66 réponses à ce sujet

[Dave of Canada]

It's been covered but you don't need to hate aliens to be considered pro-human, I'd consider all my Shepards as being pro-human and they all support Cerberus even if they fully encourage alien relations.

[Destroy Raiden_]

Being pro human is dumb these people are offering their help, love, or support and you're going to say f-u for no good reason other then the fact you're racist? Some people do operate that way sometimes these people will put it aside for extenuating circumstances but I just can't see where it is worth it. The aliens for the most part you meet are nice and friendly with you I feel it's its my duty to do the same unless they're out to get me then me being nice is no longer necessary. We've seen enough aliens who're pro alien screw up their lives and I think the pro humans should have a similar fate.

[tjzsf]

To others: what I meant by the game forcing you down the idiotic pro-human path is that the choices presented specifically as being pro-human are the ones like "Let the Council Die" (as opposed to Concentrate on Sovvy) or endorsing Charles Saracino.

You don't know that kiling the council would spark an arms race; all you knew was that you might be able to put humans on top. Given the power gap between humans and the other races, it is highly unlikely that humanity would have been able to make up that gap.

Keeping the base is pretty much the only pro-human choice that's actually a clear plus for humanity instead of a minus for the other races (like getting that human negotiator his drugs). Now humans actually do get better tech.

[KevShep]

In ME1 ashley tells you why she does not hate aliens but referring to aliens as a dog, she says that as much as you love your dog its not human so you would sick you dog on a bear and run. really ash aliens are intelligent like humans. This is one of the main reasons I let her die!

[Dave of Canada]

KevShep wrote...

In ME1 ashley tells you why she does not hate aliens but referring to aliens as a dog, she says that as much as you love your dog its not human so you would sick you dog on a bear and run. really ash aliens are intelligent like humans. This is one of the main reasons I let her die!

You completely missed the point, she isn't comparing aliens to the dog but comparing humans to the dog. She mentions that no matter how much the owner (aliens) love their dog (humans), they'll sacrifice the dog to save their own lives from a bear (Any threat but fittingly, the Reapers).

It's also a logical fear as the Council has done it before.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 22 juin 2011 - 08:09 .

[Smeelia]

tjzsf wrote...

(like getting that human negotiator his drugs).

I don't know if that's the best example, there's at least as much chance that he'll mess things up by taking too much of the drugs (and the effectiveness is likely to be reduced if he's using them too much) or that he could get found out and cause a scandal.

Dave of Canada wrote...

You completely missed the point, she isn't comparing aliens to the dog but comparing humans to the dog. She mentions that no matter how much the owner (aliens) love their dog (humans), they'll sacrifice the dog to save their own lives from a bear (Any threat but fittingly, the Reapers).

It's also a logical fear as the Council has done it before.

The way she says it strongly implies that she's transferring her own feelings as well, if humans were the dominant power in the galaxy then Ashley would still think of aliens as "less than human".  That's not necessarily the same as hating them though and if you think of aliens as completely equal then you can't really be pro-human.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Moreover, you're for getting that immediate concerns going forward are also based upon prior behavior and history. Humans have a galactic history of being willing to compromise, not being exceptionally warlike, and a proven willingness to exist in peace. The Rachni do not.

There is no moral or logical requirement to handle all threats in a singular manner.

True but the Rachni Queen wasn't involved in the Rachni war and so has no history of warlike behaviour.  You're judging her based on the actions of other members of her race, that's no different to judging all of humanity based on the actions of Cerberus (or any other group).  If you found a Turian colony that had been cut off from the rest of Turian society for thousands of years, it wouldn't be reasonable to assume that they'll act the same way as Turians elsewhere (even people living in the same society don't agree on everything).

The Rachni Queen tries to negotiate for her safety, even if you feel it was deceptive this shows that either:
A) She's different to other Rachni (we're told the Rachni didn't make any attempt to negotiate even when they were driven to extinction).
or  What we've been told about the Rachni may not be entirely reliable.
Either way, assuming this Rachni is the same as those Rachni isn't entirely reasonable.

On top of that, it's genocide that you're committing in killing her.  You're not suppressing an existing threat, the threat is only a potential one and killing the Rachni Queen (most likely) will destroy the Rachni forever.

Choosing to kill her isn't necessarily "wrong" but it's probably being done based on her race or if you were consistent it'd mean you're willing to commit genocide on any race that might pose a threat (if you can do so without risk at least).

Dean_the_Young wrote...

