1342 réponses à ce sujet

[Bourne Endeavor]

Dave666 wrote...

If you create a special unit of Biotics, trained to work in concert, then you would have them travel together, thats kinda the point.  You wouldn't send them off on solo missions, you'd send them all together.  I said twenty, because Cerberus killed at least that many on Pragia just look at the number of beds etc, that and the fact that enough children died that it was worthwhile for them to install child sized mortuary tables (Jack and the second Squaddie talk about it in one of the rooms), you don't go to that effort for one or two.

It would be counterproductive to build an army until they were certain what was being done would be effective. It is more cost efficient and beneficial to determine conclusively your experimentation will function as desired on a single individual than by wide spread testing on numerous people. They did not want merger upgrades but a human biotic capable of harnessing power that would rival the Asari or even surpass them. Once this was perfected, then they would test on others and subsequently conscript an army.

Nevertheless, there is the possibility TIM did not support the experimentation on Jack. It is suspect, as is everything he does however reasonable doubt does linger.

lolwut666 wrote...

The only reason some people agree with Cerberus is because they don't even consider the possibility that they might be expendable.

Ego, yo.

I'm really curious to know exactly how valuable would a bunch of nerdy video game players be to an organization such as Cerberus.

Perhaps, it is I could consider them an expendable commodity. Having chosen to keep the Collector Base, I now have sufficient evidence to bolster my claims to the Council and possibly steer the Alliance from ineptitude. The crew at my disposal are the best the galaxy has seen and are loyal to me not TIM.

Cerberus was a necessary evil to accomplish our objective in seeing the demise of the Collectors. With that done, TIM's options are severely restricted as I could abandon him by going rogue or returning to the Alliance with everything.

Why I certainly have my distrust of Cerberus, they achieve results or attempt to proceed in a productive manner. The same cannot be said of the Alliance, if ME2 is any indication.

[DPSSOC]

Someone With Mass wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
Yes Cerberus is evil, yes they're unethical, but the important question is; are they necessary?  Given the temperment and technology of the Council races can we afford to play catch-up the slow way?

Short answer? No. 

Why? I haven't really seen any species besides the eventual batarian group out there that are fiercely in competition with humanity in an effort to overthrow it.

There's no cold war.

Any nation, or in this case species, which is not subservient to you is in competition with you (not necessarily militarily).  We live in a finite space (albeit a very large space) with limited resources, we compete with every other race out their for those resources (as an example).  The Turians, Asari, and Salarians are in a position to wipe us out (or were pre-split at the very least) and again any species that is not under our direct control is a potential threat  So there is a very dire need to close that gap and make the threats manageable.  Now one could argue that by ME2 we've reached that point so Cerberus should shut down. 

Someone With Mass wrote...
Sure, we need to experiment to advance, but there are so many better ways to do it. Take for example that guy who was injected with thresher acid. The same result could be met if they'd just poured some acid on a piece of standard issue armor. Doesn't really take a rocket scientist to realize that if the acid is going through the armor with ease, it'll hurt the wearer.

And if you're trying to figure out more than "will this hurt"?  What if you're attempting to determine how Thresher acid reacts with human tissue in order to develop treatment?  Again you could do plenty of tests in a lab without hurting anyone, or you can hit some poor bastard with it and see what keeps him alive.  It's like anti-venom; you can run all the tests you want but the only real way to know it works is somebody's gotta get bit.  Cloned tissue and test animals can only take you so far eventually you need a human trial.

[Someone With Mass]

Instead of doing trial and errors, they could just work like real scientists and analyze the components in the acid, and work up countermeasures that way.

[008Zulu]

Given the size of the Thresher Maw and that they rely on surprise, their acid would have to incapacitate a target very quickly. Much too quickly for there to be an effective treatment, especially given the quantities in which they spit.

[Dean_the_Young]

Dave666 wrote...

If you create a special unit of Biotics, trained to work in concert, then you would have them travel together, thats kinda the point.  You wouldn't send them off on solo missions, you'd send them all together.  I said twenty, because Cerberus killed at least that many on Pragia just look at the number of beds etc, that and the fact that enough children died that it was worthwhile for them to install child sized mortuary tables (Jack and the second Squaddie talk about it in one of the rooms), you don't go to that effort for one or two.

Just as you ignored the other points, you missed that there is a legitimate case for quality over quantity in various applications. Cerberus could also have raised an entire army for what they paid for Shepard: does that mean that Shepard fights better than an entire army? Not necessarily. Does it disprove that Shepard can do things an entire army is ill-suited for? Not at all.

[Dean_the_Young]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Instead of doing trial and errors, they could just work like real scientists and analyze the components in the acid, and work up countermeasures that way.

