1342 réponses à ce sujet

[Someone With Mass]

Speculations.

Speculations everywhere.

[ExtremeOne]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Speculations.

Speculations everywhere.

   

well its Bioware's fault they put the info in the GI article  

[Moiaussi]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Speculations.

Speculations everywhere.

And not a plot to read.

[008Zulu]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Actually, they aren't picky at all about what morality system they cling to. You apparently don't understand any morality besides your own, however, so I'm not surprised for the blindness.

The whole point of being evil is that you don't have any morals. Cerberus has shown time and time again that there is no line they won't cross.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
This is such an overwhelming double generalization that it's painful to see. If people see the right thing as being illegal, it's still the right thing. Good people don't feel bad about doing the right thing: hence why moral lawyers don't apologize for successfully defending the guilty, why civil rights protestors don't feel guilty for civil disobedience, why close-knit families won't apologize for protecting eachother, and why soldiers can see what they're doing as right and proper even if they're killing real human beings.

They don't apologise for defending the guilty because they don't really care. If you are protesting for civil rights, then your goverment is in the wrong. Families are supposed to protect each other, its what seperates us from those who would do us harm. The extraordinarily high number of PTSD suffers might counter that killing, even in times of war, still feels wrong.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Computers aren't magic in lieu of the physical realm and physical testing.

If you know enough of the data before hand, you can predict the outcome. If you know human physiology then you can predict what will happen given the correct external/internal stimuli.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Though, I suppose, the word 'enough' is a qualifier I can't dispute... though why we should take your evaluation over anyone else's is beyond me.

Anyone who defines 'good' as 'nice' has some serious esteem issues to overcome before they can be taken seriously and objectively evaluate anyone else's world view.

'Tolerant' is another one. 'Caring' is a concept that expresses itself in differing ways by culture. 'Acceptance' is also vague in implementation even in individual cultures.

The dictionary defines Good as: morally excellent, virtuous, righteous. None of these can be truthfully applied to Cerberus.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

And I could accuse that people who refuse to accept that are those who are too ignorant to know better from their comfy lives.

We could go around insulting eachother all day. You've yet to really support why you're the moral authority, though.

Never really said I was, though I could make the claim to be the better man because I don't like terrorists.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
If you aren't capable of deciphering a number of potential answers without outside help, you're in no position to make the verdict.

Also: fallacy of composition. Just to throw that out there.

Well since you appear to have degrees in Biololy,  Molecular Chemistry and Molecular Biology, perhaps you can explain the value of injecting acid in to the human cardio vascular system?

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]008Zulu wrote...

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
Actually, they aren't picky at all about what morality system they cling to. You apparently don't understand any morality besides your own, however, so I'm not surprised for the blindness.
[/quote]

The whole point of being evil is that you don't have any morals.[/quote]It's far more complicated than that, and you know it. Amorality is the lack of morals, but amorality doesn't mean evil in practice because there are plenty of non-moral reasons that amoral people don't do evil.

[quote]Cerberus has shown time and time again that there is no line they won't cross.[/quote]Actually, it has. It has extreme limits, but even the Pragia cell knew what it was doing wouldn't be allowed, and Archer was known to be breaking rules in his attempt to get results.
[quote]
They don't apologise for defending the guilty because they don't really care. [/quote]Citation needed, though if you claim from personal experience I must praise you on your extensive world experience and telepathy needed to decipher the motivations of millions of individuals.

[quote]If you are protesting for civil rights, then your goverment is in the wrong.[/quote]And you are still illegal.

Mind you, at this point what your civil rights include is still a subject for intense debate, given that they constantly change based on cultural acceptance and generational shifts.
[quote]
Families are supposed to protect each other, its what seperates us from those who would do us harm.[/quote]Cultural upbringing showing.
[quote]
The extraordinarily high number of PTSD suffers might counter that killing, even in times of war, still feels wrong.[/quote]'Feels' wrong? 'Might'? Are you making a position or not?