We do have reason to believe the Rachni can breed excessivly fast: history. The Krogans didn't come by and surpass the Rachni in a vacume or in a short span of time either either, but were aided by a combined galaxy that was already tempering the Rachni's own development and growth and had been for decades.

The Rachni war was 2000 years ago and against a large established empire, we're talking about allowing one Queen to start rebuilding her race.  If it comes down to it, we can fight the Rachni, make friends with the Rachni and do many other things in the long time it'll take them to build up to being such a power and by then they could well have a history of cooperation.  There's far too much time and far too many other factors that would be put to use to assume that the Rachni will become a threat and they're certainly not an immediate threat.

Infact, I don't think it'll make much sense for the Rachni to be a significant power in ME3, they could perhaps lend some forces (to either side) but it'd be a large part of their strength (not that they'd be wrong to help fight the Reapers with anything they have but you could understand if they were wary of the risk).

Dean_the_Young wrote...

We forgave the Turians for attacking us directly because they were willing to admit they were wrong well before the war even began in full even though they were in a position of strength, and not simply from a position at which anything but denial would be tantemount to suicidal logic. And even then we retain one of the strongest military fleets in the galaxy.

We have no reason to believe the Council records are innacurate or biased in terms of recording what happened: the victor does not need to lie in any and every occasion.

As above though, Rachni have a history of apparently taking the "suicidal" route or else the records are inaccurate.  The capacity for the Rachni to become strong isn't reason enough to not allow them to live (otherwise you're almost saying the Turians were wrong to stop the war, since they were allowing a potentially dangerous force to live and one that had every reason to dislike the Turians for what they did at that).

Modifié par Smeelia, 22 juin 2011 - 11:19 .

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]Smeelia wrote...


[quote]Dave of Canada wrote...

You completely missed the point, she isn't comparing aliens to the dog but comparing humans to the dog. She mentions that no matter how much the owner (aliens) love their dog (humans), they'll sacrifice the dog to save their own lives from a bear (Any threat but fittingly, the Reapers).

It's also a logical fear as the Council has done it before.[/quote]
The way she says it strongly implies that she's transferring her own feelings as well, if humans were the dominant power in the galaxy then Ashley would still think of aliens as "less than human".  That's not necessarily the same as hating them though and if you think of aliens as completely equal then you can't really be pro-human.
[/quote]Where on earth does she ever call them as 'less than human?' Every political concern she has about them is based on them being fundamentally similar to humans in 'us or them' terms.

[quote]
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

Moreover, you're for getting that immediate concerns going forward are also based upon prior behavior and history. Humans have a galactic history of being willing to compromise, not being exceptionally warlike, and a proven willingness to exist in peace. The Rachni do not.

There is no moral or logical requirement to handle all threats in a singular manner.[/quote]
True but the Rachni Queen wasn't involved in the Rachni war and so has no history of warlike behaviour.[/quote]Actually, with complete genetic memory that's not so clear-cut on a philosophical. She certainly has the memories.

[quote]
You're judging her based on the actions of other members of her race, that's no different to judging all of humanity based on the actions of Cerberus (or any other group).  If you found a Turian colony that had been cut off from the rest of Turian society for thousands of years, it wouldn't be reasonable to assume that they'll act the same way as Turians elsewhere (even people living in the same society don't agree on everything).[/quote]But that would be because the Turian colony had thousands of years of political development to diverge: the Rachni Queen doesn't. While our cultures have had roughly two thousand years to develop, the Rachni Queen has been socially stagnant and frozen on account of being, well, an egg for most of that period.

Profiling people on the nature of their culture is generally pretty standard: deviatations exist, but the reason a culture is a culture in the first place is that it's a dominantly shared set of outlooks. The Rachni Queen is culturally Rachni: judging her by the culture of the Rachni that she comes from to get understanding is pretty much social interaction 101. Now, while our understanding of Rachni Culture mayu be imperfect, it's also the only basis we have.

[quote]
The Rachni Queen tries to negotiate for her safety, even if you feel it was deceptive this shows that either:
A) She's different to other Rachni (we're told the Rachni didn't make any attempt to negotiate even when they were driven to extinction).[/quote]Correction: we're told the Council failed to make contact for negotiations. We never have any suggestion the Krogan cared to ask as they were winning, or that they weren't approached.

[quote]
or  What we've been told about the Rachni may not be entirely reliable.
Either way, assuming this Rachni is the same as those Rachni isn't entirely reasonable.[/quote]Nah, it's pretty reasonable. Completely accurate, no, but reasonable things rarely are.

