225 réponses à ce sujet

[Barquiel]

LorDC wrote...

a) Cerberus aren't terrorists. Check definition of terrorism if you think so.

But you know that Cerberus Operative Jacob Taylor calls them terrorists?

Modifié par Barquiel, 04 mai 2011 - 06:58 .

[Fixers0]

LorDC wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...
Since we arrived to the point that were you are saying that wiping out out a terroirst group is bad for humanity, i think we're done.

a) Cerberus aren't terrorists. Check definition of terrorism if you think so.
Cerberus has done for humanity more than than turians ever will.
"Selling" Cerberus to turians is bad humanity.

a) cerberus has commited various criminal acts against  both humans 
such as what, Performing illegal test to create biological weapons, exposing an entire colony of inocent people to reaper technology and turning them into husks, torturing children to develop a biotic weapon.  

[LorDC]

lolwut666 wrote...
a) No. It shows that we are not stupid enough to refuse help.

 I'm not contradicting myself at all. They're humanity's biggest shame because Cerberus is consisted of humans, but they are not part of humanity because they are a non-government sanctioned organization.

c) Again, humanity does not endorse Cerberus's actions and Cerberus does not answer to humanity. They are fully independent. When they do something and humanity gets the blame, it's because of alien bigotry to claim that all humans are the same.

d) It's not allowing them to strike against the Alliance because Cerberus is not part of the Alliance. And it can't be helped if they find anything, because what's more important is to take Cerberus down. So you're saying that if a turian organization started terrorizing the galaxy, every species should step aside and let the turians deal with it, even when they are also being attacked? You're suggesting they don't retaliate? Again, you're willing to refuse help out of blind human pride.

a) Such help always comes with a price. And price could be much bigger than expected. Anderson ignored it completely.

b&c) You just completely ignored my point. Yes, formally Cerberus does not answer to human government blah-blah-blah. In fact they are part of humanity. Even from formal point of view they were Alliance branch not to long ago. Fact that they "gone rogue" does not suddenly sever all their ties with humanity.

d) I don't deny turians their right to work against Cerberus. On their own. But when Anderson willingly involved them into this mater he became traitor. As an example: modern countries can and will use espionage as their tool and it is viewed as something normal(no one denies existence of CIA) but that does not stop this same countries from putting spies in jails.

[LorDC]

Fixers0 wrote...
a) cerberus has commited various criminal acts against  both humans 

I will not deny that Cerberus methods are harsh but that does not make them terrorists.

Fixers0 wrote...
such as what, Performing illegal test to create biological weapons, exposing an entire colony of inocent people to reaper technology and turning them into husks, torturing children to develop a biotic weapon.  

And resurrecting Shepard, saving human colonies, saving Citadel, creating of both Normandies, their research into human biotic potential, artificial intelligence and control of the Geth. While from Turians we got occupation of out colony and putting colonists into concentration camps.

Modifié par LorDC, 04 mai 2011 - 07:19 .

[LorDC]

Barquiel wrote...

LorDC wrote...

a) Cerberus aren't terrorists. Check definition of terrorism if you think so.

But you know that Cerberus Operative Jacob Taylor calls them terrorists?

And I call you terrorist(BARQUIEL IS TERRORIST!!!!1111oneoneeleven). So what?

[Moiaussi]

lolwut666 wrote...

What you think is irrelevant, because no social interaction is fully based on logic. If you questioned the Council, they could feel offended, even if you are right. Politicians know when they should speak up and when they should nod silently.

So you are advocating a politicly correct approach where humanity rolls over every time to whoever is strong enough to actually make suggestions, less someone get offended? Your logic still applies even if the Alliance are a full member.

May as well not have ambassadors or representatives at all in that case, just let whoever tell us what is best for us and accept that lest we offend them.

Sounds a lot like the kind of Government TIM advocates, with him in charge.

[Dean_the_Young]

lolwut666 wrote...

@Dean_the_Young

His purpose from the start was to get through the Omega 4 relay to reach the Collector homeworld. Even if he didn't knew there was a Collector base, it's only fair to assume that he expected to find Reaper tech there.

Or, alternatively, it could have had, you know Collector technology. And not in a set-up that could only have been known to be capturable once you were already there.

While I certainly wouldn't dispute that TIM might have been hoping to capture Collector technology all the while, claiming that his only motivation for all of his work was selfish ambition when the involvement of the Reapers weren't even demonstrated in any sense until after he bankrupted his organization on an unsure return... well, that is far, far from a convincing argument.