All medical research eventually enters human testing phases. There is no source that the Thresher Maw experiments on Toombs were 'trial and error', or the trial of first result, or anything of the sort.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

"Evil" is a very loaded term that can only be thrown out correctly with the utmost discretion. Also, deeming Cerberus a "terrorist" organization is using the term in only the very loosest of definitions. Cerberus has their motives (albeit noble or not), so these sorts of terms hardly have a place for an organization with legitimate motivations.

[Homebound]

^cerberus is still pretty evil.

[Someone With Mass]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

"Evil" is a very loaded term that can only be thrown out correctly with the utmost discretion. Also, deeming Cerberus a "terrorist" organization is using the term in only the very loosest of definitions. Cerberus has their motives (albeit noble or not), so these sorts of terms hardly have a place for an organization with legitimate motivations.

So, the attack on the quarian fleet, killing dozens in the progress, and an attempt to destroy one of their ships can't be viewed as a terrorist attack?

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 05 mai 2011 - 09:43 .

[didymos1120]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

All medical research eventually enters human testing phases.

Uh, yeah, but they:

a. are highly regulated to minimize harm as much as possible.
b. supposed to be voluntary.

[Dean_the_Young]

Hellbound555 wrote...

^cerberus is still pretty evil.

Depends on how you frame your ethics. There are plenty of systems out there in which if you balance good and harm and good done for others surpasses numbers harmed, immoral or not a group/individual isn't 'evil.'

It's plenty possible to be immoral without being evil, or even evil without being immoral, depending on whose ethics you're judging by.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

"Evil" is a very loaded term that can only be thrown out correctly with the utmost discretion. Also, deeming Cerberus a "terrorist" organization is using the term in only the very loosest of definitions. Cerberus has their motives (albeit noble or not), so these sorts of terms hardly have a place for an organization with legitimate motivations.

So, the attack on the quarian fleet, killing dozens in the progress can't be viewed as a terrorist attack?

No. Not in the least. A terrorist act is one that is intended to instill "terror" in order to advance some sort of agenda. The Cerberus "attack" on the Quarian fleet was a small operation in order to reclaim a rogue operative that could harm their organization. It had nothing to do with the desire to make people fear them.

[Someone With Mass]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...
No. Not in the least. A terrorist act is one that is intended to instill "terror" in order to advance some sort of agenda. The Cerberus "attack" on the Quarian fleet was a small operation in order to reclaim a rogue operative that could harm their organization. It had nothing to do with the desire to make people fear them.

Too bad that it already had that effect. 

And I would call trying to destroy a ship for no good reason an act of terrorism.

Because it sure as hell spread panic.

[lolwut666]

There's no point to arguing with people the likes of Dean_the_Young, General User and those other Cerberus apologists, because they don't give a crap about human rights.

They have never considered what a society where human rights are ignored would be like, nor have they ever put themselves in the victims places. They think they are special and that Cerberus would never use them as test subjects.

Pseudo-intellectuals. Nothing more.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Too bad that it already had that effect. 

And I would call trying to destroy a ship for no good reason an act of terrorism.

Because it sure as hell spread panic.

1. Of course any use of force will instill some sort of fear. I doesn't make it a terrorist attack.

2. Destroying a ship for no good reason? The Quarians brought it upon themselves by harboring a fugitive from an organization that is looking out for the interests of humanity. To say that the Quarians were innocent bystanders in a quarrel that had nothing to do with them is simply naive.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

lolwut666 wrote...

There's no point to arguing with people the likes of Dean_the_Young, General User and those other Cerberus apologists, because they don't give a crap about human rights.

They have never considered what a society where human rights are ignored would be like, nor have they ever put themselves in the victims places. They think they are special and that Cerberus would never use them as test subjects.

Pseudo-intellectuals. Nothing more.

Please, give me a list of universal "human rights." Would i like to be used as a test subject or have my rights taken away to benefit humanity as a whole? No. Does it mean that it was not the right decision? No. Taking a very personal look at decisions that affect thousands/millions/billions of people will lead to irrational, emotional decisions that do more harm than good.

[Dean_the_Young]

didymos1120 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

All medical research eventually enters human testing phases.

Uh, yeah, but they:

a. are highly regulated to minimize harm as much as possible.
b. supposed to be voluntary.

Indeed. I'm not disputing the ethical failure, but the implication of a logical one.

[lolwut666]

@Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams

1. Yes, it still makes it a terrorist attack. Innocents were killed, terrors was spread out, and all of it was caused by a non-government sanctioned organization looking out of its own interests.

2. It's not in "humanity's best interests". Humanity does not endorse Cerberus's practices. The quarians were protecting someone who would have been used against her will by a rogue organization.

[Dean_the_Young]

lolwut666 wrote...

