in the Alliance, it might have de facto power of attorney over Shepard's body anyway. Had the Collectors not taken it, I'm sure Cerberus could have quietly and legally slipped it into their own hands. And I for one would definitely give Liara power of attorney over me in this situation anyway...

[Suron]

lol...I'm done with you. You're one of those people that get some stupid thought in your head and won't be swayed regardless of how many holes someone puts in it.

whatever...troll it is. have fun. And I'm sure you'll take my giving up this argument as "winning." Which is anything but the truth...but I have no time for idiocy. And I'm not here to fix stupid.

Modifié par Suron, 20 février 2011 - 10:58 .

[JaylaClark]

Suron wrote...

get lost man...at this point..you're just a troll.

Can I rec this? :happy:

EDIT -- I figure I should explain myself a little better than that.  DPSSOC, you're spending so much time trying to find fault with something that had to be done for the sake of the game continuing, all the while saying that your Shepard will immediately off him/herself after saving the galaxy (very emo, kid) and that your Shepard resents Liara for saving his/her life, that it is very difficult for me to prevent myself from breaking my keyboard over my head from the non-sensical rhetorical nature of this argument.  And the replacement part for an Eclipse is still over 60 dollars so I really don't want you to cause that.

You're also making a connection that I really cannot see (Liara did something your Shepards resent her for doing -- though I don't think most Shepards resent being alive -- so therefore she doesn't care about what you think).  The connection falls apart on so many levels that I can barely believe you can make it with a straight face, but the main one to me is that your Shepard is, in my opinion (though I feel many could share it), so irresponsible in their thinking regarding the responsibility of the fight against the Reapers, and so irrationally angry with someone who allowed him/her to continue that fight, that I think your reasoning is canonically out of character for Shepard.

Oh well, though, your Chewbacca Defense has scared one of your opponents away already.  I just felt like you needed to know why another person has left.

FURTHER EDIT -- I see you were saying you were arguing for the sake of arguing, and it actually makes a weird amount of sense that I didn't get your point.

Modifié par JaylaClark, 20 février 2011 - 11:15 .

[DPSSOC]

Suron wrote...
lol...I'm done with you. You're one of those people that get some stupid thought in your head and won't be swayed regardless of how many holes someone puts in it.

Oh how little you understand.  I'm arguing for the sake of arguing because it's fun and I'm bored, not because I'm overly attached to my idea.  While I'm sad to see it go I've thoroughly enjoyed the back and forth.

Suron wrote...
And I'm sure you'll take my giving up this argument as "winning."

 
I'm arguing on the internet, I'm old enough to have learned there are no winners.

Modifié par DPSSOC, 20 février 2011 - 11:12 .