PTSD comes from a lot of things, not just killing, people while there are millions of people who have led largely healthy lives despite killing.
[quote]
If you know enough of the data before hand, you can predict the outcome. If you know human physiology then you can predict what will happen given the correct external/internal stimuli.[/quote]And if you don't know enough of the data beforehand, you don't.

Plothole resolved!

[quote]
The dictionary defines Good as: morally excellent, virtuous, righteous. None of these can be truthfully applied to Cerberus.[/quote]I'm sorry. You're honestly going to try and pull out a dictionary and four words to define a vast, complicated, and nuanced concept that has been argued and debated by philosophers since the dawn of reason?

Really?

Never mind that your own definition doesn't conclude what you think it concludes. Morally excellent is relative to the moral system involved, of which there are many moral systems. Virtuous depends on the key virtues of a culture, of which there are many cultures. Righteous is a matter of justification, which Cerberus can certainly claim.

Cerberus may not fit your interpretation of good, but that in no way means they don't fit another spectrum or interpretation.

[quote]
Never really said I was, though I could make the claim to be the better man because I don't like terrorists.[/quote]You could also claim to be the better man because you like lemon merang pie. Since Cerberus doesn't qualify as terroist by all known knowledge of the group, it's about as relevant.

Mind you, that's without going into the whole 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter/humanitarian interventionist' debate. And your quaint assumption that my disagreement with you means that I 'like' Cerberus.


[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
If you aren't capable of deciphering a number of potential answers without outside help, you're in no position to make the verdict.

Also: fallacy of composition. Just to throw that out there.

[/quote]

Well since you appear to have degrees in Biololy,  Molecular Chemistry and Molecular Biology, perhaps you can explain the value of injecting acid in to the human cardio vascular system?

[/quote]Hyperbole unnecessary. Anyone with the wit to craft a google search could look to see why anyone injects substances into anyone. Given the complete vagueness about the experiments, any conjecture will remain just that: conjecture. Said acid might have been modified to be a new type of steroid, or a depressant, or any number of thing. Given that 'acid' is a categorical term of anything with a PH below 7 and we have no idea of either the composition of Thresher Maw acid or what, if anything, was done to the acid before injection, your request is impossible to give.

Really, since you're the one who claimed it was pointless and sadistic, you're the one who needs to substantiate that there was no plausible reason for doing so and that sadism was the point. You, after all, bear the burden of accusation.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 28 avril 2011 - 11:10 .

[Katamariguy]

008Zulu wrote...

Well since you appear to have degrees in Biololy,  Molecular Chemistry and Molecular Biology, perhaps you can explain the value of injecting acid in to the human cardio vascular system?

Cerberus scientific method: Is it painful, cruel, and worthless? Do it!

[Dean_the_Young]

Katamariguy wrote...

008Zulu wrote...

Well since you appear to have degrees in Biololy,  Molecular Chemistry and Molecular Biology, perhaps you can explain the value of injecting acid in to the human cardio vascular system?

Cerberus scientific method: Is it painful, cruel, and worthless? Do it!

Can you even show that it was worthless?

One of the larger failings of ME1 in regards to Cerberus was how... lacking in context pretty much everything was.

[Volus Warlord]

Cerberus is no more evil than the Council.

Cerberus:Lies constantly spewing out.
Council: Lies constantly spewing out.

Cerberus: Led by an arrogant egomaniac.
Council: Consists of arrogant egomaniacs.

Cerberus: Bypasses laws and regulations to get to their goals.
Council: Bypasses laws and regulations to get to their goals.

One evil or another!

[General User]

Volus Warlord wrote...

Cerberus is no more evil than the Council.

Cerberus:Lies constantly spewing out.
Council: Lies constantly spewing out.

Cerberus: Led by an arrogant egomaniac.
Council: Consists of arrogant egomaniacs.

Cerberus: Bypasses laws and regulations to get to their goals.
Council: Bypasses laws and regulations to get to their goals.

One evil or another!

