Defibrillator!
Are the Specters a legitimate means for the Council to maintain galactic security, or are they just the Secret Police of space?
Go!
Den of Delusions - The morality discussion topic
Débuté par
Kaiser Shepard
, juil. 30 2011 01:18
Retour en haut
#502
Posté 01 août 2011 - 06:51
pablodurando
-
- Members
- 516 messages
SandTrout wrote...
Defibrillator!
Are the Specters a legitimate means for the Council to maintain galactic security, or are they just the Secret Police of space?
Go!
Secret police, there's too few spectes to actually maintain galactic security.
#503
Posté 01 août 2011 - 06:57
Sisterofshane
-
- Members
- 1 756 messages
pablodurando wrote...
From now on in BSN everyone stick to one liners to portray your point. ^yes, yes you are.
*insert long-winded, specific dissertation here*
#504
Posté 01 août 2011 - 07:01
Sisterofshane
-
- Members
- 1 756 messages
SandTrout wrote...
Defibrillator!
Are the Specters a legitimate means for the Council to maintain galactic security, or are they just the Secret Police of space?
Go!
When I think Secret Police, I think more **** and KGB. I liken the Spectres to be more like the CIA. They're involved in everybody's business, have the means to take direct action if necessary, and the government turns a blind eye to it's operations, but they just don't have the numbers to be a force to "maintain galactic security".
Soooo, they're kind of in the middle.
#505
Posté 01 août 2011 - 10:02
Lotion Soronarr
-
- Members
- 14 481 messages
Phaedon wrote...
Your lack of reasons is very convincing.Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Cerberus cannot makehhte Alliance it's puppet government. Enough with the fairy tales already!
But they can fake any video: "2177 - Successful acquisition of Light Shadow Pictures' proprietary "RealityPlus" video editing machine. Capacity to forge photorealistic video is now unsurpassed."
Have already made things profitable for them pass: 2176 - Electronic surveillance removed from Lang's home. Lang kills Enrique Aguilar and Ying Xiong. Resulting approval bump for Vice-President Belknap allows passage of financial reform bill allowing for increased loopholes in colony-based shell companies. Fighting among Vice-Premiers a bonus, as Lin Yi alienates Politburo Standing Committee and his chances of election to the Systems Alliance Parliament are dashed.
Have already manipulated the parliamentary elections: 2174 - Radium placed inside office chair of Systems Alliance parliamentarian Artyom Gavrikov. Gavrikov's death attributed to cancer. Emergency election much cheaper to manipulate than normal process. Cerberus-backed candidate loses; winning candidate approached, found susceptible to bribes.
Have done political assasinations for candidates who promote their ideals"2173 - Inez Simmons resigns as head of Terra Firma party; front-runner Claude Mennau assassinated; Charles Saracino much more tractable."
And against people who disagree with them:
"2171 - Pope Clement XVI assassinated via rosary beads coated with sodium nonacetate and dimethyl sulfoxide. Death attributed to age and heart failure. Replacement, Pope Leo XIV, has eschatological beliefs in-line with militarizing humanity; forgiving attitude to salarians re: genophage proves useful for strategic alliances against turians."
1 - no they cannot forge any video. Taht's not what that line sez. That their forgiung capabiltiy has increased doesn't mean much - as the coutber measures, and the capabiltiy of OTHERS does also.
2- theit backed candidtate LOST in case you haven't noticed. Obvuiousoy their abiltiy to influence politics is not as big as you think.
In all the years they have been existing, they influended 2 candidates.... only 200 more to go. At this rate it will only take them 400 years...assuming candidates don't get discredited, bought off, or simply replaces every few years... which they do.
You actually only prove my point here - for cerberus to actually take control of hte Alliance, They'd have to be 100 times better and more efficient at what they're doing than they are now (and the opposition would have the be 100 times worse). You don't control a state by having 1-2 backers in a senate of 200.
#506
Posté 01 août 2011 - 10:05
Lotion Soronarr
-
- Members
- 14 481 messages
Kaiser Shepard wrote...
And what if the Alliance already is? I mean, it's not exactly far-fetched or something.Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Phaedon wrote...
