82210 réponses à ce sujet

[MisterJB]

Taboo-XX wrote...
I'm sorry but this just isn't true.

You're wrong about the character and you have been for three years. Ever wonder why the info that's coming out doesn't suprise some of us? Because we were expecting it. We knew this was the path the character was going to take.

You're angry and bitter that your vision of the character didn't turn out the way you wanted. You disregard facts in order to justify your viewpoints.

They don't call you when they want Miranda related help in the story forum. They call me. They call Ventus. They even call krukow sometimes.

People absolutely despise what you make Miranda out to be. They've told me this. And they're coming for you.

You haven't presented a damn fact yet. All you do is point to lines that contradict who Miranda is, call it character develpment without the existence of actual development, compare two things that are completely unrelated; Miranda's opinion on Cerberus with her opinion on what the Collectors did on the Base and how it invalidates using it for instance; change the subject without adressing it when someone calls you out on this, proclaim you won and then sit on some high mountain as if you are the supreme authority on all things Miranda Lawson. Which, apparently, is determined by popular opinion, no less.

Modifié par MisterJB, 31 août 2012 - 04:09 .

[MisterJB]

lillitheris wrote...
Of course it is. There’s a huge difference: it hasn’t happened yet. There’s f— all you can do about the past, but the future you can influence.

The decision could be argued using your logic, but you would then need to make explicit the premise that the information is absolutely necessary, and that it cannot be learned by any other means.

Or, to illustrate: if given the choice, would you rather have the ‘hypothermia research’ be done in Auschwitz, or by some other means (even if unknown at the time)?

What happened on the Collector Base has no bearing on what will happen there if we keep it. Attrocities can be commited on it if it is given to someone like TIM but that is not what Miranda is arguing against.
She argues that because of what the Collectors did, using the Base would, somehow, be a betrayal which is, of course, complete nonsense and out of character for Miranda Lawson whose actions are determined by practicality.

Modifié par MisterJB, 31 août 2012 - 04:13 .

[Stalker]

I usually agree with you Taboo and as I have pointed out a lot of pages back: I can completely see the intention of the character.

However, this exact part has nothing to do with character development. It would have been like that in the following cases:
- If she would have pointed out that it's dangerous to give it to TIM's insanity, not that it's morally wrong
- If using it was actually morally wrong. It isn't. David in the Overlord DLC; that is a question that's driven by such morals, but using a dead base for advantage against the Reapers without harming anyone shouldn't even have the morality question brought up. 

Modifié par Mr Massakka, 31 août 2012 - 04:20 .

[Steelcan]

For anyone who was around when this came up, the poll between Miranda and Ashley is in, Miranda won, by over 70%

[krukow]

Mr Massakka wrote...

I usually agree with you Taboo and as I have pointed out a lot of pages back: I can completely see the intention of the character.

However, this exact part has nothing to do with character development. It would have been like that in the following cases:
- If she would have pointed out that it's dangerous to give it to TIM's insanity, not that it's morally wrong
- If using it was actually morally wrong. It isn't. David in the Overlord DLC; that is a question that's driven by morals, but using a dead base for advantage against the Reapers without harming anyone shouldn't even have the morality question brought up.

dumbest statement ever.
ever.

Even if you want to use it, to say there's no morale debate?

the mirithread is crazy yo.

[lillitheris]

MisterJB wrote...

lillitheris wrote...
Of course it is. There’s a huge difference: it hasn’t happened yet. There’s f— all you can do about the past, but the future you can influence.

The decision could be argued using your logic, but you would then need to make explicit the premise that the information is absolutely necessary, and that it cannot be learned by any other means.

Or, to illustrate: if given the choice, would you rather have the ‘hypothermia research’ be done in Auschwitz, or by some other means (even if unknown at the time)?

What happened on the Collector Base has no bearing on what will happen there if we keep it. Attrocities can be commited on it if it is given to someone like TIM but that is not what Miranda is arguing against.

Of course it has. I see how you’re looking at it, but the situation really is quite similar. You’re just focusing on the wrong part of it.

The point is to research the station, its uses and so on. The results you get will have been the result of these atrocities at least to some degree (remember the Collectors used to abduct or buy people all over the place, too).

So, I ask again. If you have that choice, which is it going to be? I’ll answer for you: of course you wouldn’t select the Auschwitz route. Right?