Cerberus for humanity.  The STG for the salarians.  Extremist Matriarchs for the asari.  These are all elements given voice and credence, and (to an extent) made possible or even necessary in the first place by the system the Council has set up. 

I’d say it’s less an idea of the Council and Cerberus being equivalent in terms of good and evil, but rather the Council being the disease and Cerberus a symptom.

On another note, RE. Cpl. Toombs:  Even if one is inclined to give Cerberus a benefit of the doubt big enough to choke a moose and say that the experiments performed on Cpl. Toombs were of a medically necessary nature, it is still sadistic and wrong to allow his family to believe the corporal dead while he is being held against his will and experimented on treated.

Modifié par General User, 28 avril 2011 - 12:47 .

[008Zulu]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
-snipped-

1- Name one amoral person who hasn't done something that, in the eyes of the law, isn't wrong.

2- So breaking the rules is acceptable because your boss might become disappointed with you?

3- Take the multitude of law offices that work for the conglomerations like the RIAA, using heavy handed and indimidating tactics, they financially destroy people who have never sat down at a computer much less illegeally downloaded a single song. These offices are made up of hundreds of lawyers in every city around the world. These people do not care. If they did, they would take in to account actual evidence.

4- Taking a human life is not something you can brush off, unless you are a psychopath. its the kind of thing that stays with you, and even under the justification of self defense or you were just following orders doesnt always help that you are responsible for ending someones life.

5- We have the data already. We know the contents of the human body from autopsies, the kinds of damage and how it was inflicted by forensic medicine. If you know how a gun works, you can predict what its going to do when the bullet penetrates. Using cloned or artifical tissue samples you can examine how a virus or bacteria will interact with the organic matter.

6- Cerberus may claim to be good, it doesnt make it so. The Good is generally defined by the masses, and masses have judged Cerberus to be Not Good.

7- Cerberus infiltrated a Quarian ship in the flotilla with the expressed purpose of blowing it up. This act by its very deinition, IS terrorism.

8- It is implied in the game that we know what the composition of Thresher acid is. It can eat through the hull of a tank, made of metal, in seconds. My 6 year old neice knows why if you drip lemon juice on a cut it hurts like hell. If you don't know what powerful acid does to organic matter already, then you have no right to call yourself a scientist. Since they were scientists, they would have known. Therefore no reason (unless you would care to offer one) exists, ergo, sadists.

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]008Zulu wrote...

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
-snipped-
[/quote]

1- Name one amoral person who hasn't done something that, in the eyes of the law, isn't wrong.[/quote]I can't name one 'moral' person who hasn't done something that, in the eyes of the law, wasn't wrong. In fact, the most moral people I know and know of are so because they went against the eyes of the law. Given your own admitted views that breaking the laws can be not only not-immoral but right, your extreme double standard that an amoral person must never transgress the law at all is extremely dubious.

[quote]
2- So breaking the rules is acceptable because your boss might become disappointed with you?[/quote]Since I didn't make that position, I can only assume you're asking for my opinion. To which I say... context dependent.

'The rules' exist for a reason. Good ones, usually. But laws are important in so much that they facilitate good and mitigate the bad.

[quote]
3- Take the multitude of law offices that work for the conglomerations like the RIAA, using heavy handed and indimidating tactics, they financially destroy people who have never sat down at a computer much less illegeally downloaded a single song. These offices are made up of hundreds of lawyers in every city around the world. These people do not care. If they did, they would take in to account actual evidence.[/quote]Wait, you can't even claim to have talked to a defense lawyer? To have asked their views on the matter?

It's terribly demonstrative that your basis viewing the legal defense profession is centered around music industry lawyers, a minority in their own profession.

[quote]
4- Taking a human life is not something you can brush off, unless you are a psychopath. its the kind of thing that stays with you, and even under the justification of self defense or you were just following orders doesnt always help that you are responsible for ending someones life.[/quote]

As charming as a belief as this is, it's historically wrong. There are realms and realms of studies and analysis for why and how people are able to kill and not break down, and then go on to lead healthy, productive lives. For all that PTSD is a headline catcher now, for most of human history it wasn't. Why? Because most people, upon returning from war, weren't reduced to shambling, morally devastated wrecks. The recognition of PTSD is actually a relatively recent development.