What's far more unreasonable is inventing hypotheticals to support a position. Making assumptions up is generally agreed upon to be worth less than imperfect understanding.

[quote]
On top of that, it's genocide that you're committing in killing her.  You're not suppressing an existing threat, the threat is only a potential one and killing the Rachni Queen (most likely) will destroy the Rachni forever.[/quote]It's genocide in the same sense that killing any fertile female or male is wiping out all future, hypothetical descendents. A genocide of one is murder (sometimes).
[quote]
Choosing to kill her isn't necessarily "wrong" but it's probably being done based on her race or if you were consistent it'd mean you're willing to commit genocide on any race that might pose a threat (if you can do so without risk at least).[/quote]Except not all races are equivalent. Humans are not the same as Salarians as Asari as Krogan as Rachni. Your definition of 'consistency' relies on a non-existent uniformity, as well as ignoring, well, history.

The reason race-based considerations are bunk between humans is that they exist on fallacies and outright factual errors in arguing distinctions that aren't there. But species-based considerations do have the weight of actual differences: there's no mystery as to why a chimpanzee is not the same lion. 


[quote]The Rachni war was 2000 years ago and against a large established empire, we're talking about allowing one Queen to start rebuilding her race.  If it comes down to it, we can fight the Rachni, make friends with the Rachni and do many other things in the long time it'll take them to build up to being such a power and by then they could well have a history of cooperation.  There's far too much time and far too many other factors that would be put to use to assume that the Rachni will become a threat and they're certainly not an immediate threat.[/quote]No one doubts we would win... assuming we did fight them while we could win. The cost is the aspect of concern. A Rachni force doesn't have to be large to bombard colonies from orbit and flee. Even if only two people die because of a hostile Rachni, in the immediate future or down the road, that's one more than who would die if you killed the Queen.

Infact, since we know the Rachni have already wiped out at least one pirate group, you've already bled into the positive in people who are dead who would not otherwise be dead.

[quote]
Infact, I don't think it'll make much sense for the Rachni to be a significant power in ME3, they could perhaps lend some forces (to either side) but it'd be a large part of their strength (not that they'd be wrong to help fight the Reapers with anything they have but you could understand if they were wary of the risk).[/quote]Most likely, they'll be willing to contribute a significant aspect of whatever goes to Earth. Their galactic power doesn't have to be all that large if they send something similar to Earth what other people are willing to send.

[quote]As above though, Rachni have a history of apparently taking the "suicidal" route or else the records are inaccurate.[/quote]False: the records themselves can be accurate without holding everything that would change an understanding. 

Nor does one known divergence overturn a historic pattern of trends.
[quote]
The capacity for the Rachni to become strong isn't reason enough to not allow them to live (otherwise you're almost saying the Turians were wrong to stop the war, since they were allowing a potentially dangerous force to live and one that had every reason to dislike the Turians for what they did at that).[/quote]If Humans could breed fast enough to settle a colony in days, had tough enough skin and could throw their own acidic feces at a point where they could fight evenly with fully armed and armored Turian soldiers, and all known history of Humans was attacking everyone else...

...then yes, the Turians would have made a mistake. But Humans aren't capable of building power that fast, aren't that powerful even without technology, and don't have that history.

[Smeelia]

[quote]Saphra Deden wrote...

No, it isn't that they are "less than human" but that their survival is secondary to ours, and ours theirs. That is how it is and how it should be. If we had to choose between the survival of our species or an alien species we would of-course choose ours.

That's all Ashley is talking about.[/quote]
Exactly, "less than human" doesn't mean a lot less or that they're unimportant, just that you'd put humans first (because they're more important to you).  If they were equal then it'd simply be a matter of treating all races collectively as people and not really bothering to identify them by race at all (which wouldn't really be pro-human).

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

Where on earth does she ever call them as 'less than human?' Every political concern she has about them is based on them being fundamentally similar to humans in 'us or them' terms.[/quote]
Again, exactly what I meant.  She considers them similar to humans and so uses an analogy that she feels would apply to anyone of any race (whether true or not).  If the analogy had been you and your sister then there wouldn't have been the automatic implication of one side being less important (even if you would sick your sister on the bear).

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

Actually, with complete genetic memory that's not so clear-cut on a philosophical. She certainly has the memories.[/quote]
True but then so does Grunt and he makes his own path (or so he says, to be honest it does seem he's doing exactly what Okeer wanted).  Anyway, having the memories doesn't automatically mean they're any more personal, it could easily be no different to reading about history (which is at least partly what we're basing the decision on).

