82210 réponses à ce sujet

[AgitatedLemon]

jreezy wrote...

AgitatedLemon wrote...

Animals also aren't sentient (Or was it sapient? Whatever that word is)

Neither word is correct.

No, it's sentient.


http://www.merriam-w...ionary/sentient

[android654]

jtav wrote...

I prefer she not show more emotion, actually. She's quite emotional in ME2. I like her current state.

I have the sinking feeling that I'm either going to want to slit Oriana's throat or have her replace Miranda entirely. I do not trust the team to get Miranda's emotional balance right in the slightest.

This is essentially what I was arguing. You can't Make her emotional or noble, that's not her nor the type of reality she reflects. She sees the situation she's in as very serious, and she reflects that in her personality and actions. "Paragonizing" her would change that by making her into more of a Jesus like figure by embodying some magnanimity to what she does which isn't what she's been presented as.

[MisterJB]

jreezy wrote...

android654 wrote...
Miranda's "cruelty" stems from calculated necessity.

So does TIM's and people call that evil. 

"Invasion". I'm sure feeding those scientists to the Adjuntants was absolutely necessary.

[android654]

MisterJB wrote...

jreezy wrote...

android654 wrote...
Miranda's "cruelty" stems from calculated necessity.

So does TIM's and people call that evil. 

"Invasion". I'm sure feeding those scientists to the Adjuntants was absolutely necessary.

You can't really gauge TIM's motivations since he isn't available for examination like the squad members. That being said, when it comes to people and the reasons why they do things 80% is about perspective. Miranda does what she does because she's compelled to do so by the way she's examined the situation around her. Shepard does the same thing, and even a Paragon Shepard can be seen as cruel and in many cases just plain stupid.

You're stuck in a war, if you plan on surviving and winning do you play nice, or play by the other guy's rules. That's how Miranda sees the situation, there's no malice in the situation, it's just merely how things are.

[AgitatedLemon]

android654 wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

jreezy wrote...

android654 wrote...
Miranda's "cruelty" stems from calculated necessity.

So does TIM's and people call that evil. 

"Invasion". I'm sure feeding those scientists to the Adjuntants was absolutely necessary.

You can't really gauge TIM's motivations since he isn't available for examination like the squad members. That being said, when it comes to people and the reasons why they do things 80% is about perspective. Miranda does what she does because she's compelled to do so by the way she's examined the situation around her. Shepard does the same thing, and even a Paragon Shepard can be seen as cruel and in many cases just plain stupid.

You're stuck in a war, if you plan on surviving and winning do you play nice, or play by the other guy's rules. That's how Miranda sees the situation, there's no malice in the situation, it's just merely how things are.

@bold - No, but you can read his backstory.

@b#2 - Yes.

[android654]

AgitatedLemon wrote...
@bold - No, but you can read his backstory.

Its not the same as hearing them explain themselves or learn how they view you and your actions. A synopsis of someone's history can only tell you so much.

[AgitatedLemon]

jreezy wrote...

AgitatedLemon wrote...

jreezy wrote...

AgitatedLemon wrote...

Animals also aren't sentient (Or was it sapient? Whatever that word is)

Neither word is correct.

No, it's sentient.


http://www.merriam-w...ionary/sentient

That implies that animals lack the ability to feel or have preceptions of events. That's probably a lie considering how animals act. Like I said, neither word is correct.

Animals don't rationalize.

Have you seen a lion ask itself "Is this right? I mean, what if he has a family?" when it's about to pounce a gazelle?

[ThomGau]

jtav wrote...

I prefer she not show more emotion, actually. She's quite emotional in ME2. I like her current state.

I have the sinking feeling that I'm either going to want to slit Oriana's throat or have her replace Miranda entirely. I do not trust the team to get Miranda's emotional balance right in the slightest.

There are a few lines from the leak which tend to make me think that she will be slighty more emotional which you probably are aware of .
If it stays like that, I'm fine with it .

@Bold : Will we have a renegade interrupt for that ?

As for her emotional balance, as I said earlier, we'll see if Walters and pals are good at their job .

Modifié par ThomGau, 17 janvier 2012 - 12:03 .