It is very real, and absurdly easy, to train people to be able to continue functioning after killing people. These are not psychopaths: these are common people, draftees and volunteers, all medical backgrounds and all social origins, desensitized and able to kill and carry on with their lives once returning.

It's the factors that training doesn't prepare people for that see most people buckle.

[quote]
5- We have the data already. We know the contents of the human body from autopsies, the kinds of damage and how it was inflicted by forensic medicine. If you know how a gun works, you can predict what its going to do when the bullet penetrates. Using cloned or artifical tissue samples you can examine how a virus or bacteria will interact with the organic matter.[/quote]You miss the point that the Mass Effect universe doesn't claim to have that understanding, so huzah. Nor do even we have an understanding of prospective human chemistry on a computer-input level, so double huzah.

And no, gun balistics are not comparable to the difficulty in understanding chemistry and results on the body. Hence why bullet forensics are an established science and yet we spend billions of dollars researching drugs.
[quote]
6- Cerberus may claim to be good, it doesnt make it so. The Good is generally defined by the masses, and masses have judged Cerberus to be Not Good.[/quote]Uh, no. On all accounts.

You have judged Cerberus to be Not Good. Others have judged Cerberus to be not good. Your reasons and Others reasons are not necessarily the same, nor is there any arbitrary agreed upon rule that if X 50.0000000000001% of a population feels something, then it is.

Appeals to the majority is a logical fallacy.
[quote]
7- Cerberus infiltrated a Quarian ship in the flotilla with the expressed purpose of blowing it up. This act by its very deinition, IS terrorism.[/quote]No, it isn't. Not by the classical, working defenitions of terrorism at least, as used by most governments.

Besides the fact that there is no single definition of terrorism, terrorism is not simply any crime in which people die. At it's most basic, terrorism is actions intended to create fear to achieve political goals by shaping public/government behavior.

Destroying a Quarian flotilla ship wasn't the express purpose of the Cerberus operation. Recovering an escaped biotic subject was. Destroying the ship wasn't the purpose of the operation. Fear in the Quarian public wasn't the purpose of the operation. There was no political goal intended to be reached by terrorizing the Migrant Fleet into changing their actions.

[quote]
8- It is implied in the game that we know what the composition of Thresher acid is. It can eat through the hull of a tank, made of metal, in seconds[/quote]Which, in no sense, is an implication of the composition: it's easy to see something destroyed without knowing exactly what does it. And if you considered your own words, you've already made it even more obvious that Cerberus did something else to whatever they put in Toombs, because he certainly wasn't eaten through in seconds despite having much, much weaker skin. Which means the thresher acid was altered in some way. Which means we still don't know what exactly was changed, and what it could have done (or if it did it).

[quote]My 6 year old neice knows why if you drip lemon juice on a cut it hurts like hell. If you don't know what powerful acid does to organic matter already, then you have no right to call yourself a scientist. [/quote]Cultural upbringing showing again. And an enormous generalization of chemistry.

There are multitudes of acids out there, all with different effects on humans. Acid is not simply a unitary substance which more of it does worse in exactly the same time, as if a stronger PH was a stronger concentration of the substance that is 'acid'. Acid is an entire category of widely varrying chemical substances, which can have entirely different effects on the human body. The entire concept of 'strong' and 'weak' acid is misleading: there are 'weak' acids that will send you writhing to the ground in extreme pain, and 'strong' acids you will barely notice if you ingenst them.

