437 réponses à ce sujet

[Siansonea]

lolwut666 wrote...

@Siansonea II

You're grasping at strawmen, because you have no proof whatsoever that she could not think rationally in that situation. Some people become less functional during heightened emotional states than others. You just choose to believe you are better than her.

What strawmen? That's a popular tactic in debates around here. Don't agree? Cite the inevitable "strawman". Instant discredit. If you think the entire argument hinges on Tali's emotional state, you have completely missed the point of what I was saying. Here are the facts:

1: The Admiralty is the recognized authority in Tali's trial. They are the ones who are deciding the fate of Tali and her father, whether he is found alive or if he is deceased. The Admiralty asks Shepard to act as Tali's spokesperson in the trial, in accordance with quarian law. They will base their decision on the information they receive from Shepard, believing that Shepard will uphold quarian law and tell them the whole truth about what Shepard sees on the Alarei.
2: Shepard learns that Rael'Zorah has broken quarian law by activating geth programs without proper safeguards, and as a result gets himself and many others killed, as well as endangering the Migrant Fleet as a whole.
3: Shepard either follows the laws he has agreed to uphold by being a part of the trial, or he breaks the law to give Tali what she wants.

How are any of these points "strawmen"? Please, explain this to me.

Weather she knows more than the Admirals is irrelevant, because the data is presented PUBLICLY, which means that a lot of quarians are going to know about it first-hand, and word of mouth is going to travel fast, and the panic that we are trying to avoid is of the QUARIAN POPULATION, not of the Admiralty Board. And I never argued that it is lawful or not; just that it is the right decision.

Very classy that you'd exaggerate like that. It really shows that you're running out of arguments.

We're talking about the FATE OF AN ENTIRE SPECIES, which is a lot more important than driving safely and paying taxes, and therefore might require more drastic measures. I'm a law-abidding citizen, but that does not stop me from being prudent.

So, if the trial was a private tribunal, it might be a different story? I'm not sure what the implications of that statement are, but I'm inclined to think they're not good.

You think Tali was right to protect her father. That's fine. I think she's being very self-serving by asking Shepard to perjure himself/herself on Tali's behalf. And my point wasn't primarily about the rightness or wrongness of the decision, merely that Tali's disrespect for the law was one of the major reasons I dislike the character. And that by compromising the laws of her own people, Tali has compromised her own ethical integrity. Whether you care about that or not determines to some extent how you feel about Tali. I value respect for the law, even when it goes against self-interest. That's one reason that I like Samara so much. Tali does not have the same respect for the law, she will ask a friend to perjure himself/herself for her to get the outcome she desires. I don't respect that attitude, not in real life, and not in a video game character.

[lolwut666]

@Siansonea II

I tweaked my post and removed the "strawmen" and some other stuff because I figured I came out too harsh.

Anyway, please do something about your attitude as well. I'm not interested in fighting.

About what you said:

Again, you decided to simply play by the book, disregarding the long-term consequences.

Your three points are irrelevant, because the point of the mission was never to uphold quarian law, but to gain Tali's loyalty; and EVEN from an ethical standpoint, handing the data over to the Admiralty Board is the wrong choices because it will be harmful to the quarians in the long run. Granted, you only have Tali's word on it, but you have NO ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING YOUR POSITION ON THIS MATTER - what with you being a human and not a quarian. You can either follow her suggestion or decide that you know better than her for no reason other than self-righteousness and give the data to the Admiralty Board.

Anyway, it seems obvious to me that you don't really care about the fate of the quarians as much as you care about upholding the law, so there's no point to this argument.

Modifié par lolwut666, 03 mai 2011 - 08:43 .

[lolwut666]

@Nyoka

Not everybody sees the Paragon the same way you do, and we all have our own code of ethics.

Do not presume yours is more correct than others.

[lolwut666]

@Nyoka

Your entire argument is that you "should give the data to the admirals because that's the law".