The point remains, they don't need to defeat Alliance troops to make the Alliance their puppet government or cause a war.
Cerberus cannot makehhte Alliance it's puppet government. Enough with the fairy tales already!
A puppet government is when a powerfull state puts a obidient man in a position of leadership.
It cannot work, because:
a) the Alliance is far more powerfull than Cerberus
is democratic (chaotic election process)c) is parlamentiary (no single leader to replace)
#507
Posté 01 août 2011 - 10:29
Lotion Soronarr
-
- Members
- 14 481 messages
[quote]sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
No, they cna't. One can't take over humanity like that. That sounds like plan by somce cheap cartoonish villain. One of those that speak of "taking over the world" as if it was as simple and mundane as buying bread at the bakery...
Cerberus buy a ppolitician? There are others with more money. What about those you can't buy? What about those that take your money, but stop returning your calls? Or get discredited soon after?
Each nation has it's representative in the Alliance. And each nations intelligence and security would be guarding them. Cerberus would have to get the majority of them on it's side - mission impossible.
The political arena is a cluserf***. Too many interestest, too many currents gnawing at eachother. Cerberus is just another player.
One doesn't have to look any futher than our own history - when has any illegial black ops group managed to take over a vast union of nations?[/quote][/quote]
They can't? I didn't say it would be overnight, did I? No. I didn't. This is straight out of Goebbels' and Stalin's playbook, and is being employed by large corporations to "influence" or shall I cut to the chase, bribe politicians today, which is why the world is in such a mess.
Campaign contributions get laundered through PACs so that the public doesn't know who exactly is sponsoring which political movement. It is so easy to do these days. Once they take the money they're owned. Stop returning the calls they sometimes can end up in prison or dead.[/quote]
And not a single one of those corporations actually controls the state. Having a oice, and having control are two different things.
As I siad - Cerberus isn't the only one in the arena. What happens when Cerberus manages to push trouhg one of hteir candidates - only to come other organization (or black ops group, or secret service) discredits him? Or assasinates him? Or bribes him?.
That's why control over over something like the Alliance by a single small group is impossible. Heck ,even if Cerberus was 10 times biggers, it couldn't do it. For every agent Cerberus has, the Alliance has 100.
You're baicly starting from the assumption that internal security does nothing (and is incompetent) and that hte Cerberus is the only one triyng ot influence politicians. And both of those are false.
[quote][quote]
It seems to me he does it only if he thinks its necessary. As he said it himself "no one wants to make these kinds of decisions, but sometimes we have to".
Ruthless, yes. But people in those kind of positions have to be.
I don't really consider TIM evil...more neutral. He's trying to protect humanity, and doesn't consider human sacrifices to be too high a price to pay[/quote][/quote]
Sounds like someone trying to justify his own actions in his own mind. You and I have totally different ideas about what is evil and what is neutral. That bit you added about the protecting humanity and doesn't consider human sacrifices to be too high a price tells me he has no regard for human life or alien life. Only his own personal power over it. His willingness to sacrifice Horizon to "entrap" the Collectors for example. He is evil and a demagogue.[/quote]
And how would you find the Collectors without luring them out?
You think it's better for the Collectors to hit random colonies, unopposed? And rely on sheer luck that maybe you'll be in the area when they strike? They can hit a dozen colonies if you're not lucky. Far more lives would have been lost that way.
And no, the bit about about no regard for human or alien life is rubbish. By your logic, every commander that sacrifices even one soldeir, doesn't value human life at all.
Congrats, Sheppard is a evil bastard...with the Suicide Mission, the 300,000 batarians and everything else..
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
No, they cna't. One can't take over humanity like that. That sounds like plan by somce cheap cartoonish villain. One of those that speak of "taking over the world" as if it was as simple and mundane as buying bread at the bakery...
Cerberus buy a ppolitician? There are others with more money. What about those you can't buy? What about those that take your money, but stop returning your calls? Or get discredited soon after?
Each nation has it's representative in the Alliance. And each nations intelligence and security would be guarding them. Cerberus would have to get the majority of them on it's side - mission impossible.
The political arena is a cluserf***. Too many interestest, too many currents gnawing at eachother. Cerberus is just another player.