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

But that would be because the Turian colony had thousands of years of political development to diverge: the Rachni Queen doesn't. While our cultures have had roughly two thousand years to develop, the Rachni Queen has been socially stagnant and frozen on account of being, well, an egg for most of that period.[/quote]
Debatable, she has her own views of the past and there's no rule that it automatically takes a long time for changes in culture.  If a Turian colony split off today it may well be because they already feel they have a separate culture, culture isn't restricted to entire races and can apply to groups within a race.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

Profiling people on the nature of their culture is generally pretty standard: deviatations exist, but the reason a culture is a culture in the first place is that it's a dominantly shared set of outlooks. The Rachni Queen is culturally Rachni: judging her by the culture of the Rachni that she comes from to get understanding is pretty much social interaction 101. Now, while our understanding of Rachni Culture mayu be imperfect, it's also the only basis we have.[/quote]
It's also difficult to say she comes from that culture, she's never lived in it and has been separated for her entire existence.  It would make more sense to try and find something out about the person's culture than assume they're from one you are aware of that happens to have included people from the same race.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

What's far more unreasonable is inventing hypotheticals to support a position. Making assumptions up is generally agreed upon to be worth less than imperfect understanding.[/quote]
A hypothetical isn't the same as an assumption, they're generally used to clarify a point or indicate possibilities.  For example, you're relying on the hypothetical idea that the Queen is lying and that the Rachni would be or become a threat.  There's evidence to suggest it but it can't be confirmed, just as the possibility that the Rachni could be peaceful can't be confirmed (both without testing at least).

Also, didn't you just say that assumptions were reasonable?

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

It's genocide in the same sense that killing any fertile female or male is wiping out all future, hypothetical descendents. A genocide of one is murder (sometimes).[/quote]
It's definately genocide though, regardless of what else you might consider genocide.  You're wiping out the last of the race and removing all possibility for that race to continue existing (as far as you know at least), whether that only involves killing one or one million doesn't make a difference to that fact.  You might not like the association but that doesn't change the fact that it is genocide, that doesn't mean you can't argue that genocide is the best option in this case (it's far from clear cut anyway).

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

Except not all races are equivalent. Humans are not the same as Salarians as Asari as Krogan as Rachni. Your definition of 'consistency' relies on a non-existent uniformity, as well as ignoring, well, history.[/quote]
Not really, it's a simple matter of treating all intelligent species fairly.  Most people would consider the right to live an important one, you're overruling that on the basis that they might possibly be (or become) a threat to the right of others to live.  That seems slightly hypocritical.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

No one doubts we would win... assuming we did fight them while we could win. The cost is the aspect of concern. A Rachni force doesn't have to be large to bombard colonies from orbit and flee. Even if only two people die because of a hostile Rachni, in the immediate future or down the road, that's one more than who would die if you killed the Queen.[/quote]
Those deaths are hypothetical and by no means guaranteed.  If we don't end up fighting then we could gain benefits that we otherwise wouldn't have gained.  We can't reliably predict the future, both possibilities (along with others) are only possibilities.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

Infact, since we know the Rachni have already wiped out at least one pirate group, you've already bled into the positive in people who are dead who would not otherwise be dead.[/quote]
We can only know this after the fact and those Pirates were trying to kill people so the Rachni have also saved some that might not have otherwise been saved.  The fact that your actions create the future doesn't have any effect on whether they are right or wrong.  Remembering to breathe today might well result in you getting beaten up tomorrow, that doesn't mean you were wrong to breathe.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

Most likely, they'll be willing to contribute a significant aspect of whatever goes to Earth. Their galactic power doesn't have to be all that large if they send something similar to Earth what other people are willing to send.[/quote]
True, I was just saying that they're unlikely to have reached the point where they have anything like a major Empire within duration of the Mass Effect story.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

False: the records themselves can be accurate without holding everything that would change an understanding.[/quote]
The records could still be inaccurate though, you don't know.  Besides, it's just semantics, the records are incomplete and there's an inconsistency as a result.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

Nor does one known divergence overturn a historic pattern of trends.[/quote]
Trends that this Rachni wasn't involved in and are shown to represent something other than what we see (whether through inaccuracy or incompleteness).  I'd say that's relevant, at the least it weakens the "evidence" against the Rachni Queen.

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

If Humans could breed fast enough to settle a colony in days, had tough enough skin and could throw their own acidic feces at a point where they could fight evenly with fully armed and armored Turian soldiers, and all known history of Humans was attacking everyone else...