That’s the emotional impact that you have to factor. Even though you will not be killing any more people, you would consider that method of research to be wrong—most people to the degree that they would prefer to discard the results.

She argues that because of what the Collectors did, using the Base would, somehow, be a betrayal which is, of course, complete nonsense and out of character for Miranda Lawson whose actions are determined by practicality.

You want her actions to be only determined by practicality, but she’s more human than that. Sorry.

Modifié par lillitheris, 31 août 2012 - 04:23 .

[Steelcan]

MisterJB wrote...

lillitheris wrote...
Of course it is. There’s a huge difference: it hasn’t happened yet. There’s f— all you can do about the past, but the future you can influence.

The decision could be argued using your logic, but you would then need to make explicit the premise that the information is absolutely necessary, and that it cannot be learned by any other means.

Or, to illustrate: if given the choice, would you rather have the ‘hypothermia research’ be done in Auschwitz, or by some other means (even if unknown at the time)?

What happened on the Collector Base has no bearing on what will happen there if we keep it. Attrocities can be commited on it if it is given to someone like TIM but that is not what Miranda is arguing against.
She argues that because of what the Collectors did, using the Base would, somehow, be a betrayal which is, of course, complete nonsense and out of character for Miranda Lawson whose actions are determined by practicality.

agreed.  The base should be kept intact, destroying gains nothing.

[Taboo]

MisterJB wrote...


You haven't presented a damn fact yet. All you do is point to lines that contradict who Miranda is, call it character develpment without the existence of actual development, compare two things that are completely unrelated; Miranda's opinion on Cerberus with her opinion on what the Collectors did on the Base and how it invalidates using it for instance; change the subject without adressing it when someone calls you out on this, proclaim you won and then sit on some high mountain as if you are the supreme authority on all things Miranda Lawson. Which, apparently, is determined by popular opinion, no less.

I've presented plenty. I've been doing it for months. As has the game. Her face, her dialouge, the things she says. The Dossiers, the family dynamic. It's all been leading up to one thing. The exceptional person who wants in on society and who rejects the organization she once found preferable. All tie into what I've been saying since I got here months ago.

I've even sung songs for you about it.

You're angry that your version of the character did not come to light.


 

[krukow]

Taboo-XX wrote...

You're angry that your version of the character did not come to light.

QFT

Insane fascists can suck it.

[Ieldra]

lillitheris wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Actually no. I claim that what was done at the base has no moral significance for the decision to keep or destroy it (see my rather conclusive logic two pages back at the bottom).

Your logic is inconclusive until you factor in the emotional weight of the issue as it affects people involved in any future projects.

No. Using a knife someone has been murdered with may feel uncomfortable, but it constitutes no evil. Thus, that someone has been killed with it is of no moral significance, since feeling uncomfortable with something is not in itself morally significant.

If Miranda recommends to destroy it because of what was done there, she doesn't display rational morality but sentimentality that's actually of no moral significance,

This is completely incorrect. The morality is significant. You can only argue that the moral question should be set aside for the consideration, not that it is invalid.

It would be nice if you keep the context when you reply.

If there is no tangible good or evil in an action, there is no moral significance. If you base your decision on what was done there alone, that is not a rational moral decision. You are doing nothing wrong if you study the base because no harm results from it. Simple. giving it to a person with a history of committing atrocities, yes, that is significant, but studying it is not.  

[Stalker]

krukow wrote...

Mr Massakka wrote...

I usually agree with you Taboo and as I have pointed out a lot of pages back: I can completely see the intention of the character.

However, this exact part has nothing to do with character development. It would have been like that in the following cases:
- If she would have pointed out that it's dangerous to give it to TIM's insanity, not that it's morally wrong
- If using it was actually morally wrong. It isn't. David in the Overlord DLC; that is a question that's driven by morals, but using a dead base for advantage against the Reapers without harming anyone shouldn't even have the morality question brought up.

dumbest statement ever.
ever.

Even if you want to use it, to say there's no morale debate?

the mirithread is crazy yo.

What morals are you discussing exactly?

Torturing someone to save several, that's a question of moralty.

The question if it's acceptable to use an empty torturing facility to research on your enemies is in no way morally questionable.

[krukow]

Mr Massakka wrote...
someone to save several, that's a question of moralty.

The question if it's acceptable to use an empty torturing facility to research on your enemies is in no way morally questionable.