And what Genocide? Shepard never committed genocide. Do you even know what genocide means?

Thorian, Nazarra gestalt-AI, the millions of Geth on Noveria, and of course the 300,000 Batarian system. All these are genocides, as you forgot, even without factoring such de-facto support of genocidal policies such as destroying the genophage cure.

So far. Better not count the pyjacks and space cows and Thresher Maws.

Without Shepard, none of what happened in the game would've been possible. Shepard was the only one up to the task, so Shepard is more important than TIM.

And without TIM, there would still have been no Shepard, nor would Shepard have known what task and where he was supposed to be up to, nor would he have had the tools to do said task.

[Moiaussi]

LorDC wrote...

Barquiel wrote...

LorDC wrote...

a) Cerberus aren't terrorists. Check definition of terrorism if you think so.

But you know that Cerberus Operative Jacob Taylor calls them terrorists?

And I call you terrorist(BARQUIEL IS TERRORIST!!!!1111oneoneeleven). So what?

Quit hiding behind semantics. The colloquial definition of terrorism is much more inclusive than the strict dictionary definition.

[Barquiel]

LorDC wrote...

Barquiel wrote...

LorDC wrote...

a) Cerberus aren't terrorists. Check definition of terrorism if you think so.

But you know that Cerberus Operative Jacob Taylor calls them terrorists?

And I call you terrorist(BARQUIEL IS TERRORIST!!!!1111oneoneeleven). So what?

Do you know me? I think not...

Does Jacob work for cerberus? Yes...

He probably knows what he's talking about.

[lolwut666]

@Moiaussi

I'm not even sure if I should be bothering to answer to your epic failure, but whatever...

Do you even know what a negotiation is?

It's not just about exposing facts; you have to win the other party over. If they don't like you, they won't want to listen to you, and you'll never get what you want.

A politician needs to have both brains and charm.

Udina's goal has always been to gain more political power for humanity. If that means shoving Shepard and Anderson aside, then so be it.

I don't like it either, but you're advocating that you should always be straight and honest at all times, when that's not the way the world works; specially when it comes to politics.

[LorDC]

Moiaussi wrote...
Quit hiding behind semantics. The colloquial definition of terrorism is much more inclusive than the strict dictionary definition.

Semantics is very important here. Because "colloquial definition of terrorism" is actually a label that when on put on someone just marks them as invariantly bad guys without any good qualities whatsoever and makes people to switch off their brains when taking about it. So i must insist semantics is very important here.

[LorDC]

Barquiel wrote...
Do you know me? I think not...

Does Jacob work for cerberus? Yes...

He probably knows what he's talking about.

And yet we are not shown any actions that can be classified as terroristic. Even Jacob himself is reluctant to share any details.

[lolwut666]

@Dean_the_Young

What the... There's NO SUCH THING as Collector technology. They don't even have free will. How are they gonna build anything that's their own? And TIM suspected from the start that the Collectors were servants of the Reapers.

You don't even know what genocide means. Genocide is the complete erradication of a species. You only get the chance to do that to the rachni by killing the queen.

Besides the rachni, all of those beings you mentioned were actively hostile. You'll have to do better than "LOL YOU CAN'T KILL ANYONE, EVEN IF THEY TRY TO KILL YOU AND EVERYBODY ELSE, OR YOU'RE A GENOCIDAL BASTARD".

Without Liara there would have been no Shepard body, and without it no Lazarus project would have brought Shepard back.

There are a number of catalysts involved on Shepard's success and resurrection, but Shepard remains the key factor to the success of everything that happened in the game.

[Busternated]

That the council and Udina don't directly trust Shepard on his word, I can live with that. But come on.

First off there's Liara who has been decyphering Shepard's visions from the beacons. Nobody ever questioned Shepard who actually decyphered those thoughts from the beacon. They have an expert with them in the form of Liara, who told them the weapon was on Ilos in the first place. Next, on Virmire Sovereign communicated with Shepard and 2 of the squadmates. Why were they not heard? Surely if it was all just a vision, the others wouldn't have known?

Liara used telepathy on Shepard. Surely there are some Asari (maybe even the asari councillor herself) who can do the same? They should be able to read either Shepard or Liara's mind, or both.

There are two alliance soldiers on board the Normandy who seem to trust Shepard and can vouch for him. They've been with him. And both have a personality in that if Shepard was following random leads and going crazy, they'd stand up to Shepard.