Chemistry is not, and has never been, a field in which we already know what will happen when we put something in a person. This is the entire cornerstone of the medical industry and it's search for developing new drugs, and trying to understand what old ones really do. There is no plug-and-chug calculator computer in which, if you put in the chemical formula X in Y amount, medical result Z will be the output.
[quote]
Since they were scientists, they would have known. Therefore no reason (unless you would care to offer one) exists, ergo, sadists.
[/quote]Perhaps it would be better if you put her on the board, if you're going to echo her arguments.

Potential alternatives were already suggested, and you haven't disproven that alteranatives exist. You're relying on a six-year old's understanding of chemistry and a culturally-desired ethic expectation of scientists as a proof of potential.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 28 avril 2011 - 01:59 .

[Phaedon]

Yes, OP, they are.

And I sincerely hope that Cerberus has so many fans because of a)TIM/Martin Sheen or the fact that they don't understand what crimes Cerberus has done fully. Because otherwise, so many f*cked up moral compasses can't be a good thing for humanity.

PS: It's funny how your username is Zulu.

[Dean_the_Young]

Phaedon wrote...

Yes, OP, they are.

And I sincerely hope that Cerberus has so many fans because of a)TIM/Martin Sheen or the fact that they don't understand what crimes Cerberus has done fully. Because otherwise, so many f*cked up moral compasses can't be a good thing for humanity.

PS: It's funny how your username is Zulu.

I fully support bringing all criminal groups to justice... when doing so isn't detrimental to greater efforts of importance.

Somehow, that, and an opposition to overstatement and mis-aimed sentiments, has put me as a pro-Cerberus person. Which is rather strange.

But hey, I've already been called a defender of fascists and tyrants and a horrible, horrible person, so why not?

[GodWood]

Phaedon wrote...
Yes, OP, they are.

And I sincerely hope that Cerberus has so many fans because of a)TIM/Martin Sheen or the fact that they don't understand what crimes Cerberus has done fully. Because otherwise, so many f*cked up moral compasses can't be a good thing for humanity.

PS: It's funny how your username is Zulu.

How arrogant. 
Dismissing 17 pages of well thought out responses by saying "they don't understand".

[Dean_the_Young]

GodWood wrote...

Phaedon wrote...
Yes, OP, they are.

And I sincerely hope that Cerberus has so many fans because of a)TIM/Martin Sheen or the fact that they don't understand what crimes Cerberus has done fully. Because otherwise, so many f*cked up moral compasses can't be a good thing for humanity.

PS: It's funny how your username is Zulu.

How arrogant. 
Dismissing 17 pages of well thought out responses by saying "they don't understand".

Phaedon isn't saying that.

You forgot 'that or they're horrible, horrible people.'

[Phaedon]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
I fully support bringing all criminal groups to justice... when doing so isn't detrimental to greater efforts of importance.

Somehow, that, and an opposition to overstatement and mis-aimed sentiments, has put me as a pro-Cerberus person. Which is rather strange.

But hey, I've already been called a defender of fascists and tyrants and a horrible, horrible person, so why not?

I haven't ever called you that, and I don't know why anyone would. If I did, I apologize.

Unlike other Cerberus supporters you are reasonable (most of the times of course, no one can always be reasonable)

If I understand correctly your point, law is an attempt to have written justice, but sometimes it's not the same thing. But hey, I don't see how it's just for Cerberus to do these things.

They may bring up the advancement of human race as their objective (which is not exactly very noble, even if it sounds like one), but the proportions of their experiments are too heavy for their motives.

You know that I don't support goverment-supported intelligence agencies either. They may think that sabotage will help defend their country, but if they start killing innocents, at that point they are probably destroying the ideals of their own country.

[GodWood]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Phaedon isn't saying that.
You forgot 'that or they're horrible, horrible people.'

Oh, my mistake.
That's much better.

[Seboist]

Phaedon wrote...

Yes, OP, they are.

And I sincerely hope that Cerberus has so many fans because of a)TIM/Martin Sheen or the fact that they don't understand what crimes Cerberus has done fully. Because otherwise, so many f*cked up moral compasses can't be a good thing for humanity.

PS: It's funny how your username is Zulu.

