1342 réponses à ce sujet

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

didymos1120 wrote...

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

That makes not a lick of difference. The Quarians involved themselves in a quarrel that was not their own, and they paid the consequences of it.

[lolwut666]

Dean_the_Young 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.

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.

I'm going by the posts I've bothered to read, because I have no time to read everything.

And rather than trying to prove me wrong, you just resorted to cursing and whining like a little rabid troll.

Way to go.

[Dean_the_Young]

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.

Societies held together long before human rights were an organized conception, and human societies have held together despite constant history of abuses and double-dealings on the matter.

What actually has a history of keeping societies together in the force place is a mixture of common culture (of which civil rights is a wonderful, but hardly decisive, addition) and government enforcement.

[Someone With Mass]

From the wiki:
Nevertheless, both the Systems Alliance and the Citadel Council have declared Cerberus to be a terrorist organization and will prosecute identified Cerberus agents accordingly.

I'd say that makes Cerberus an enemy of the Alliance. Not one of their sub factions.

[lolwut666]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

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.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Human_rights

[Someone With Mass]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

That makes not a lick of difference. The Quarians involved themselves in a quarrel that was not their own, and they paid the consequences of it.

Same thing can be said about Project Overlord.

[didymos1120]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

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

That makes not a lick of difference.

Your description was incorrect.  Mine was not. Accuracy matters.

[Dean_the_Young]

lolwut666 wrote...

I'm going by the posts I've bothered to read, because I have no time to read everything.

And rather than trying to prove me wrong, you just resorted to cursing and whining like a little rabid troll.

Way to go.

Sure. Because disputing being called heartless and having no respect of human rights just makes someone a troll. It's got to be real easy to live in a world where denying an accusation only proves it.


Now, since you're so short on time to 'read everything', why don't you ask my views before you presume to know them simply because I dispute yours?

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

lolwut666 wrote...

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Human_rights

I don't get it.

Are you implying Wikipedia is the objective and transcendent hub of knowledge by which all human interaction should abide by?

[Dean_the_Young]

didymos1120 wrote...

Your description was incorrect.  Mine was not. Accuracy matters.

As it thrown at me more than often enough...

Semantics! 


(But no, seriously, didy is right in this matter.)

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

didymos1120 wrote...

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

That makes not a lick of difference.

Your description was incorrect.  Mine was not. Accuracy matters.

Quoting only part of my post and responding to only that is considered intellectual dishonesty. Respond to my entire thought and I will take your arguments seriously.

EDIT: Yes, I was fuzzy on the details on the Cerberus attack, but it makes no real difference to its legitimacy.

Modifié par Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams, 05 mai 2011 - 10:13 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Someone With Mass wrote...

From the wiki:
Nevertheless, both the Systems Alliance and the Citadel Council have declared Cerberus to be a terrorist organization and will prosecute identified Cerberus agents accordingly.

I'd say that makes Cerberus an enemy of the Alliance. Not one of their sub factions.

Besides dating back to when Cerberus was, by the game's own admission, an Alliance organ, it more accurately marks the Alliance as a public enemy of Cerberus. What Cerberus considers itself an enemy of is never solicited.

[lolwut666]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

lolwut666 wrote...

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Human_rights

I don't get it.

Are you implying Wikipedia is the objective and transcendent hub of knowledge by which all human interaction should abide by?

Wikipedia is a compilation of information from different sources.

Feel free to look for a different definition of human rights anywhere else. My point will still stand.

[Sandbox47]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.

Societies held together long before human rights were an organized conception, and human societies have held together despite constant history of abuses and double-dealings on the matter.

What actually has a history of keeping societies together in the force place is a mixture of common culture (of which civil rights is a wonderful, but hardly decisive, addition) and government enforcement.

You're right, of course, but there is another thing that is famous for keeping people together and it is a threat or common enemy, however you like to see it. A reason for sticking together in smaller communities and a reason given by a government to stick together in larger communities (cities).
And often things like criminals make the second one easier to manifest because if the goverment is seen to do one thing right then presumably - they can do the rest just as well.

Just a thought I had

[Someone With Mass]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Besides dating back to when Cerberus was, by the game's own admission, an Alliance organ, it more accurately marks the Alliance as a public enemy of Cerberus. What Cerberus considers itself an enemy of is never solicited.