At the end of each mission I imagine there'd have to be a report. I imagine it should say STG ordered the nuke. Shepard did not actually do that. Even then, there wasn't really another way.

Udina didn't really further humanity's interests AT ALL when he grounded the commander. He did not hear any of the squadmates. He confirmed doubt on the first human spectre. What would that tell the council? Hell, even the council himself did not trust their own spectre. They put blind faith in Saren, but Shepard? No way. They too did not hear any of the squadmates.

Ilos might not have anything on the reapers. What was known however was that it was a superweapon. So you have your renegade spectre named Saren. Another spectre saying he's going to attack, and you have this super weapon on Ilos. The absolute least they could do was sending the new and advanced Normandy in to scout, seeing as it had new and improved stealth systems. It would be able to go right in, but the Council was "getting too tired of Shepards persistence that the Reapers were the real enemy". Ofcourse Udina followed them blindly, and thus did not
further human goals. He allowed doubt on the first human spectre, causing doubt on the humans as a whole, as he wanted to get in the good books with the council.

Council should have trusted their Spectre as they trusted Saren, atleast on the superweapon. Udina should have defended the First Human Spectre.

Modifié par Busternated, 04 mai 2011 - 07:46 .

[Moiaussi]

lolwut666 wrote...

@Moiaussi

I'm not even sure if I should be bothering to answer to your epic failure, but whatever...

Do you even know what a negotiation is?

It's not just about exposing facts; you have to win the other party over. If they don't like you, they won't want to listen to you, and you'll never get what you want.

A politician needs to have both brains and charm.

Udina's goal has always been to gain more political power for humanity. If that means shoving Shepard and Anderson aside, then so be it.

I don't like it either, but you're advocating that you should always be straight and honest at all times, when that's not the way the world works; specially when it comes to politics.

Care to enlighten me as to what my 'epic failure' is?

Winning the other party over is really easy if you simply agree with them. Udina didn't even attempt negotiation.

It also usually doesn't improve your position unless what you are agreeing to is either minor or really is in your best interests.

In this case, the Alliance was at war. Citizens were DYING. When would that become important enough for Udina to take seriously? Shepard could still have been hung out to dry. Udina could still have advocated sending the Normandy without Shepard. The Normandy is an Alliance ship that he shouldn't have needed permission to send anywhere. Udina effectively transferred command of the vessel itself to the Council. Don't you think that was a rather generous gift?

The Normandy is a stealth vessel and ideally suited for such a mission. If nothing was there the worst that happens is an 'I told you so." How is that suggestion likely to 'hurt any feelings?'

Modifié par Moiaussi, 04 mai 2011 - 07:58 .

[Moiaussi]

LorDC wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...
Quit hiding behind semantics. The colloquial definition of terrorism is much more inclusive than the strict dictionary definition.

Semantics is very important here. Because "colloquial definition of terrorism" is actually a label that when on put on someone just marks them as invariantly bad guys without any good qualities whatsoever and makes people to switch off their brains when taking about it. So i must insist semantics is very important here.

TIM says in Ascension that Cerberus' actions are viewed as 'criminal, unethical, amoral.' He doesn't deny the actions, merely feels they are justified.

Jacob likewise acknowledges and agrees with the label and is an insider.

What you are saying is that you know more about Cerberus than TIM and Jacob. That seems really unlikely.

[Fixers0]

LorDC wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...
a) cerberus has commited various criminal acts against  both humans 

I will not deny that Cerberus methods are harsh but that does not make them terrorists.

Fixers0 wrote...
such as what, Performing illegal test to create biological weapons, exposing an entire colony of inocent people to reaper technology and turning them into husks, torturing children to develop a biotic weapon.  

And resurrecting Shepard, saving human colonies, saving Citadel, creating of both Normandies, their research into human biotic potential, artificial intelligence and control of the Geth. While from Turians we got occupation of out colony and putting colonists into concentration camps.

The only point you made is that they resurect shepard, but that was just a simple plot device, the did  not develop the original Normandy, and both their project overlord and teltin were at cost of torturing innocent people.

[Dean_the_Young]

lolwut666 wrote...

@Dean_the_Young

What the... There's NO SUCH THING as Collector technology. They don't even have free will. How are they gonna build anything that's their own? And TIM suspected from the start that the Collectors were servants of the Reapers.

Suspected. Had no proof. Was already investing Cerberus's trust fund into ressurecting Shepard before the colony abductions really kicked in and there was any pattern.


