6970 réponses à ce sujet

[John Renegade]

Barquiel wrote...

John Renegade wrote...

Don't you think that settling a world outside of said organisation's territory by species not belonging to this organization shouldn't legally concern that organisation in any way?

Yet, it is apparent that this organisation can do whatever it wants whenever it wants and wherever it wants. (Yes, I'm talking about the quarian terminus almost-colony turned into an elcor colony by the order of the Council which 'persuaded' the quarians to let go of the world.)

Ekuna was council territory...and the quarians knew exactly that the system was in council space (or there would have been no reason to ask the council for permission)

The council simply didn't accept being presented with a fait accompli in this way.

'First discovered by the quarians at the turn of the century...'

I don't give a damn about anything else than the quote above. The Councillors could as well divide the systems near Omega between themselves by making a thick red line on the galaxy map. Or maybe they could 'own' entire galaxies this way. The problem is that they aren't physically capable of it. Either they can't get to, remain there or don't know where those places are, which means that they really don't belong to them.

The best part: It might be a policy of the Council to say 'this belongs to us', but this is also a matter of international (interspecies) law. As long as the other (non-Council) side doesn't make an agreement with the Council about these sorts of things, the Council doesn't legally have any more 'right' to own the place than does anyone else. You could argue, that quarians had more right to the planet though, because, you know, they've found it first.

That the quarians didn't want trouble and decided to first talk with the Council doesn't mean that the Council had the right to legally kick them from the colony.

Modifié par John Renegade, 19 février 2012 - 06:24 .

[BlueMagitek]

Barquiel wrote...

The batarians considered the Skyllian Verge within their sphere of interest, they colonized nothing. And maybe the asari/salarians were not the biggest fans of the batarians because the hegemony attacked their colonies? Or do you suggest compulsory membership?

Yes, they should have helped the quarians to commit genocide (after the quarians struck the first blow and violated council laws). I am sure that nobody would blame the council in that case

Oh no, I'm fine with the Batarians leaving, but to suggest that the Council is accountable to the people they rule? Pfft, what a joke.

You know, I'm getting very tired of this.  It wasn't genocide, it was an attempt to get their programs working again.  And considering that the Council has engaged in genocide before, they're a bunch of stinking hypocrites if they didn't help the quarians because they didn't want to commit genocide.  And, the Quarians were trying to obey Council law, they didn't set out to create AI, it just happened.  They tried to remedy the situation and it fell in their face.

But no, please, blame the Quarians some more.  They're so much worse than those harmless, good Geth.  Like the Quarians would never give up some of their limited supplies to help Turians in need, except they totally did.  And the Quarians allow people to have negotations with them?  Clearly they should have killed them, as the Geth have.

Barquiel wrote...

Ekuna was council territory...and the
quarians knew exactly that the system was in council space (or there
would have been no reason to ask the council for permission)

The council simply didn't accept being presented with a fait accompli in this way.

No, Ekuna is not inside Council territory.  It's in the Phoenix Massing Nebula, which is right next to the Veil where the Geth live.  And, considering that Anderson tells you that Geth activity in Council Space is at an all time low with only a few small pockets left, you can reasonably conclude that it's located in the Terminus.

But it's k, those filthy Quarians must deserve their fate.  I do love paragon justice.

[Barquiel]

If Ekuna is not council space...why did the quarians ask the council for permission to colonize the planet? Do you think the batarians ask the concil for permission when they colonize systems in the terminus systems?

[John Renegade]

BlueMagitek wrote...

 I do love paragon justice.

Heh, in this context 'justice' is just an arbitrary empty value. My relations with others are whatever I choose the relations to be like, they are not guided by some principles of imaginary equality. (Why for the God's sake should I help someone only because he helped me in the past? And even better: Why should I act as a jerk to someone simply because they screwed up? Why not act in the opposite way? Or simply in a way I bloody choose on my own?)

[BlueMagitek]

Barquiel wrote...