"Law" is a concept that varies from one place to another.

"Law" in **** Germany is far from what you are used to deal with in your day-to-day. The same is true in dictatorships.

"Good", however, is universal. Not giving the admirals the data is in the quarians' best interests, and therefore it is the better option.

[Siansonea]

lolwut666 wrote...

@Siansonea II

I tweaked my post and removed the "strawmen" and some other stuff because I figured I came out too harsh.

Anyway, please do something about your attitude as well. I'm not interested in fighting.

About what you said:

Again, you decided to simply play by the book, disregarding the long-term consequences.

Your three points are irrelevant, because the point of the mission was never to uphold quarian law, but to gain Tali's loyalty; and EVEN from an ethical standpoint, handing the data over to the Admiralty Board is the wrong choices because it will be harmful to the quarians in the long run. Granted, you only have Tali's word on it, but you have NO ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING YOUR POSITION ON THIS MATTER - what with you being a human and not a quarian. You can either follow her suggestion or decide that you know better than her for no reason other than self-righteousness and give the data to the Admiralty Board.

Anyway, it seems obvious to me that you don't really care about the fate of the quarians as much as you care about upholding the law, so there's no point to this argument.

My points are relevant, because by agreeing to represent Tali in the proceedings, Shepard was agreeing to play by the quarians' rules, whether Shepard actually intended to do that or not. And my stance has always been that playing by the book is important if you consider yourself a Paragon, rather than doing whatever you want because it benefits you or someone you like, or because you think you're more qualified to assess the situation than the people who are legally recognized as having the authority to make those decisions.

You say that I have no reason to uphold the law other than 'self-righteousness', but to put it the other way, I have no reason to break the law other than Tali's opinion about the state of quarian politics. So, do I just defer to Tali's opinion and perjure myself, or just do what I was asked to do by the recognized civil authority and simply state the truth of the matter, and let them decide what to do with that information? The answer seems pretty clear cut to me, and self-righteousness isn't really the motivating factor. It's a desire to do the ethical thing, the thing I agreed to do. But I suppose to some people, that's the same thing.

And you're right, I don't care about the fate of the quarians especially. That's not my responsibility. All I agreed to do was investigate Tali's situation, retake her father's ship, and report the results to the Admiralty Board. Not cover up war crimes to appease Tali. Sorry Tali, you've got mad skills at hacking firewalls and all, but I'm not going to commit a crime just because you asked me to. Pout in the engine room if you want, or get off my ship, either way, I'm still not committing a crime for you.

[lolwut666]

@Nyoka

Paragons know when they should swallow their pride and put their principles aside if that means achieving a greater good. That's sacrifice.

[Siansonea]

lolwut666 wrote...

@Nyoka

Your entire argument is that you "should give the data to the admirals because that's the law".

"Law" is a concept that varies from one place to another.

"Law" in **** Germany is far from what you are used to deal with in your day-to-day. The same is true in dictatorships.

"Good", however, is universal. Not giving the admirals the data is in the quarians' best interests, and therefore it is the better option.

"Good" is not universal, and it's especially not good in this case. It's good for Tali, good for Shepard, good for maybe maintaining the uneasy and very fragile cooperation of the quarian people for an undetermined amount of time. But it's not ever GOOD to CONCEAL EVIDENCE OF A WAR CRIME. And are we really comparing the quarian government to Notsy Germany?

[Siansonea]

lolwut666 wrote...

@Nyoka

Paragons know when they should swallow their pride and put their principles aside if that means achieving a greater good. That's sacrifice.

Please give other examples of Shepard doing this, maybe that will help illustrate your point. I'm not saying this is actually wrong, but I do think this particular case is not a clear case of achieving a greater good.

[lolwut666]

@Siansonea II

I'm not comparing it to anything. I said that laws are different everywhere. Notsy Germany was just an example of that.

And you are more concerned about tarnishing the name of one guy rather than the well-being of millions.