...then yes, the Turians would have made a mistake. But Humans aren't capable of building power that fast, aren't that powerful even without technology, and don't have that history.[/quote]
The fact that Rachni can become a threat more quickly isn't relevant, it might take longer but humans can still be just as much or more of a threat than Rachni (and even proved this by using unexpected tactics and ideas when attacked by the Turians).  The same goes for armour and weapons.  The history is covered above.

I don't agree that the Turians would have been right to wipe out humans even if they were the same as Rachni (that's still the same as suggesting that any powerful race should destroy any other that might one day become a threat).  I suppose that's a matter of opinion and belief though, just as the whole Rachni Queen choice is.

Modifié par Smeelia, 22 juin 2011 - 01:05 .

[SandTrout]

Exactly, "less than human" doesn't mean a lot less or that they're unimportant, just that you'd put humans first (because they're more important to you). If they were equal then it'd simply be a matter of treating all races collectively as people and not really bothering to identify them by race at all (which wouldn't really be pro-human).

Non-human =/= less than human. Ashley is making an accurate assessment, based on available data and historical patterns. A population, or individual, will always protect itself over another population or individual, excepting exceptional circumstances (IE: Powerful emotional attachment). People will not typically donate a heart or liver to a dying person until after they have died themselves. That does not mean that they consider the other person as "less than human", they simply consider them "not me".

Self-sacrificing tendencies typically get bred out of a species very quickly, resulting in the only standard self-destructive behavior in humanity being the urge to protect one's young, with actually enhances that genotype's survivability over the long term.

A species that is not willing to sacrifice another species in order to ensure its own survival will go extinct excluding some domestication effect where those traits are intentionally bred into the species by a separate species or population.

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]Smeelia wrote...

[quote]Saphra Deden wrote...

No, it isn't that they are "less than human" but that their survival is secondary to ours, and ours theirs. That is how it is and how it should be. If we had to choose between the survival of our species or an alien species we would of-course choose ours.

That's all Ashley is talking about.[/quote]
Exactly, "less than human" doesn't mean a lot less or that they're unimportant, just that you'd put humans first (because they're more important to you).  If they were equal then it'd simply be a matter of treating all races collectively as people and not really bothering to identify them by race at all (which wouldn't really be pro-human).[/quote]Not to put too fine a point on it, but you don't understand group identity dynamics.

And analogies.
[quote]
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

Where on earth does she ever call them as 'less than human?' Every political concern she has about them is based on them being fundamentally similar to humans in 'us or them' terms.[/quote]
Again, exactly what I meant.  She considers them similar to humans and so uses an analogy that she feels would apply to anyone of any race (whether true or not).  If the analogy had been you and your sister then there wouldn't have been the automatic implication of one side being less important (even if you would sick your sister on the bear).[/quote]Ditto.
[quote]
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

Actually, with complete genetic memory that's not so clear-cut on a philosophical. She certainly has the memories.[/quote]
True but then so does Grunt and he makes his own path (or so he says, to be honest it does seem he's doing exactly what Okeer wanted).  Anyway, having the memories doesn't automatically mean they're any more personal, it could easily be no different to reading about history (which is at least partly what we're basing the decision on).[/quote]If you want to bring Grunt as an argument as to how in-born memories don't help shape someone into a bloodthirsty savage...
[quote]Debatable, she has her own views of the past and there's no rule that it automatically takes a long time for changes in culture.  If a Turian colony split off today it may well be because they already feel they have a separate culture, culture isn't restricted to entire races and can apply to groups within a race.[/quote]Debatable that she's not of the same culture? Not really: every culture can have defectives and dissidents, but she doesn't have the grounds to especially prove a cultural differentiation.
[quote]
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

Profiling people on the nature of their culture is generally pretty standard: deviatations exist, but the reason a culture is a culture in the first place is that it's a dominantly shared set of outlooks. The Rachni Queen is culturally Rachni: judging her by the culture of the Rachni that she comes from to get understanding is pretty much social interaction 101. Now, while our understanding of Rachni Culture mayu be imperfect, it's also the only basis we have.[/quote]
It's also difficult to say she comes from that culture, she's never lived in it[/quote]With the Rachni's form of genetic memory, she doesn't need to. She's born with it.
 [quote]
and has been separated for her entire existence.  It would make more sense to try and find something out about the person's culture than assume they're from one you are aware of that happens to have included people from the same race.[/quote]Unfortunately, we don't have the opportunity at the time of decision. Which is generally something that challenges any delimma: you can always search for more context.
[quote]
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

What's far more unreasonable is inventing hypotheticals to support a position. Making assumptions up is generally agreed upon to be worth less than imperfect understanding.[/quote]
A hypothetical isn't the same as an assumption, they're generally used to clarify a point or indicate possibilities.  For example, you're relying on the hypothetical idea that the Queen is lying and that the Rachni would be or become a threat.  There's evidence to suggest it but it can't be confirmed, just as the possibility that the Rachni could be peaceful can't be confirmed (both without testing at least).[/quote]The term is still right context, in that you're been creating hypothetical alternative cultures and beliefs when none are known to exist.