[MisterJB]

Shepard can question Jack Harper in ME2 which allow us to gauge his motivations to a certain extent. For example, he offers an explanation as to why he sent Shepard blind into a Collector trap.

I should have mentioned that I don't consider Harper to be evil. Pointlessly cruel, incompetent, with an amazing lack of regard for the individual human. But his motivations are solid.

Modifié par MisterJB, 17 janvier 2012 - 12:00 .

[schemata]

Probably last go round for me. Im doing this in bold so its easy to find, not to emphasize my speech. Im not trying to make a "clearer" picture or speak directly at you by using bold- it's just so I can figure out where I am at.

[quote]Ieldra2 wrote...

Oh my. This is getting ridicuously long. I'll try and keep my answers short. Basically, I challenge your statement that sentiment can be an indicator of moral truth. All it can be is functional with regard to the functioning of a human community. Details:

My arguement was largerly for emotions. And yes we all have them and they operate in largely subtly ways, they aren't just the feelings you get when your super pissed, or are crying and are really sad. If we were soley rational, itd take us days to pick a ketchup bottle from the condiment aisle. We'd be reading labels, analyzing color and so on. But nope, emotions subtely kick in and we grab whatever and go. We are largely rational and emotional beings. This is my premise for the rest of the arguement. Also, being both rational and emotional it is morally correct to destroy the collector base. That too, as that was the point, at one point.

I think your main point for the collector base is the following; whats done is done. Bad things happened but you can't do anything about that now. The CB, was a tool purposed by the collectors<reapers and can not have any moral judgement brought against it. Further destroying it your only losing potential knowledge that could aid you in the fight for the galaxy. Eff semantics, thats the gist, pretty much. I'll get to this as I work through the post.

[quote]schemata wrote...
No no noooo! Thats undercutting my entire arguement by stating it isn't rational, when the choice for a paragon isn't meant to be. Para shep isn't some tactical strategist or something.[/quote]
I answer that in a situation where all intelligent life of the galaxy could be the price of a wrong decision, it is your moral obligation to use stragetic reasoning in favor of passion, if you value all intelligent life in the galaxy more than the principle that a single life has no price.

Not necessarly true, stragetic reasoning is not always going to give the best outcome, sometimes the best decisions can be those in the moment, flares of perfect emotion and rationality coming together. Theres a good example of this in a real world situation. These fireworkers were dealing with an out of control fire that risked hitting a suburb, eventually. Anyway it was in a gultch and the wind all of a sudden switched directions. It was strong gusts and the fire was coming down the gultch at something like 30 miles per hour or something. (details arent all exact but its pretty close, and youll get the gist of it.)

Anyway the one fireworker who had been on the job for twenty odd years knew they werent going to make it to safety and immediately begin to tell everyone to stop running. But they kept going, damn emotions right? well he wasn't even sure how he was going to handle the situation, but in mere seconds it was like a lighting bolt, new neuron synapse had probably all of a sudden made new pathways connecting information he knew, information and rational thought- charged by emotion the fireworker pulled out his kit and set the ground on fire near him, and was able to burn enough brush for his body to lay inside. (basically burnt a small patch of brush in an oval shape, enough room for him to lay in while a few feet from nonburnt brush; keep in mind the out of control fire was being pushing down the gultch and almost upon him)

Now when that fire came up, it surround him and went directly over him, but didnt touch him. The brush was already burnt you see. Anyway he surived, and maybe one other guy who was able to run like hell. But that is now the official procedure when it comes to situations like those. And that tactic wouldve never been developed by a bunch of brains in a think tank thinking about hypotheticals and what ifs. (btw i took that from the book, "how we decide" which is really awesome if your up for something interesting.)

My small point that Im making here is that one way of thinking is not always going to produce the best results. Strategic thinking has its usefullness but isnt the be all, end all of perfect thought. Infact neither is straight rationlism. Whats this got to do with the CB? well it brings into question whether rational thought can provide the best outcome.