If Ekuna is not council space...why did
the quarians ask the council for permission to colonize the planet? Do
you think the batarians ask the concil for permission when they colonize
systems in the terminus systems?

Pointless speculation? 
Really?  We have no information on that, we only know that Ekuna is in
the Terminus by looking at the location.

John Renegade wrote...

Heh, in this context 'justice' is just an arbitrary empty value. My relations with others are whatever I choose the relations to be like, they are not guided by some principles of imaginary equality. (Why for the God's sake should I help someone only because he helped me in the past? And even better: Why should I act as a jerk to someone simply because they screwed up? Why not act in the opposite way? Or simply in a way I bloody choose on my own?)

Because Legion is kewl and we're taking his word as truth despite evidence to the contrary.  Oh yeah. =D

[John Renegade]

Barquiel wrote...

If Ekuna is not council space...why did the quarians ask the council for permission to colonize the planet? Do you think the batarians ask the concil for permission when they colonize systems in the terminus systems?

Copied from the beginning of this page:

That the quarians didn't want trouble and decided to first talk with the Council doesn't mean that the Council had the right to legally kick them from the colony.

Translation: The quarians knew about the Council's 'might makes right' policy and didn't want to come into a needless conflict with them. That was a bit foolish, but it still doesn't give the Council a legal authority to threaten them with orbital bombardment.

Modifié par John Renegade, 19 février 2012 - 06:42 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Barquiel wrote...

If Ekuna is not council space...why did
the quarians ask the council for permission to colonize the planet? Do
you think the batarians ask the concil for permission when they colonize
systems in the terminus systems?

Pointless speculation? 
Really?  We have no information on that, we only know that Ekuna is in
the Terminus by looking at the location.

John Renegade wrote...

Heh, in this context 'justice' is just an arbitrary empty value. My relations with others are whatever I choose the relations to be like, they are not guided by some principles of imaginary equality. (Why for the God's sake should I help someone only because he helped me in the past? And even better: Why should I act as a jerk to someone simply because they screwed up? Why not act in the opposite way? Or simply in a way I bloody choose on my own?)

Because Legion is kewl and we're taking his word as truth despite evidence to the contrary.  Oh yeah. =D

Legion seems cool. But I made my mind about the Geth-Quarian struggle.
Make peace with the Quarians and Council races, make migration to another world. a small portion can remain on Quarian homeworld though as servants.

Modifié par Jedi Sentinel Arian, 19 février 2012 - 06:43 .

[Nathan Redgrave]

Saphra Deden wrote...

I'll decide for myself what is morally reprehensible, thanks.

That's the logic that leads to morally reprehensible things, actually--because the person who does those things decides they're not morally reprehensible.

It's a point worth noting that we should be allowed such choices in ME, and in ME2 I did get the impression that Cerberus was intended to present exactly that opportunity to the player, but ME3 kind of throws a wrench in that by having Cerberus ally itself with the Reapers... mind you, that doesn't take away the choice itself, just the vehicle by which it was presented to you originally.

I can totally see the Illusive Man either siding with the Reapers or attempting to backstab them in some fashion if he thought he could get a human-dominated galaxy out of it. Perhaps that's the line of reasoning that's caused this recent parting of the ways between Shepard and Cerberus: the Illusive Man trying to hijack the Reapers for his own purposes. They are machines, after all, so if they could be controlled... yeah, I can totally see the Illusive Man trying to pull something insane like that.

[John Renegade]

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

I'll decide for myself what is morally reprehensible, thanks.

That's the logic that leads to morally reprehensible things, actually--because the person who does those things decides they're not morally reprehensible.

It's a point worth noting that we should be allowed such choices in ME, and in ME2 I did get the impression that Cerberus was intended to present exactly that opportunity to the player, but ME3 kind of throws a wrench in that by having Cerberus ally itself with the Reapers... mind you, that doesn't take away the choice itself, just the vehicle by which it was presented to you originally.