[quote]
Also, didn't you just say that assumptions were reasonable?[/quote]Only if they're based on something reasonable. That should really go without saying.
[quote]
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

It's genocide in the same sense that killing any fertile female or male is wiping out all future, hypothetical descendents. A genocide of one is murder (sometimes).[/quote]
It's definately genocide though, regardless of what else you might consider genocide.  You're wiping out the last of the race and removing all possibility for that race to continue existing (as far as you know at least), whether that only involves killing one or one million doesn't make a difference to that fact.  You might not like the association but that doesn't change the fact that it is genocide, that doesn't mean you can't argue that genocide is the best option in this case (it's far from clear cut anyway).[/quote]A genocide of one is outweighed by the murder five, if you ever want to make an argument that all forms of sentient life are equal. The Rachni remains only one person: her future descendents weigh no more (and no less) than the future possible descendents of any fertile man or woman you kill.
[quote]
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

Except not all races are equivalent. Humans are not the same as Salarians as Asari as Krogan as Rachni. Your definition of 'consistency' relies on a non-existent uniformity, as well as ignoring, well, history.[/quote]
Not really, it's a simple matter of treating all intelligent species fairly.  Most people would consider the right to live an important one, you're overruling that on the basis that they might possibly be (or become) a threat to the right of others to live.  That seems slightly hypocritical.[/quote]Then you don't understand the standard: people have the right to X until they compromise someone else's rights. Restricint rights isn't hypocritical, because rights have always been conditional. Particularly, equal rights are based on the foundation that the people involved are, in fact, equal in the relevant ways. We don't let plague-carrying people out of quarantine: are we hypocritical about the right to freedom of movement? No, because that right is balanced by others.

The Rachni Queen's right to life is balanced by the right to life of other people. The threat she poses is a direct factor.
[quote]
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

No one doubts we would win... assuming we did fight them while we could win. The cost is the aspect of concern. A Rachni force doesn't have to be large to bombard colonies from orbit and flee. Even if only two people die because of a hostile Rachni, in the immediate future or down the road, that's one more than who would die if you killed the Queen.[/quote]
Those deaths are hypothetical and by no means guaranteed.  If we don't end up fighting then we could gain benefits that we otherwise wouldn't have gained.  We can't reliably predict the future, both possibilities (along with others) are only possibilities.[/quote]On the basis of metagaming, those deaths are guaranteed if you save her. Moreover, the likelyhood of her not being responsible for any death can only be measured by comparison: even if we ignore Rachni history, how long does the Council, or the Alliance go without killing someone?

Not all possibilities are equal. Likelyhood gives weight.
[quote]We can only know this after the fact [/quote]It's also very, very foreseeable.

[quote]and those Pirates were trying to kill people so the Rachni have also saved some that might not have otherwise been saved.  [/quote]But if you want to argue that the Rachni Queen is likely to save more people, you need to justify that argument at the time of release.


[qupote]The fact that your actions create the future doesn't have any effect on whether they are right or wrong.[/quote]It has every effect. Morality arose from the consequences our actions have.
[quote]
  Remembering to breathe today might well result in you getting beaten up tomorrow, that doesn't mean you were wrong to breathe.[/quote]There also isn't a logical linking between me breathing and later being beaten up. One doesn't cause the other: correlation versus causation.

[quote]The records could still be inaccurate though, you don't know.  Besides, it's just semantics, the records are incomplete and there's an inconsistency as a result.[/quote]An inconsistency isn't an innacuracy: are you going to argue that the record of hundreds of years is now invalid as a result?
[quote]
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

Nor does one known divergence overturn a historic pattern of trends.[/quote]
Trends that this Rachni wasn't involved in and are shown to represent something other than what we see (whether through inaccuracy or incompleteness).  I'd say that's relevant, at the least it weakens the "evidence" against the Rachni Queen.[/quote]When the evidence is based on biological determinism? Not really.
[quote]
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

If Humans could breed fast enough to settle a colony in days, had tough enough skin and could throw their own acidic feces at a point where they could fight evenly with fully armed and armored Turian soldiers, and all known history of Humans was attacking everyone else...

