82210 réponses à ce sujet

[Taboo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

krukow wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
@krukow:
You still don't understand. The past is the past, you are not responsible for it. You are responsible for the future. Miranda would not accept using the base for further atrocities, but she wouldn't discount studying it just because of the atrocities in its past. If you can't see that doesn't make her a "soulless fascist" I can't help you.

You're responsible for how you react to the past.  You want her to ignore what happened.  To treat the dead as a sunk cost.

Well, the dead ARE dead. As opposed to the living, they can't be saved. The living, they may be saved by using data collected from the base.

You want her to have a complete disregard for the value of human life.

How exactly is it disregarding human life if I value the good of the living higher than sentimentality about those already dead?

No one is benefitting from giving him the base. No one. Not a single person. This is not applicable here.

[lillitheris]

oh brother wrote...

I always read but rarely post here. Feel I have to say though that it seems clear to me that using an awful, awful place for the good of the galaxy is not a bad act.

Destroying it because of what happened before is not a good act if it can be used at a dire time for the entire galaxy to do some good.

You’re absolutely entitled to think that way. That’s not at least my issue. I’m merely arguing that it is equally valid to feel that it is a bad act. Which is how Miranda feels.

[Ieldra]

Well, the new Miranda isn't better than the old one. She's just more sentimental. And it happened all completely without foreshadowing.That's not character growth. That's character shrinking.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 31 août 2012 - 05:14 .

[krukow]

Ieldra2 wrote...

You want her to have a complete disregard for the value of human life.

How exactly is it disregarding human life if I value the good of the living higher than sentimentality about those already dead?

Letl me give you a simpler example.  Say a doctor murders 10 people.  Cold blood, no reason.

Well, they're dead right?  And couldn't you do the most good to humanity by using him to help the sick (closing monitoring to make sure he doesn't kill again obviously)?

Doesn't matter, he must be punished.  The good he could do society does not outweigh our responsibility to the dead.

In the same way, the collect base was an instrument to murder hundreds of thousands.  We have a responsibility to them to see it destroyed.  To do otherwise is to treat them as meaningless.

The dead still matter.

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Well, the new Miranda isn't better than the old one. She's just more sentimental. And it happened all completely without foreshadowing.

I think there was plenty of foreshadowing, if you will. She’s clearly moving away from the cold, detached persona she had at the beginning.

I also think that she’s a better person for allowing some sentimentality. Whether she’s better anyhing else is debateable. It certainly didn’t make her a better Cerberus member.

[Ieldra]

@krukow:
We do not punish out of "respect for the dead". We punish to discourage others from repeating the crime. From that reasoning, punishment is indeed necessary. Also, you cannot punish a tool.

But I guess we must agree to disagree at this point. Clearly you have a very different moral compass than I have. Notions of sanctity, I admit, don't play a big role in my meta-ethics.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 31 août 2012 - 05:18 .

[MisterJB]

lillitheris wrote...
I know you do. But it’s not…this was a deliberate arc, plotted exactly thus. This is the character. She’s not what you want her to be, and I’m sorry about it, but it is what it is.

It really isn't. This is a deliberate arc:
Beginning of the game, Miranda trusts TIM on a personal level "I can assure you he has the best interests of humanity in mind, that includes you and me". Then he betrays then on the Collector Cruiser and later orders Miranda to kill Shepard which culminates with "Or what, you'll replace me next?"

That I can believe it was a plotted arc. 
This... abomination just comes out of the blue and it directly contradicts some of Miranda's previous decisions.
For instance, Miranda believes Legion should be studied despite the fact its people have killed millions of humans. How is that not also a betrayal, then?

[Berg]

lillitheris wrote...

oh brother wrote...

I always read but rarely post here. Feel I have to say though that it seems clear to me that using an awful, awful place for the good of the galaxy is not a bad act.

Destroying it because of what happened before is not a good act if it can be used at a dire time for the entire galaxy to do some good.

You’re absolutely entitled to think that way. That’s not at least my issue. I’m merely arguing that it is equally valid to feel that it is a bad act. Which is how Miranda feels.

Fair enough. i disagree, but fair enough.

krukow wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

You want her to have a complete disregard for the value of human life.

How exactly is it disregarding human life if I value the good of the living higher than sentimentality about those already dead?

Letl me give you a simpler example.  Say a doctor murders 10 people.  Cold blood, no reason.

Well,
they're dead right?  And couldn't you do the most good to humanity by
using him to help the sick (closing monitoring to make sure he doesn't
kill again obviously)?

Doesn't matter, he must be punished.  The good he could do society does not outweigh our responsibility to the dead.