I can totally see the Illusive Man either siding with the Reapers or attempting to backstab them in some fashion if he thought he could get a human-dominated galaxy out of it. Perhaps that's the line of reasoning that's caused this recent parting of the ways between Shepard and Cerberus: the Illusive Man trying to hijack the Reapers for his own purposes. They are machines, after all, so if they could be controlled... yeah, I can totally see the Illusive Man trying to pull something insane like that.

If that, kind of a stupid, case of indoctrination wasn't there, I would join the Illusive Man with glee. I don't see a reason, why I would have to part ways with Cerberus otherwise.

Also, just to correct your statement a bit: Certain line of thought can lead me to do things, which are morally reprehensible from your point of view. Someone else might consider my actions to be quite 'noble', and he might consider your actions to be reprehensible, no matter how humane they may be. It's all about what are your priorities and why you have them lined up in certain order. Those priorities and whether other people have similar ones or different ones ultimately decide, what you think about people's actions.

Why have certain priorities and not others is the real question people must ask themselves, but answers to those questions tend to be long and complicated, plus they would be off-topic. (And sometimes they really can make a whole book out of themselves.)

Modifié par John Renegade, 19 février 2012 - 09:03 .

[BlueMagitek]

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

I'll decide for myself what is morally reprehensible, thanks.

That's the logic that leads to morally reprehensible things, actually--because the person who does those things decides they're not morally reprehensible.

It's a point worth noting that we should be allowed such choices in ME, and in ME2 I did get the impression that Cerberus was intended to present exactly that opportunity to the player, but ME3 kind of throws a wrench in that by having Cerberus ally itself with the Reapers... mind you, that doesn't take away the choice itself, just the vehicle by which it was presented to you originally.

I can totally see the Illusive Man either siding with the Reapers or attempting to backstab them in some fashion if he thought he could get a human-dominated galaxy out of it. Perhaps that's the line of reasoning that's caused this recent parting of the ways between Shepard and Cerberus: the Illusive Man trying to hijack the Reapers for his own purposes. They are machines, after all, so if they could be controlled... yeah, I can totally see the Illusive Man trying to pull something insane like that.

Moral relativism is a system of ethics for a reason, you know.

There are so many ideas and issues for morality and ethics that we can't really say whether one is correct or not.  And even then there are arguments within the systems.

[Seboist]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Barquiel wrote...

Don't you think that violating the laws/rules of an organization are valid grounds for expulsion from that organization?

Council: Don't make AI.
Quarians: 'k, we make VI.
Geth: We glitch in programming and have rudimentary AI now 
Quarians: OH ****! We shut you down.
Geth: lol no, enjoy ~1% of your population nubs
Quarians: Plz help
Council: LOL GTFO

Council: Hew-mans, u can colonize that traverse
Humans: 'kk
Batarians: But we are already doing that
Council: Trolololol
Batarians: Well we're leaving!
Council:  Don't let the door hit you on the way out~!

Yes, truly the Quarians and Batarians are deserving of their fates.

It's a good thing I did a regime change at the end of ME1.

[Xilizhra]

Blacklash93 wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...
Well yeah, Dragon Age is awesome because of that.  Freaking Dwarf Origins ftw.

Not that there were any bad origins, all of them were awesome in their own right, bu the Couslands get waaay too much love.

Templars are mostly a bunch of self-righteous crusaders with a "holy duty" to suppress mages where they're inconvinient and exploit them when they're useful. But they do have a point in that mages are very dangerous individuals whose freedom would possibly create another Tevinter and/or create a world ruled by powerful demons. Pretty much any mage who so much as steps a foot in that direction hurts so many people it's simply not worth the risk of keeping them free.

Most Mages are equally self-righteous and consider their freedom to be something that shouldn't even have to be debated. Most of them can't fathom the responsibilty on their shoulders that their magic burdens them with and probably wouldn't even know what to do with their lives with freedom. They're also terribly ungrateful to the Chantry for protecting them from those who would kill them from being what they are and teaching them how to use their gifts. But they are right in that they shouldn't be treated like sub-human drones who must be confined to a tower for their whole lives.