That's like saying that it's alright to sacrifice millions for the sake of capturing one bad guy. I can't think of anything more Renegade than that.

[lolwut666]

Nyoka wrote...

lolwut666 wrote...

@Nyoka

Paragons know when they should swallow their pride and put their principles aside if that means achieving a greater good. That's sacrifice.

No, as a matter of fact, they don't. Paragons do what's right. Even if not doing so is more convenient to them and to other people. Notice the difference between right and convenient. I highlighted those words.

Honesty. Integrity. Principles.

I really can't see how what you do is "right" if it has bad repercussions.

It's right to you maybe, so that's more about self-fullfilment than anything else.

[lolwut666]

Nyoka wrote...

lolwut666 wrote...

I really can't see how what you do is "right" if it has bad repercussions.

That's the reason why you are Renegade. Your focus is on practical results. Do whatever it takes to achieve the desired outcome, even if that means acting in a dishonest manner. The ends justify the means.

It's right to you maybe, so that's more about self-fullfilment than anything else.

It's about doing what's right.

It's being prudent. When you do not give them the evidence, that's all you do. You are not sacrificing many for the sake of a greater good; you are SPARING many of what would have been a catastrophe.

When you *do* give them the data, you are sacrificing many for the sake of making a point.

You'll have to do better than "It's about doing what's right" to convince me.

[Siansonea]

lolwut666 wrote...

@Siansonea II

I'm not comparing it to anything. I said that laws are different everywhere. Notsy Germany was just an example of that.

And you are more concerned about tarnishing the name of one guy rather than the well-being of millions.

That's like saying that it's alright to sacrifice millions for the sake of capturing one bad guy. I can't think of anything more Renegade than that.

This is a false analogy. This "well-being of millions" is purely theoretical, and based soley on Tali's opinion, and a few sentences from a few quarian Admirals IF you talk to them beforehand. From Shepard's viewpoint, the scope of the situation appears to be limited to Tali's status within the quarian flotilla: whether she is a citizen, or an exile. The ramifications of Rael'Zorah's actions, whether they are revealed are not, are impossible for Shepard to unerringly quantify to such a degree that Shepard can use that as a basis to justify going against his word by concealing evidence.

And whether you think Shepard is right by doing so or not, you can't refute the fact that by doing as Tali wishes, Shepard breaks his promise to the Admiralty, breaks quarian law, and does the expedient, easy thing simply to appease Tali. There's no evidence that Shepard's motivation for doing this extend to preserving quarian society's current status quo. As if that, in and of itself, is automatically a noble goal anyway. Who's to say the Admiralty Board didn't fracture a week later because they couldn't agree whether to have pizza or tacos for lunch? Who's to say that fracturing the flotilla isn't inevitable at this point, that Shepard didn't simply postpone it.

[Siansonea]

mrsph wrote...

I'm curious.

Did I ever take an oath to tell the truth during Tali's trial?

Looking for legal loophole = Renegade.

[lolwut666]

@Siansonea II

Denial won't make your arguments any more valid.

You are ignoring all the hints BioWare gave us about what could - and likely will - happen to the quarians in favor of imposing your own views of what'll happen to them in the game, and then basing your arguments out of that.

Everything you said after that is pure speculation. I'll admit that I've speculated much myself, but at least my speculations have some basis to them.

And before you promised anything to the Admiralty Board, you promised to help Tali on her trial. You can accomplish that without using the evidence.

And I really can't see the logic behind not doing the right thing just because you have ulterior motives.

[lolwut666]

@Nyoka

I'm not holding the evidence because I think I know better than them. It's *because* I don't know much about quarian politics that I've decided to accept Tali's suggestion.

And again you try to force your own views of what the Paragon is about.

Personally, I believe that the Paragon way is to do good at the expense of none. I would never sacrifice people or do heinous things to accomplish an objective, but I'm willing to break a few laws if no other choice is available.