You're right!  There's 32 pages debating this because it's in no way morally questionable!  Good call champ!

friggin 14 year olds...

[Steelcan]

krukow wrote...

Mr Massakka wrote...
someone to save several, that's a question of moralty.

The question if it's acceptable to use an empty torturing facility to research on your enemies is in no way morally questionable.

You're right!  There's 32 pages debating this because it's in no way morally questionable!  Good call champ!

friggin 14 year olds...

. Morally questionable yes, but the ends justify the means in this case, think maelons genophage research, just cause f unethical origin does not mean it should not be used

[Ieldra]

@krukow:
You might want to get out of here and calm down. Name calling tends to make things personal.

[Stalker]

krukow wrote...

Mr Massakka wrote...
someone to save several, that's a question of moralty.

The question if it's acceptable to use an empty torturing facility to research on your enemies is in no way morally questionable.

You're right!  There's 32 pages debating this because it's in no way morally questionable!  Good call champ!

friggin 14 year olds...

Instead of name-calling you could actually make a point and tell me how using an empty facility is so morally wrong that someone like Miranda would reject it.

What makes researching there so questionable?

[Ieldra]

Mr Massakka wrote...
Torturing someone to save several, that's a question of moralty.

[...]to use an empty torturing facility to research on your enemies is in no way morally questionable.

QFT.

It's not even a case of "the ends justify the means". It's just in no way questionable. Unless your morality is based on sentimentality instead of tangible good or evil.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 31 août 2012 - 04:36 .

[flemm]

Ieldra2 wrote...
If there is no tangible good or evil in an action, there is no moral significance. If you base your decision on what was done there alone, that is not a rational moral decision. You are doing nothing wrong if you study the base because no harm results from it. Simple. giving it to a person with a history of committing atrocities, yes, that is significant, but studying it is not.  

Well, we've had this conversation before, in some detail, so I won't try to rehash everything.

I understand the argument that, in the abstract sense, maybe in other contexts, it would make sense for Miranda to want to study the base.

But it's clear from the scene that TIM and MIranda have discussed the possibility of keeping the base, and she decides she doesn't trust him with it.

Miranda leaving Cerberus at some point has always been important and necessary imo. Because a Miranda who is defined entirely by her loyalty to X organisation (in this case, Cerberus) isn't really any less simplistic than a Miranda who is defined entirely by her love for Oriana.

Some people might prefer one, some people might prefer the other, but I think the character is better off if there is a dynamic of evolving loyalties and perceptions. That's admittedly much harder to handle well.

Modifié par flemm, 31 août 2012 - 04:36 .

[Taboo]

I thought we were debating a character not abstractions.

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Actually no. I claim that what was done at the base has no moral significance for the decision to keep or destroy it (see my rather conclusive logic two pages back at the bottom).

Your logic is inconclusive until you factor in the emotional weight of the issue as it affects people involved in any future projects.

No. Using a knife someone has been murdered with may feel uncomfortable, but it constitutes no evil. Thus, that someone has been killed with it is of no moral significance, since feeling uncomfortable with something is not in itself morally significant.

You’re wrong. Even if you can’t accept this as a factually correct statement, at least accept that pretty much everybody else in the world is ‘wrong’, then.

A vast majority of people would be uncomfortable with using the base for research. You cannot ignore this. You can argue that they are ‘wrong’ until you’re blue in the face…but they’d still be uncomfortable with it.

This has very real implications.

If Miranda recommends to destroy it because of what was done there, she doesn't display rational morality but sentimentality that's actually of no moral significance,

This is completely incorrect. The morality is significant. You can only argue that the moral question should be set aside for the consideration, not that it is invalid.

It would be nice if you keep the context when you reply.

If there is no tangible good or evil in an action, there is no moral significance. If you base your decision on what was done there alone, that is not a rational moral decision. You are doing nothing wrong if you study the base because no harm results from it. Simple. giving it to a person with a history of committing atrocities, yes, that is significant, but studying it is not.

No. First, don’t backpedal out of the sentimentality. Secondly, there is plenty of actual future harm caused by disturbing a grave site and using the fruits of atrocities.

If you want to ignore that, that’s fine. I mean I find it a little scary, but it is a valid position to hold.

However, it’s not a valid position to assert that the past atrocities have no moral significance.

Modifié par lillitheris, 31 août 2012 - 04:38 .