In
the same way, the collect base was an instrument to murder hundreds of
thousands.  We have a responsibility to them to see it destroyed.  To do
otherwise is to treat them as meaningless.

The dead still matter.

You cannot punish a base.

[lillitheris]

I’m sorry you feel that way, MisterJB. The game does not bear out your vision.

[krukow]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@krukow:
We do not punish out of "respect for the dead". We punish to discourage others from repeating the crime. From that reasoning, punishment is indeed necessary.

I work in law enforcement.  You are wrong.  So utterly, very, very wrong.

I seriously had to sit through a seminar by an attorney from NY where he made it clear that we do why we do FOR THE VICTIMS.  That's the whole point.  Justice, not societal functionality.


...the mirithread gets stranger and stranger...

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

We do not punish out of "respect for the dead".

Actually, yes, we do. Very much so.

We punish to discourage others from repeating the crime.

Also for this reason, yes.

[Taboo]

MisterJB wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
Oh? And perhaps lives will be saved by preventing TIM from using that tech? I seem to recall that all he really uses that base for is implanting his troops. Furthering his own goals. Oriana will not benefit either way. That is not applicable here. Don't make the comparison.

Miranda does not mention TIM in her argument. Stop bringing him up.

Oriana is not the only thing Miranda is sentimental about. You've almost got it. She lets emotions override her professionalism. This happens more than once.

And it culminates in the Collector Base.

Please, do "enlighten" us.

No. I want you to do it yourself. I'm not going to hold your hand in this case. Think of it like a school project. Go back, record what you see and come back. Pay attention to her every movement. It's far more beneficial to come to these realizations yourself.

lilitheris sees it. krukow sees it. I see it. Ventus sees it. dtrain sees it. The people who ask why you say these things see it.

And in the end she will always be that way. Just as the Dossiers came to show. Just as ME3 shows.

[Babi_Siha]

krukow wrote...

Letl me give you a simpler example.  Say a doctor murders 10 people.  Cold blood, no reason.

Well, they're dead right?  And couldn't you do the most good to humanity by using him to help the sick (closing monitoring to make sure he doesn't kill again obviously)?

Doesn't matter, he must be punished.  The good he could do society does not outweigh our responsibility to the dead.

In the same way, the collect base was an instrument to murder hundreds of thousands.  We have a responsibility to them to see it destroyed.  To do otherwise is to treat them as meaningless.

The dead still matter.

Well, if we do have a responsability to the dead, which we don't, let's honor their death by preventing those same atrocities from happening again, you said yourself, krukow, the base was merely an instrument. Again, if Hackett or the Council were the ones that wanted to keep the base I'm sure no one would make a big deal out of it.

Modifié par Babi_Siha, 31 août 2012 - 05:20 .

[krukow]

Babi_Siha wrote...
Well, if we do have a responsability to the dead, which we don't, then keeping the base to destroy the Reapers, assuring more people wouldn't suffer like that anymore, would ensure those people death were not in vain. you said yourself, krukow, the base was merely an instrument. Again, if Hackett or the Council were the ones that wanted to keep the base I'm sure no one would make a big deal out of it.

We will never agree for this reason.

[Ieldra]

MisterJB wrote...

lillitheris wrote...
I know you do. But it’s not…this was a deliberate arc, plotted exactly thus. This is the character. She’s not what you want her to be, and I’m sorry about it, but it is what it is.

It really isn't. This is a deliberate arc:
Beginning of the game, Miranda trusts TIM on a personal level "I can assure you he has the best interests of humanity in mind, that includes you and me". Then he betrays then on the Collector Cruiser and later orders Miranda to kill Shepard which culminates with "Or what, you'll replace me next?"

That I can believe it was a plotted arc. 
This... abomination just comes out of the blue and it directly contradicts some of Miranda's previous decisions.
For instance, Miranda believes Legion should be studied despite the fact its people have killed millions of humans. How is that not also a betrayal, then?

Yep. Miranda questioning TIM and putting her trust in Shepard rather than TIM, yes, you could see that happening. Miranda turning sentimental and losing all her pragmatism, that was a last-minute character derailment. And if you have the Datapad app, you see her pragmatism resurfacing in ME3, so they sort of admitted they dropped the ball there. Better late than never.

[MisterJB]

lillitheris wrote...

I’m sorry you feel that way, MisterJB. The game does not bear out your vision.

Ok, a claim is not an argument.
You claim that the game does not bear out what you consider to be my vision. But simply saying so does not make it true.
I formed an argument on why Miranda is OOC at the Base based on evidence provided by the game. Do you have a counterargument?