Cerberus' "crimes" are looking out for humanity's long term interests and security. They'll be vindicated in history as the ones who brought Commander Shepard back on his feet and put an end to the Collector threat.

Now what have you done for humanity lately?

[Phaedon]

Seboist wrote...
Cerberus' "crimes" are looking out for humanity's long term interests and security. They'll be vindicated in history as the ones who brought Commander Shepard back on his feet and put an end to the Collector threat.

Now what have you done for humanity lately?

That's...all they did?

Bring back Shepard? What other operations were worth the moral price? Bringing back Shepard isn't even morally questionable, so that doesn't apply at all. I guess that it could be morally questionable, but I don't think it is, personally.

What I have done for humanity?
With 'I' being the average Joe, since I don't like bragging about how awesome I am and how every human has to be like me ().

-Help other humans in need.
-Abide and support the laws of a democratic society.
-Ideologically enrichen her/himself. 
-Support society by being a productive member.
-Reproduce.
-Enrichen (Yes, I love that word) the lives of others with her/his interaction with them.

Humanity was one of the politically dominant societies without Cerberus for some time. What Cerberus wants is full domination instead of peaceful co-operation with other species.

Modifié par Phaedon, 28 avril 2011 - 02:21 .

[Seboist]

Phaedon wrote...

Seboist wrote...
Cerberus' "crimes" are looking out for humanity's long term interests and security. They'll be vindicated in history as the ones who brought Commander Shepard back on his feet and put an end to the Collector threat.

Now what have you done for humanity lately?

That's...all they did?

Bring back Shepard? What other operations were worth the moral price? Bringing back Shepard isn't even morally questionable, so that doesn't apply at all. I guess that it could be morally questionable, but I don't think it is, personally.

What I have done for humanity?
With 'I' being the average Joe, since I don't like bragging about how awesome I am and how every human has to be like me ().

-Help other humans in need.
-Abide and support the laws of a democratic society.
-Ideologically enrichen her/himself. 
-Support society by being a productive member.
-Reproduce.
-Enrichen (Yes, I love that word) the lives of others with her/his interaction with them.

Humanity was one of the politically dominant societies without Cerberus for some time. What Cerberus wants is full domination instead of peaceful co-operation with other species.

Cerberus did plenty of good besides that.  They did everything from bringing down an Ardat Yakshi, providing aid to a Collector attacked colony,rescuing a stranded freighter crew, helping end a plague in Omega and preventing a Quarian/Geth war amongst other things in my canon.

Sorry bro but you don't measure up against the three headed dog.

[Phaedon]

Seboist wrote...
Cerberus did plenty of good besides that.  They did everything from bringing down an Ardat Yakshi, providing aid to a Collector attacked colony,rescuing a stranded freighter crew, helping end a plague in Omega and preventing a Quarian/Geth war amongst other things in my canon.

Shepard=/=Cerberus. He isn't even a part of Cerberus really. He just co-operates with the Lazarus cell, making 'you' the good guy, and not Cerberus.

Sorry bro but you don't measure up against the three headed dog.

Take a look at how the mythological Cerberus ends up. 

Modifié par Phaedon, 28 avril 2011 - 02:33 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Phaedon wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
I fully support bringing all criminal groups to justice... when doing so isn't detrimental to greater efforts of importance.

Somehow, that, and an opposition to overstatement and mis-aimed sentiments, has put me as a pro-Cerberus person. Which is rather strange.

But hey, I've already been called a defender of fascists and tyrants and a horrible, horrible person, so why not?

I haven't ever called you that, and I don't know why anyone would. If I did, I apologize.

Unlike other Cerberus supporters you are reasonable (most of the times of course, no one can always be reasonable)

Apology, and sentiment, accepted. Thanks: Zulu (the new one) already did, and it's been done in the past, so the moral-immoral positioning touched a nerve.

If I understand correctly your point, law is an attempt to have written justice, but sometimes it's not the same thing. But hey, I don't see how it's just for Cerberus to do these things.