...then yes, the Turians would have made a mistake. But Humans aren't capable of building power that fast, aren't that powerful even without technology, and don't have that history.[/quote]
The fact that Rachni can become a threat more quickly isn't relevant,[/quote]It's the only relevant factor that makes the Rachni an exceptional threat.
 
[quote]
it might take longer but humans can still be just as much or more of a threat than Rachni (and even proved this by using unexpected tactics and ideas when attacked by the Turians).  The same goes for armour and weapons.  The history is covered above.[/quote]Not to put too fine a point, but you really don't know how to balance threats and potential.
[quote]
I don't agree that the Turians would have been right to wipe out humans even if they were the same as Rachni (that's still the same as suggesting that any powerful race should destroy any other that might one day become a threat).  I suppose that's a matter of opinion and belief though, just as the whole Rachni Queen choice is.[/quote]
Sure. And I'll still argue your belief is not only wrong, but poorly thought out.

[jamesp81]

Missouri Tigers wrote...

I tried to be a pro-human guy on one of my characters, but I just can't do it.  It seems dumb to completely alienate aliens and refuse their help.  I can understand having some pride in humanity and Earth, but it just feels like warding off any potential allies is the stupidest thing anybody could ever do.  What kind of person wouldn't want a better chance of fighting a threat that kills everybody?

I roleplay it as a paragade.  I'm very pro-human personally, but I'm not anti-anyone.  The problem I see is that the exclusively pro-human decisions are also anti-alien.

So yeah, I'm pro-human.  But that doesn't mean I wish ill on the aliens.  I'll gladly fight for them too.

[Smeelia]

SandTrout wrote...
Non-human =/= less than human. Ashley is making an accurate assessment, based on available data and historical patterns. A population, or individual, will always protect itself over another population or individual, excepting exceptional circumstances (IE: Powerful emotional attachment). People will not typically donate a heart or liver to a dying person until after they have died themselves. That does not mean that they consider the other person as "less than human", they simply consider them "not me".

Again, saying something is less important doesn't mean you hate it and isn't inherently wrong.  You're misunderstanding my point.
People generally consider themselves of the highest importance, that is why they wont sacrifice themselves for others.  There's not anything inherently wrong with that, nor does it imply that they hate everyone else (and, as you say, there can be circumstances where they would consider someone else of higher importance).  Thus, if you would sacrifice anyone over yourself then you consider them less important (even if only by the tiniest of margins), simply by virtue of the fact that they are "not me".  If they were equal then it'd be an equal chance as to which one you'd want to survive.
"Less than human" isn't an inaccurate description for the way the aliens would be viewed, it just sounds like one because you're attaching the emotional idea that saying this means you strongly dislike the person.  Funnily enough, this misinterpretation seems to be exactly what happened to my post.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you don't understand group identity dynamics.

And analogies.

Actually, you're wrong.  It seems you've misinterpreted my point and made the assumption that I'm trying to insult Ashley (or at least demonstrate a distaste for her viewpoint) and call her viewpoint "wrong" in some way.  If so, this has coloured your view of my post and you're not taking it as written.

I fully understood what Ashley was talking about, I was merely pointing out that there's an inherent uneveness in putting one before another and not in any way suggesting that there's automatically something wrong with that.  I even clarified this previously.

The rest of your points don't add anything so I don't feel it's worth responding to them and your attitude certainly doesn't help make listening to you worthwhile.

[Dean_the_Young]

Smeelia wrote...

The rest of your points don't add anything so I don't feel it's worth responding to them and your attitude certainly doesn't help make listening to you worthwhile.

Wahwahwah.

 You have the right to an opinion: you don't have the right not to be challenged about it, or to have it revered as equally valid.

[Raven4030]

Regarding the whole Rachni Queen debate, you can throw around all these philosophical concepts all you like, but here are the facts about that decision:

1) Whether the Rachni Queen intends to live peacefully or make war the second she is able to she will say the exact same thing: "Please let me go free and rebuild in a more peaceful image instead of submerging me in a vat of acid resulting in an incredibly painful death".

2) We know the risks involved in releasing the Queen and nobody would endorse releasing a warlike Queen. Thing is, given the incentive to lie the ONLY reason to release the Queen is if you're very, very sure that the Queen is being honest. If you have strong reason to suspect that it is lying, then the safest course of action is to destroy it.