[quote]By saying " I value the life of a human being" you have "set" your belief to a standard. By keeping the base your forgoing what had occured there, therefore nullifying your belief, or at the least compromising it. Thats not what paragon shep is about, and by extension, paragon miri. not at this point in the game anyway.[/quote]
No, that's not your belief if you act that way. Your belief is "the human life in front of you, the one you are making a decision about right now, is, always and unalterably, worth more consideration than any number of lives affected by your decision down the line". I would classify such an attitude as immoral on the principle of minimizing harm.

You can classify it as minimizing harm, but you'd be wrong. Its not harm your minimizing, rather validating that the Collector base is immoral. Its a system. It was built with a specific purpose. To harvest human DNA, and possibly past civiliations DNA to begin building a new reaper. The losses incurred at this base were very large and as its a system built to do just that- harm. Well from our perspective anyway, turning us into DNA goo is bad.

And are only possible tangible result from this, is possibly analyzing reaper data in time to help with a future war effort, or prevent a war all together.

Here is quote: "this loss, it seems, would be less important than the far reaching moral loss to the human race if the data were to be investigated." (real quote with words switched around, but its from a precedent in human history that ties to this exact arguement, hint it has to do ****s and there medical research. and whether we should use it because its already there, and the damage was done.)

And with this quote here comes the answer you've been waiting for: Is the CB a moral choice. Yes it is. Here is why.



If we intergrate this knowledge from the collector base. the liquidfied dead become sciences martyrs, while the reapers become the tortures. If we win the War with the Reapers, It could be unquantifiably tied to the research done by the Reapers. Imagine where we would be then? We would have won the war, but at significant cost. A new precendent.  That the Means justify the Ends. It'd be in the proof that the reaper technology, as gruesome as it was, and even though millions lost their lifes, it still saved us. This would become our new moral fabric. A Galaxy TIM envisioned. That inhumane science can finally be justified if the Ends are great enough.  now imagine the far reaching affects of this.  Ethics throughout the galaxy would crumble. As made obvious by the reaper invasion- if the research can have the ends large enough in scope, there is no amount of life suffering that could persuade those twisted enough to discard there new moral founding from performing expirements. There truly is an answer here.  


Is the base a moral dilemma, no, not on it's own. But its consquences will be.

But para shep is the man.  and as he traveled throughout the CB, watched the colonists on horizon become liquified, and destroy the sleeping embryo reaper, his neuron synapyse formed new connections. The experience and suffering were real to him. Maybe miri knew it, She knew it was a betrayal to the human race, she might not have been able to put her finger on it; itd be the second time she didnt think that far ahead. however her emotions guided her. So we destroyed the base.  booyahdizzle




It is, admittedly, the principle upon which human morality is generally built - the good or evil right in front of you matters, everything else is mostly inconsequential. But that attitude stems from a time when humans lived in tribes, when you couldn't much affect anything out of your sight, when your decisions rarely had large-scale implications. In an advanced society, the ubiquitous application of such an attitude will likely result in its destruction.

And Paragon Miranda doesn't exist.
Of course para miri exists, for some of us.  Shep Knows there are far reaching consquences. For some they see the base as the easy answer. From point A to point B. Tech that could aid in the coming war. But not para shep, he sees far into the future and knows he wont become the very thing he's trying to prevent. he wont compromise, not himself, and more importantly the moral fabric of the galaxy just to survive. Para miri wont either.

[Swaggacide]

So excited for Miranda in ME3!!

[AgitatedLemon]

jreezy wrote...

AgitatedLemon wrote...

jreezy wrote...

AgitatedLemon wrote...

jreezy wrote...

AgitatedLemon wrote...

Animals also aren't sentient (Or was it sapient? Whatever that word is)

Neither word is correct.

No, it's sentient.


http://www.merriam-w...ionary/sentient

That implies that animals lack the ability to feel or have preceptions of events. That's probably a lie considering how animals act. Like I said, neither word is correct.

Animals don't rationalize.

Have you seen a lion ask itself "Is this right? I mean, what if he has a family?" when it's about to pounce a gazelle?

I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of sentient. Hint: Rationalization is not a prerequisite.

Sentient: Responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
2: Aware
3: Finely sensitive in perception or feeling

Rationalize: To bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable.
B: To attribute one's own actions to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives.

Sentience is a prerequisite for rationalization. 

Again, have you seen a lion ponder why it must kill gazelle?