[MisterJB]

Taboo-XX wrote...
No. I want you to do it yourself. I'm not going to hold your hand in this case. Think of it like a school project. Go back, record what you see and come back. Pay attention to her every movement. It's far more beneficial to come to these realizations yourself.

lilitheris sees it. krukow sees it. I see it. Ventus sees it. dtrain sees it. The people who ask why you say these things see it.

And in the end she will always be that way. Just as the Dossiers came to show. Just as ME3 shows.

Go plow yourself.

Modifié par MisterJB, 31 août 2012 - 05:25 .

[Ieldra]

krukow wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
@krukow:
We do not punish out of "respect for the dead". We punish to discourage others from repeating the crime. From that reasoning, punishment is indeed necessary.

I work in law enforcement.  You are wrong.  So utterly, very, very wrong.

I seriously had to sit through a seminar by an attorney from NY where he made it clear that we do why we do FOR THE VICTIMS.  That's the whole point.  Justice, not societal functionality.

I can't argue with facts, so I'm going to concede this, but I submit that attitudes to that vary a lot by culture. I have a few friends in law enforcement, and I don't think they teach things like this in my country. Here, the main goal of punishment is reintegration into society.

To me, the way you to it comes across as rather strange.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 31 août 2012 - 05:29 .

[wright1978]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

krukow wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
@krukow:
You still don't understand. The past is the past, you are not responsible for it. You are responsible for the future. Miranda would not accept using the base for further atrocities, but she wouldn't discount studying it just because of the atrocities in its past. If you can't see that doesn't make her a "soulless fascist" I can't help you.

You're responsible for how you react to the past.  You want her to ignore what happened.  To treat the dead as a sunk cost.

Well, the dead ARE dead. As opposed to the living, they can't be saved. The living, they may be saved by using data collected from the base.

You want her to have a complete disregard for the value of human life.

How exactly is it disregarding human life if I value the good of the living higher than sentimentality about those already dead?

No one is benefitting from giving him the base. No one. Not a single person. This is not applicable here.

That's idiotic. You don't know that at the time.

[Taboo]

MisterJB wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

I’m sorry you feel that way, MisterJB. The game does not bear out your vision.

Ok, a claim is not an argument.
You claim that the game does not bear out what you consider to be my vision. But simply saying so does not make it true.
I formed an argument on why Miranda is OOC at the Base based on evidence provided by the game. Do you have a counterargument?

Yes we do. Other facts in the game that you're ignoring.

The development in the Dossiers and ME3 only further these points.

Whatever you thought she was was wrong, which is why you have a hard time accepting these character developments in subsequent information dumps.

There was no derailment. There was only clarification.

Her appearence in ME3 is unbalanced, but she is not an imposter.

[lillitheris]

Taboo-XX wrote...

No. I want you to do it yourself. I'm not going to hold your hand in this case. Think of it like a school project. Go back, record what you see and come back. Pay attention to her every movement. It's far more beneficial to come to these realizations yourself.

This is just as irritating as it is when you try to use it on me.

Explain yourself.

[wright1978]

krukow wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

You want her to have a complete disregard for the value of human life.

How exactly is it disregarding human life if I value the good of the living higher than sentimentality about those already dead?

Letl me give you a simpler example.  Say a doctor murders 10 people.  Cold blood, no reason.

Well, they're dead right?  And couldn't you do the most good to humanity by using him to help the sick (closing monitoring to make sure he doesn't kill again obviously)?

Doesn't matter, he must be punished.  The good he could do society does not outweigh our responsibility to the dead.

In the same way, the collect base was an instrument to murder hundreds of thousands.  We have a responsibility to them to see it destroyed.  To do otherwise is to treat them as meaningless.

The dead still matter.

Hope you don't pick destroy ending or Shep is going to get the electric chair.

[krukow]

wright1978 wrote...

Hope you don't pick destroy ending or Shep is going to get the electric chair.

Yup, neccessary collateral damage=murder.

Stop being simple.

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Here, the main goal of punishment is reintegration into society.

I think that’s a little off the mark, even in the EU. While there is certainly more emphasis on rehabilitation (with more success, too), the punishment is for the crime. In addition to this, the punishment is also used to try to rehabilitate rather than solely punish.

[lillitheris]

krukow wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Hope you don't pick destroy ending or Shep is going to get the electric chair.

Yup, neccessary collateral damage=murder.

Stop being simple.

You’re being a little simple in this case. While ultimately it would probably be decided to have been an acceptable cost, it’s not open-and-shut.