It comes a lot from cultural context following the First Contact War, and the nature of the history of the Council. It wasn't a pleasant galaxy, nor was it a galaxy who would look out for us if it was easier/more profitable not to. At some point, if you don't speak up for yourself, no one will, but this was also compounded by the need to catch up as fast as possible. Desperation breeds haste.

At that point, it becomes a question of 'when is it justified for anyone to step up if they don't believe their government is doing enough.' Which is actually a very deep debate I'd love to have some day. What is important, though, is that Cerberus is reflective of an actual social movement in Humanity: not just some extremist group, but one that can recruit from idealists and cynics alike on the common basis of 'more needs to be done.'

They may bring up the advancement of human race as their objective (which is not exactly very noble, even if it sounds like one), but the proportions of their experiments are too heavy for their motives.

I don't know. Some experiments, certainly. Others, no. It's something that would be a case-by-case, except we have horribly, horribly biased cases, and ******-poor insight into the cases that we do know of.

One one hand, Teltin was a travesty no matter how you turn it: it wasn't moral, it wasn't practical, it wasn't even particularly effective. It was... wasteful, in every moral and intellectual sense of the word. The marginal utility never came close to balancing, really: one super biotic, even when useful elsewhere, doesn't justify that sort of massacre.

But on the other hand, Trapdoor, with it's biotic suppression experiments, actually does make sense on a tactical/strategic level. Biotics are potent advantages for those who have them. Being able to mitigate them could shape a war, and the casualties that would result. Still unethical in the extreme to kidnap and test, but the results have a much more solid worth.

Overlord was entirely sane until an eleventh hour disaster. The cannon-fodder-soldier project on creepers and husks was sensible. Bringing Shepard from the dead, while mad, wasn't horrific.

Cerberus, as a whole, deserves to be brought to heel... but many of its projects could (and likely should) go on, if under new management (and styles).


Personally, I've always wondered/felt it should be revealed Cerberus was involved in some of those nice inventions we rely upon so much. Other than the ones we already do, I mean. Stuff like medigel: that stuff's illegal from the start, and who did they test it on to work out the kinks? How many test subjects were needed to get a miracle whip that would work on all species?

You know that I don't support goverment-supported intelligence agencies either. They may think that sabotage will help defend their country, but if they start killing innocents, at that point they are probably destroying the ideals of their own country.

It's a legitimate, if testy, position. The biggest question is 'what are 'true ideals' worth?' If you keep your ideals, but are left behind, what is it worth? Moral superiority is an empty meal, and worth about as much as it weighs. Moreover, idealism comes and go: it's not something that will be lost forever.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 28 avril 2011 - 02:40 .

[Last Vizard]

michaelrsa wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Sure, but I wouldn't want an actual human terrorist group sending asteroids into Batarian planets, and possibly provoking a war, regardless of how short sighted and idiotc such an act might be. Would you?

I don't see it as to likely. Sure, the batarians raid us every now and ****** people off but the batarians are a lot more pissed at us. We've taken territory they wanted, made them weaker and poorer. 

That's a hell of a lot worse than the occasional raids they perform on us.

What? tell that to the slave human sprites!

[Last Vizard]

michaelrsa wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
...michaelrsa, that's why the Alliance created Cerberus. Because incredibly important, influential parts of the Alliance don't trust the Aliens, and for valid historic reason (read: a certain unprovoked war that most everyone over the age of 35 remembers).

The USA runs some pretty dark and disturbing **** as well, in the name of protecting the US from other parts of the world. That doesn't mean that everyone else is the enemy,  but then that doesn't mean they don't spy on their friends. (Or that their don't spy on them as well.)

I don't deny that the U.S. doesn't do dark **** and I agree that we spy on our allies as much as they spy on us. But America doesn't assassinate politicians of it's colder allies or experiment on it's citizenry.

An organization run by the Alliance and monitored by them would not experiment on Asari and would not assassinate turian politicians.

Yes, they never "test" nothing on "anyone"