DA2 showed the worst of both sides and even if it makes both factions seem unlikable, at least you know there is no easy answer.

I wish the ME team could write and flesh out conflicts like ths. ME basically goes "Press X to end world hunger." with most of its issues.

The Chantry is the prime reason many mages would be killed without it. Cutting off someone's legs to sell them artificial ones is not a charitable action; mages have pretty much nothing whatsoever to be grateful to the Chantry about. And saying that mages would create another Tevinter is like saying Germans would create another Third Reich.

[BlueMagitek]

The Circles protect the people from the mages and the mages from the people. And the people have good reason to fear mages; look at what Connor did! He was a kid, but he's killed a large amount of people and mutilated others.

Now, yes, the Chantry shouldn't be preaching that mages are the ebil, especially when the verses used to justify it don't say a single thing about mages being evil, just that their magic shouldn't control them.

[Xilizhra]

Connor was possessed by a demon because he was hidden away from adequate training, because his mother knew of the Circle's repression. It's largely the Chantry's fault (more directly Jowan's/Loghain's, but the Chantry plays a large role too).

[BlueMagitek]

Xilizhra wrote...

Connor was possessed by a demon because he was hidden away from adequate training, because his mother knew of the Circle's repression. It's largely the Chantry's fault (more directly Jowan's/Loghain's, but the Chantry plays a large role too).

No, he was possessed because he was a scared boy who wanted his father to get better and thought he had the power to do something about it.  And he did.

If he was in the Circle, he wouldn't have, you know, killed a ton of people and mutilated some elves.  And when he does go to the Circle, he has a pretty decent future ahead of him.

[Xilizhra]

No, he was possessed because he was a scared boy who wanted his father to get better and thought he had the power to do something about it. And he did.

Because he was poorly trained. Not because the only way to achieve training is imprisonment and dehumanization.

[Seboist]

Since we're on the subject of DA. here's a link to Hamburger Hepler's twitter account that's being bashed to hell and back by angry fans.

https://twitter.com/.../@BrandesHepler

[BlueMagitek]

Xilizhra wrote...

No, he was possessed because he was a scared boy who wanted his father to get better and thought he had the power to do something about it. And he did.

Because he was poorly trained. Not because the only way to achieve training is imprisonment and dehumanization.

Because he's a human boy who wanted to save his father.  Even if he was properly trained, he'd still feel the same temptation, and you know what?  He might give in, because he loves his father and doesn't want him to die.  If that takes sacrificing his soul to a demon, that's just a price he'll pay for it.


I'm afraid I can't even read the twitter page, what exactly is it about?

[Xilizhra]

Because he's a human boy who wanted to save his father. Even if he was properly trained, he'd still feel the same temptation, and you know what? He might give in, because he loves his father and doesn't want him to die. If that takes sacrificing his soul to a demon, that's just a price he'll pay for it.

Which could happen at any time in the Circle as well for any mage who grew attached to anyone.

[BlueMagitek]

Xilizhra wrote...

Because he's a human boy who wanted to save his father. Even if he was properly trained, he'd still feel the same temptation, and you know what? He might give in, because he loves his father and doesn't want him to die. If that takes sacrificing his soul to a demon, that's just a price he'll pay for it.

Which could happen at any time in the Circle as well for any mage who grew attached to anyone.

And so you see the danger.  At least in the Circle, there are templars who can put down an individual mage if they turn to demons.

What happened to the Fereldan Circle was a series of mages.  Connor's scenario does not need to apply.

[Xilizhra]

Having those who protect mages is one thing. Having them be magophobic religious zealots is something else altogether.

[Seboist]

[inappropriate post removed]

Modifié par Stanley Woo, 20 février 2012 - 09:36 .

[Volus Warlord]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

It always makes me smile when someone twists the meaning of "phobic."

All negative emotions obviously translate into fear.