There's no point to arguing with people the likes of Dean_the_Young, General User and those other Cerberus apologists, because they don't give a crap about human rights.

They have never considered what a society where human rights are ignored would be like, nor have they ever put themselves in the victims places. They think they are special and that Cerberus would never use them as test subjects.

Pseudo-intellectuals. Nothing more.

Wow. It's like someone completely doesn't know jack **** about my views nor has even pursued my views on such subjects, and confuses disputing misleading accusations with appology and support.

Now that's some idiotic trolling. Can you imagine if someone tried to use that sort of logic in a courthouse?

"This lawyer is defending a known criminal from my accusations! She is such an apologist, and doesn't give a crap about the rights of others!"

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 05 mai 2011 - 10:04 .

[Someone With Mass]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...
1. Of course any use of force will instill some sort of fear. I doesn't make it a terrorist attack.

2. Destroying a ship for no good reason? The Quarians brought it upon themselves by harboring a fugitive from an organization that is looking out for the interests of humanity. To say that the Quarians were innocent bystanders in a quarrel that had nothing to do with them is simply naive.

Oh. By that logic, 9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack either. It was just a use of force.

And by the way, Cerberus isn't a official organization. It's a rogue splinter group. They don't have the rights to demand crap. They have no rights to claim that the autistic girl is somehow an enemy of the human race. Because they violated her rights to begin with.

[lolwut666]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

lolwut666 wrote...

There's no point to arguing with people the likes of Dean_the_Young, General User and those other Cerberus apologists, because they don't give a crap about human rights.

They have never considered what a society where human rights are ignored would be like, nor have they ever put themselves in the victims places. They think they are special and that Cerberus would never use them as test subjects.

Pseudo-intellectuals. Nothing more.

Please, give me a list of universal "human rights." Would i like to be used as a test subject or have my rights taken away to benefit humanity as a whole? No. Does it mean that it was not the right decision? No. Taking a very personal look at decisions that affect thousands/millions/billions of people will lead to irrational, emotional decisions that do more harm than good.

That's why it's called "human rights". It means they are not to be violated for any reason, no matter how "logical" or "righteous" you claim them to be.

It's the respect for human rights that keeps society together in the first place.

[Dean_the_Young]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...
1. Of course any use of force will instill some sort of fear. I doesn't make it a terrorist attack.

2. Destroying a ship for no good reason? The Quarians brought it upon themselves by harboring a fugitive from an organization that is looking out for the interests of humanity. To say that the Quarians were innocent bystanders in a quarrel that had nothing to do with them is simply naive.

Oh. By that logic, 9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack either. It was just a use of force.

Uh, no. That's not what that logic entails: pointing out that some force will bring about fear without being terrorism is NOT a position that all uses of force that bring about fear are not terrorism.

And by the way, Cerberus isn't a official organization. It's a rogue splinter group. They don't have the rights to demand crap. They have no rights to claim that the autistic girl is somehow an enemy of the human race. Because they violated her rights to begin with.

The root of legitimacy is an entire separate question: the entire history of human rights has largely sprung up from 'unofficial' groups opposing the official order.

You can well argue that Cerberus is wrong, but not so much because they're an unofficial group unless you're prepared to make some rather sweeping judgements of human history.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 05 mai 2011 - 10:01 .

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

lolwut666 wrote...

@Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams

1. Yes, it still makes it a terrorist attack. Innocents were killed, terrors was spread out, and all of it was caused by a non-government sanctioned organization looking out of its own interests.

2. It's not in "humanity's best interests". Humanity does not endorse Cerberus's practices. The quarians were protecting someone who would have been used against her will by a rogue organization.

1. "Terrorism" is the use of "terror" to advance an organization's agenda. The attack was tactical. The Quarians were holding an enemy of Cerberus. Cerberus was simply getting him back.

2. False. The Systems Alliance does not endorse Cerberus practices (publically). That Cerberus is actually "rogue" is yet to be shown, and the "rights" of the girl do not matter in any way to the diplomatic legitimacy of the Quarians' actions.

[didymos1120]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

1. "Terrorism" is the use of "terror" to advance an organization's agenda. The attack was tactical. The Quarians were holding an enemy of Cerberus. Cerberus was simply getting him back.

Uh, no.  They went there to kidnap twelve-year-old biotic girl so their experiments on her could continue.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

lolwut666 wrote...

That's why it's called "human rights". It means they are not to be violated for any reason, no matter how "logical" or "righteous" you claim them to be.

It's the respect for human rights that keeps society together in the first place.

What "rights" are we talking about? Who decided what these "rights" are? You fail to realize your position is just as subjective as mine. There is no list of "human rights" sent down from some transcendent authority.