3) The Rachni Queen's earliest memories are of the cries of agony as her species was slowly obliterated. Her first experiences in the world are being confined in a lab and having needles jabbed into her while her children are stolen away to be used as weapons of war and end up turning into monsters. Given that, there is a good reason to believe she would want to make war if only to get revenge on a galactic civilization that wronged her so terribly as to make the genophage look like the sniffles by comparison.

The most RATIONAL choice (even if not the most ethical one) is to destroy the Rachni Queen. This isn't racism, this isn't thinking that all Rachni are dangerous as a species, it's simply recognizing that any sapient being whose entire life has been one of loss, pain, suffering, and fear would probably want revenge. In this case, this one sapeint being is also capable of single-handedly raising and leading an army. Ending one life, even if it is the last hope of a species, to save millions? It might be a tough call, but in the end it's the ideal call.

EDIT: As far as Ashley's comment about the master and the dog, yah, it's just a matter of self-preservation. It takes an exceptional individual to sacrifice for strangers and there is nothing wrong with recognizing that politicians by their nature are almost never the sort of exceptional individual who would sacrifice themselves for strangers.

Modifié par Raven4030, 22 juin 2011 - 06:39 .

[Dave of Canada]

Turians would protect Palaven before they'd protect Earth, Thessia and Sur'kesh.
Salarians would protect Sur'kesh before they'd protect Earth, Thessia and Palaven.
Asari would protect Thessia before they'd protect Earth, Palaven and Sur'kesh.

The Council have done it before, they've already sacrificed people for their own benefit. Ashley's statement is simply saying that no matter how much somebody loves the other species, they aren't their own species and they'll gladly sacrifice them to save their own species from destruction. Which is a logical assumption and has nothing to do with being pro-human or not.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 22 juin 2011 - 06:39 .

[Barquiel]

Well, I have never tried it.

All but one of my Shepards romanced Liara (= little blue children). Why should I want human dominance

[Smeelia]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Wahwahwah.

I believe personal attacks are a violation of the terms of use.  You're doing nothing to help your credibility.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

You have the right to an opinion: you don't have the right not to be challenged about it, or to have it revered as equally valid.

I didn't say otherwise.  I also consider your opinion of my opinion irrelevant and I have that right.

[Dean_the_Young]

Smeelia wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Wahwahwah.

I believe personal attacks are a violation of the terms of use.  You're doing nothing to help your credibility.

If you consider that a personal attack, you need to get perspective.,

Dean_the_Young wrote...

You have the right to an opinion: you don't have the right not to be challenged about it, or to have it revered as equally valid.

I didn't say otherwise.  I also consider your opinion of my opinion irrelevant and I have that right.

Sure. You also have the right to have the opinion the world is flat. And that evolution is a hoax. And any number of things.

[KevShep]

Dave of Canada wrote...

KevShep wrote...

In ME1 ashley tells you why she does not hate aliens but referring to aliens as a dog, she says that as much as you love your dog its not human so you would sick you dog on a bear and run. really ash aliens are intelligent like humans. This is one of the main reasons I let her die!

You completely missed the point, she isn't comparing aliens to the dog but comparing humans to the dog. She mentions that no matter how much the owner (aliens) love their dog (humans), they'll sacrifice the dog to save their own lives from a bear (Any threat but fittingly, the Reapers).

It's also a logical fear as the Council has done it before.

she was not saying that the dog symbolized humans or the owner symbolized aliens becuse she states that the dog is not human in her quote.

[Daddy555]

what makes it hard to be pro human is the fact most aliens in the game act human in every sense of the word only differing in the way they look so to be anti alian would be the same as been anti black thus making the connection of racism. there is no reason other than to be a **** to be pro human .... hahaha tho my sheperd is a **** and is pro human lol i dont agree with his mothods or morl choice but hey **** it

[KevShep]

Saphra Deden wrote...

KevShep wrote...

she was not saying that the dog symbolized humans or the owner symbolized aliens becuse she states that the dog is not human in her quote.

Are you disputing that?

I'll tell you what you are doing: missing the point.

The "human" is the Council and the dog is "humanity". Do you understand how analogies work?

Within the context of the analogy the dog is not human, the dog is not what the "master" is. If we remove the analogy then it would read like this: As much as the Council may love humanity, humanity is not the Council. They'll sacrifice humanity to save themselves if they have to.

I get what your saying! She sould have used something else other then dog becuase the dog cant think like a human can...that was the confusing part.

Modifié par KevShep, 23 juin 2011 - 12:20 .