[MisterJB]

Taboo-XX wrote...
I've presented plenty. I've been doing it for months. As has the game. Her face, her dialouge, the things she says. The Dossiers, the family dynamic. It's all been leading up to one thing. The exceptional person who wants in on society and who rejects the organization she once found preferable. All tie into what I've been saying since I got here months ago.

I've even sung songs for you about it.

You're angry that your version of the character did not come to light.

Do I need to make a drawing or something similar? Miranda wishing for a family or losing faith in Cerberus has absolutely nothing, zero, nada, to do with her argument for destroying the base.
Her entire argument rests on the moral absolutism that what happened in the Base ,somehow, justifies destroying it. Miranda Lawson. Who argued for studying a Geth despite the fact its people have killed millions of humans. The woman who, not five minutes ago, argued in favor of letting the crew die because the mission is more important. Actual living people are less important than the memory of those who are already dead?

It's not about what I want Miranda to be. It's about character coherence and this displays nothing.

Modifié par MisterJB, 31 août 2012 - 04:37 .

[lillitheris]

flemm wrote...

But I bolded part of your post because, in the actual context when this happens, that is basically what is at stake. It's clear from the scene that TIM and MIranda have discussed the possibility of keeping the base, and she decides she doesn't trust him with it.

That’s not really the source of the argument here, flemm.

Or, well, I’m not sure how far in the deep end Ieldra2 is, but I think everyone else has stated that they would have been OK if Miranda had backed destroying on the basis that TIM can’t be trusted with it. We’re mostly in agreement there.

The problem is that Miranda actually presented a moral reason unto herself.

[flemm]

Taboo-XX wrote...

I thought we were debating a character not abstractions.

There's really no contradiction there, as characters are associated with ideas and concepts. At least they can be. Generally that is a positive thing, if they are.

[Steelcan]

lillitheris wrote...

flemm wrote...

But I bolded part of your post because, in the actual context when this happens, that is basically what is at stake. It's clear from the scene that TIM and MIranda have discussed the possibility of keeping the base, and she decides she doesn't trust him with it.

That’s not really the source of the argument here, flemm.

Or, well, I’m not sure how far in the deep end Ieldra2 is, but I think everyone else has stated that they would have been OK if Miranda had backed destroying on the basis that TIM can’t be trusted with it. We’re mostly in agreement there.

The problem is that Miranda actually presented a moral reason unto herself.

she never argued that it should be destroyed because TIM shouldn't use it, she argued that keeping it was immoral

[flemm]

lillitheris wrote...
The problem is that Miranda actually presented a moral reason unto herself.

Yeah, I understand that. Ieldra and I have had extended discussions on that particular subject in the past. Rehashing all of that is not really a priority for me right now.

[Taboo]

MisterJB wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
I've presented plenty. I've been doing it for months. As has the game. Her face, her dialouge, the things she says. The Dossiers, the family dynamic. It's all been leading up to one thing. The exceptional person who wants in on society and who rejects the organization she once found preferable. All tie into what I've been saying since I got here months ago.

I've even sung songs for you about it.

You're angry that your version of the character did not come to light.

And you're a condesceding ****** who appears to be so self absorbed he won't even bother to hear the arguments of others.
Do I need to make a drawing or something similar? Miranda wishing for a family or losing faith in Cerberus has absolutely nothing, zero, nada, to do with her argument for destroying the base.
Her entire argument rests on the moral absolutism that what happened in the Base ,somehow, justifies destroying it. Miranda Lawson. Who argued for studying a Geth despite the fact its people have killed millions of humans. The woman who, not five minutes ago, argued in favor of letting the crew die because the mission is more important. Actual living people are less important than the memory of those who are already dead?

It's not about what I want Miranda to be. It's about character coherence and this displays nothing.

Ad Hominem attacks are not a good way to get your point across.

Each decision needs to be based upon each individual situation. That is pragmatism. Best solution as Mordin would say. Sometimes an authoritarian action is taken. Other times it is not.

I bring up everything else because it plays into the human side. The one that feels. The one that's capable of understanding moral reasoning. A human being. She isn't a goody goody two shoes but she isn't an unfeeling machine either. She is more than capable of sentimentality. She disregards professionalism more than once. Can you guess what that situations are?

The base will not benefit humanity. It will benefit a man who is Indoctrinated.

"Strength for humanity, or strength for Cerberus?"

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 31 août 2012 - 04:46 .