Dean_the_Young wrote...
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.
I have never said breaking the law is moral, not once. Protest civil or lack of civil rights is guaranteed freedom of speech under the United Nations charter.
Dean_the_Young wrote...
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.
You made the argument what Archer did was right because he wanted the project to succeed. I made the counter that breaking the law because your boss might become disappointed is not a valid excuse.
Dean_the_Young wrote...
]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.
You wanted an example of uncaring lawyers, example provided.
Dean_the_Young wrote...
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.
Citation needed, you want to say there are people who live normal healthy lives despite killing. Offer proof. Link some of these studies.
Dean_the_Young wrote...
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.
Do you recall the side mission on Noveria where you speak to the Synthetic Insights rep about all the genetic modifications? Fairly convincing proof they in the ME universe know the details of the human body.
Dean_the_Young wrote...
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.
The democratic voting system would disagree with you.
Dean_the_Young wrote...
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.
They couldn't have asked the Quarians to return the person in question? If the subject felt the need to run and hide from Cerberus then its just further proof of the kind of people Cerberus are.
Dean_the_Young wrote...
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).
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.
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.
Did you not fight Thresher Maws in ME1? Did you not see what happened to the Mako when it was hit by several litres of acid? Our digestive tracts can handle certain amounts of acid, but Toombs had acid injected in to his bloodstream.
Since you are pro-Cerberus it falls to you to help justify their actions, I want your opinion, your reason why injecting acid in to someone, your reason, why it might be valid. It doesnt even have to be your idea, use Google, Wikipedia or any reliable source to back up your claims. If you can't then don't speak as if there is one.Dean_the_Young wrote...
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.
I explained to her why lemon juice hurts when it enters a cut, not her explaining to me. Ok, what culture glorifies or even expects its scientists to be what others might consider to be complete monsters?
Retour en haut
Heavy industry is a military target, even though it is usually civilian owned and run.
) of intelligence in all honesty. To play along with 008Zulu though; 'evil' for the sake of evil to me is plain boring, and more deserving to appear in children's cartoon's than what I think BioWare is trying with ME1. I mean; look at the philosophy for example as to whether the Genophage (v1 or v2) was necessary, or to the ethical state of the Council, and then compare that to what people's general views of Cerberus and you'll see it remarkably skewed (if this forum is anything to juge. At a glance, how many respondents do you see who make comments in this thread and others like it who immediately beeline against Cerberus?) result -- and to me, that makes it a standout outlier compared to what BioWare is trying to do with 'ethically ambiguous' tests which may mean something may come out of it. I digress though.
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.