[AgitatedLemon]

@Schema

I think you mean to say Paragade/Renegon Miranda exists. She doesn't stick to 1 path.

[AgitatedLemon]

jreezy wrote...

AgitatedLemon wrote...

Again, have you seen a lion ponder why it must kill gazelle?

No because it has no need to. A lion knows why it must kill a gazelle.

Way to completely 100% miss (Or ignore) the point.

[android654]

jreezy wrote...

AgitatedLemon wrote...

Again, have you seen a lion ponder why it must kill gazelle?

No because it has no need to. A lion knows why it must kill a gazelle.

Just like Miranda, so how can she be cruel when she acts with the sole thought of preservation, just like a lion?

[schemata]

AgitatedLemon wrote...

@Schema

I think you mean to say Paragade/Renegon Miranda exists. She doesn't stick to 1 path.

Nah I just mean a miri slightly to the left, not by much. But enough

[AgitatedLemon]

android654 wrote...

jreezy wrote...

AgitatedLemon wrote...

Again, have you seen a lion ponder why it must kill gazelle?

No because it has no need to. A lion knows why it must kill a gazelle.

Just like Miranda, so how can she be cruel when she acts with the sole thought of preservation, just like a lion?

Unlike a lion, Miranda doesn't act solely on impulse or "natural hardwiring".

[schemata]

I was trying to find a way to make the CB a moral decision. And I found it in a big way. Well I feel. In that big blob a text, Im pretty sure I know where they got the CB delemma from.  I think most people write them off as bad writers, if they dont see a connection. Say with a para miri response to the CB, or just keeping it in general.  But I feel its the exact arguement, of whether we should use, n - a - z - i medical research. Its a pretty large precendent set. You can google search it if you want.But its the exact same dilemma, do we use research or data available thats tainted. 

If you say yes, here is the following arguement against you:
Similarly, Dr. Henry Beecher, the late Harvard Medical School Professor, analogized the use of the **** data to the inadmissibility of unconstitutionally obtained evidence.38 Dr. Beecher said that even though suppression of the data would constitute a loss to medicine in a specific localized sense:

"this loss, it seems, would be less important than the far reaching moral loss to medicine if the data were to be published."39

Beecher's analogy is to be given serious consideration. Although use of the **** data might benefit some lives, a larger bioethical problem arises. By conferring a scientific martyrdom on the victims, it would tend to make them our retrospective guinea pigs, and we, their retrospective torturers

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further it adds that research performed in such an unethical dilemma then causes a much larger problem, incentivising, or deterring said research methods. Which tranfers over to ME very well imo.  They did some sick stuff btw..

[android654]

AgitatedLemon wrote...

android654 wrote...

jreezy wrote...

AgitatedLemon wrote...

Again, have you seen a lion ponder why it must kill gazelle?

No because it has no need to. A lion knows why it must kill a gazelle.

Just like Miranda, so how can she be cruel when she acts with the sole thought of preservation, just like a lion?

Unlike a lion, Miranda doesn't act solely on impulse or "natural hardwiring".

On the surface, no. But I think deep down even the most complex plans driven by thoughts or emotions come from the most basic animalistic instincts. Every animal wants to survive and that's all TIM was trying to do, its all Miranda and Shepard are trying to accomplish.

[schemata]

Gahhhh. Start classes and work tommarow.  The vicious cycle begins again guys. Had a fun vacation though.

[AgitatedLemon]

android654 wrote...

AgitatedLemon wrote...

android654 wrote...

jreezy wrote...

AgitatedLemon wrote...

Again, have you seen a lion ponder why it must kill gazelle?

No because it has no need to. A lion knows why it must kill a gazelle.

Just like Miranda, so how can she be cruel when she acts with the sole thought of preservation, just like a lion?

Unlike a lion, Miranda doesn't act solely on impulse or "natural hardwiring".

On the surface, no. But I think deep down even the most complex plans driven by thoughts or emotions come from the most basic animalistic instincts. Every animal wants to survive and that's all TIM was trying to do, its all Miranda and Shepard are trying to accomplish.

On TIM, it's not just survival. It's a little more complex than that. I'm not sure if you've read Evolution or anything from ME3 about him.