The Collectors have two levels of technology: the first, constantly maintained, is technology approximately a decade beyond the current galactic standard. This technology is what they trade to other races, fight with, and this is the technology they are known by. This level of technology is what the galaxy, and members of this board, colloquially refer to as 'Collector Technology.' It is advanced, but not impossibly so. It is valuable, but nowhere near as much as 'pure' Reaper tech. The label is a helpful distinguisher.

The other level of technology is the pure Reaper technology which is centuries advanced of the galactic standard. This is not traded, nor does anyone in the galaxy know the Collectors have it. It's existence, past husk-technology, was never known or implied or revealed until the very, very end of the game. This is technology that is centuries ahead of our own, incomparable with the comparitively primitive 'advanced' technology the Collectors trade with.

You don't even know what genocide means. Genocide is the complete erradication of a species.

Not really: see the most famous case of the nature of Jews of Central Europe in the 1940's. Or most genocides, actually: 'complete' is not, and never has been, a requirement for the label of genocide.

You only get the chance to do that to the rachni by killing the queen.

And the Thorian. And the gestalt AI of a race that was Nazara. And the Heretic Geth. And the Collectors. And the entire population of a certain Batarian world.

Besides the rachni, all of those beings you mentioned were actively hostile. You'll have to do better than "LOL YOU CAN'T KILL ANYONE, EVEN IF THEY TRY TO KILL YOU AND EVERYBODY ELSE, OR YOU'RE A GENOCIDAL BASTARD".

Whether you consider genocide justified or not, it's still genocide. The argument long since switches from 'is genocide justifiable', and entirely to 'in what context does my ideology justify mass death as a direct result of my actions?'

The ****s earned their mark in history because they murdered millions in cold blood in the pursuit of racial purity. Cerberus's entire history doesn't claim or imply a thousandth of that, with Shepard actually being required to reach in 4-digit casualty figures by the end of the first game alone, excluding Geth losses.

Without Liara there would have been no Shepard body, and without it no Lazarus project would have brought Shepard back.

Indeed: Liara earns credit for having helped saving the galaxy.

There are a number of catalysts involved on Shepard's success and resurrection, but Shepard remains the key factor to the success of everything that happened in the game.

And yet he is not the only key factor. To treat him as if he were, and thus exclude any others from sharing in credit, is silly.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 04 mai 2011 - 08:02 .

[Hepzi3]

Please end the debate, at least in terms of Udina's criminality. I conceded Dean The Young's point a while ago (back on page 3) if you want to continue arguing about other things feel free.

Udina isnt a criminal,just a negligent dummy.

[Dean_the_Young]

Minus the negligent or dumb parts.

[Dr Bob UK]

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE.

[Hepzi3]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Minus the negligent or dumb parts.

or something like that :happy:

[hawat333]

How would you arrest someone for being incompetent?

It's easier to let him be alone with good ol' Anderson for a few minutes.

[lolwut666]

@Dean_the_Young

I feel like I'm being trolled...

I'm gonna stop talking to you after this post, because I don't feel like explaining things to you only to having to explain everything again because you took what I said out of context.

First of all, there is *no* Collector technology. Stop hiding behind semantics.

The Collectors don't have the intelligence to come up with technology of their own. They might build things, but only if the Reapers make them do so. Everything they have was created by the Reapers, and therefore is Reaper technology. Even if the Collectors trade lesser Reaper technology with other races, that does not mean they are not hiding more technology on their homeworld; and even the technology they trade would already have been valuable to Cerberus.

Yeah, I mistook genocide to mean the same as extiction. Sorry about that.

Anyway, like I said, those who were killed were actively hostile. If you are going to accuse Shepard of genocide, then you must also agree that the USA committed genocide of the germans in WW2, as well as of the iraqi not long ago, and that everytime one side of a conflict kills members of the other side, that's genocide.

Also, the "genocide" of the Collectors committed by Shepard was under The Illusive Man's orders, so there goes your claim that Cerberus never committed genocide.

Also, Cerberus is responsible for thousands of deaths. They have bombared entire colonies with eezo, and killed hundreds in their many experiments.

And I never said that the others do not deserve any credit; I just said that Shepard is the most important factor. You can deny all you want, but that does not change the fact that Shepard is the one who saves the galaxy in the end. The others deserve credit, of course, but they are always in a supporting role.

Modifié par lolwut666, 04 mai 2011 - 08:39 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Yes, let's beat a man for disagreeing with a conclusion not supported by evidence!

Edit: Directed at Hawat, of course.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 04 mai 2011 - 08:54 .