Does it matter? I think it's enough if one side declares the other an enemy.

[Sandbox47]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

lolwut666 wrote...

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Human_rights

I don't get it.

Are you implying Wikipedia is the objective and transcendent hub of knowledge by which all human interaction should abide by?

666 implies that there is a deffinition of human rights, as defined by one comittee or another, posted on the internet. Keep up! <_<

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

lolwut666 wrote...

Wikipedia is a compilation of information from different sources.

Feel free to look for a different definition of human rights anywhere else. My point will still stand.

I understand what "human rights" are. The disagreement is that they the are an intangible idea that have arisen in the past few centuries to justify that actions of classical liberal states that desire to interfere with affairs of states that have not yet accepted these arbitrary ideas. "Human rights" is not something that exists, it is a belief that can never be proven in any way.

[Dean_the_Young]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

That makes not a lick of difference. The Quarians involved themselves in a quarrel that was not their own, and they paid the consequences of it.

Same thing can be said about Project Overlord.

Who in particular? David was wearing a Cerberus uniform from the start, serving as at least an assistant for a Cerberus project director, so he was 'involved.' The Heretic Geth tried to kill everyone and all humans, so they were involved. That's pretty much fits most definitions of involvement.

The ethical crime of what happened to David was based around his condition mitigating any possibility of consent, not that he wasn't involved in a very real conflict.

[lolwut666]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

lolwut666 wrote...

I'm going by the posts I've bothered to read, because I have no time to read everything.

And rather than trying to prove me wrong, you just resorted to cursing and whining like a little rabid troll.

Way to go.

Sure. Because disputing being called heartless and having no respect of human rights just makes someone a troll. It's got to be real easy to live in a world where denying an accusation only proves it.


Now, since you're so short on time to 'read everything', why don't you ask my views before you presume to know them simply because I dispute yours?

Like I said, I've formed my opinion out of the posts I've bothered to read. If it is inaccurate, I apologize, but you can't always expect someone to think that far ahead.

Rather than complain, you could have already clarified this situation for me and we might be talking about something pertinent to the topic rather than bickering.

Modifié par lolwut666, 05 mai 2011 - 10:19 .

[Sandbox47]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Besides dating back to when Cerberus was, by the game's own admission, an Alliance organ, it more accurately marks the Alliance as a public enemy of Cerberus. What Cerberus considers itself an enemy of is never solicited.

Does it matter? I think it's enough if one side declares the other an enemy.

No. It's not. There can be no war if one side isn't fighting it. Especially when the Alliance themselves are not all too willing to mess with Cerberus because of the advantages of the current situation.

[Someone With Mass]

Sandbox47 wrote...

No. It's not. There can be no war if one side isn't fighting it. Especially when the Alliance themselves are not all too willing to mess with Cerberus because of the advantages of the current situation.

Yeah, but the Alliance isn't in war with Cerberus. They just declared it hostile.

[lolwut666]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.

Societies held together long before human rights were an organized conception, and human societies have held together despite constant history of abuses and double-dealings on the matter.

What actually has a history of keeping societies together in the force place is a mixture of common culture (of which civil rights is a wonderful, but hardly decisive, addition) and government enforcement.

Every society that disregards human rights either does not exist anymore or it does not prosper. Look at totalitarian regimens like the Roman empire, n*** Germany , the URSS under Stalin, and many others.

They held on for a while, but eventually they crumbled.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

lolwut666 wrote...

Every society that disregards human rights either does not exist anymore or it does not prosper. Look at totalitarian regimens like the Roman empire, n*** Germany , the URSS under Stalin, and many others.

They held on for a while, but eventually they crumbled.

All empires eventually crumble. What society that has valued "human rights" have even come close to the extent and length the Romans ruled the western world?

EDIT: Here's a hint: none have even come remotely close.

Modifié par Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams, 05 mai 2011 - 10:28 .

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

lolwut666 wrote...
Every society that disregards human rights either does not exist anymore or it does not prosper. Look at totalitarian regimens like the Roman empire, n*** Germany , the URSS under Stalin, and many others.

They held on for a while, but eventually they crumbled.

I am not sure the Roman empire is the best idea to use for what you are talking about.