One doesn't have to look any futher than our own history - when has any illegial black ops group managed to take over a vast union of nations?[/quote][/quote]
They can't? I didn't say it would be overnight, did I? No. I didn't. This is straight out of Goebbels' and Stalin's playbook, and is being employed by large corporations to "influence" or shall I cut to the chase, bribe politicians today, which is why the world is in such a mess.
Campaign contributions get laundered through PACs so that the public doesn't know who exactly is sponsoring which political movement. It is so easy to do these days. Once they take the money they're owned. Stop returning the calls they sometimes can end up in prison or dead.[/quote]
And not a single one of those corporations actually controls the state. Having a oice, and having control are two different things.
As I siad - Cerberus isn't the only one in the arena. What happens when Cerberus manages to push trouhg one of hteir candidates - only to come other organization (or black ops group, or secret service) discredits him? Or assasinates him? Or bribes him?.
That's why control over over something like the Alliance by a single small group is impossible. Heck ,even if Cerberus was 10 times biggers, it couldn't do it. For every agent Cerberus has, the Alliance has 100.
You're baicly starting from the assumption that internal security does nothing (and is incompetent) and that hte Cerberus is the only one triyng ot influence politicians. And both of those are false.
[quote][quote]
It seems to me he does it only if he thinks its necessary. As he said it himself "no one wants to make these kinds of decisions, but sometimes we have to".
Ruthless, yes. But people in those kind of positions have to be.
I don't really consider TIM evil...more neutral. He's trying to protect humanity, and doesn't consider human sacrifices to be too high a price to pay[/quote][/quote]
Sounds like someone trying to justify his own actions in his own mind. You and I have totally different ideas about what is evil and what is neutral. That bit you added about the protecting humanity and doesn't consider human sacrifices to be too high a price tells me he has no regard for human life or alien life. Only his own personal power over it. His willingness to sacrifice Horizon to "entrap" the Collectors for example. He is evil and a demagogue.[/quote]
And how would you find the Collectors without luring them out?
You think it's better for the Collectors to hit random colonies, unopposed? And rely on sheer luck that maybe you'll be in the area when they strike? They can hit a dozen colonies if you're not lucky. Far more lives would have been lost that way.
And no, the bit about about no regard for human or alien life is rubbish. By your logic, every commander that sacrifices even one soldeir, doesn't value human life at all.
Congrats, Sheppard is a evil bastard...with the Suicide Mission, the 300,000 batarians and everything else..
#508
Posté 01 août 2011 - 10:31
Ieldra
-
- Members
- 25 188 messages
Let me summarize the most prevalent arguments that have been put forward against keeping the base.
A note about the way some arguments have been going: those arguing against a proposition often expect their adversaries to present *conclusive* logic and evidence in order to concede the point and accept the validity of that proposition. That is not how things go in the real world since we never know what the future brings. We do, however, have decisions supported by different amounts of deduction and experience. The argument "There is no evidence that X won't happen" has zero weight unless you have some evidence that X might reasonably be expected to happen.
Part I: Delusional moralistic arguments
(1) "No good can come from it". This is plainly wishful thinking. History has proven again and again that yes, some good can come from absolutely dreadful stuff.
(2) "Cerberus is evil. We shouldn't help them". This is simplified, but in the end most arguments given are a permutations of this. This is based on screwed up priorities, disregarding that the Reapers are the greater evil. If you can help to prevent the greater evil by helping a lesser one, then that is the correct course to take. The Reapers are the greater evil in two ways: first, they want to destroy all intelligent organic life in the galaxy, which is, by almost all measures I can think of, a greater evil than to make one species dominant. Second, the manifestation of the lesser evil - Cerberus' rise to power - depends on their defeat. If the Reapers win, it won't matter at all if you have successfully denied Cerberus a cache of hyper-advanced technology.
(3) "There must another way". Wishful thinking again. Imagine acting like this in Arrival. The result: a game over screen. Sometimes, we have no choice but to resort to unpleasant means or suffer an even more unpleasant fate.
(4) "By using Reaper technology, we are "developing along the path they desire'". First, it is implied that this path is evil, which is a simple assumption without any merit as an argument. Second, I very much doubt that the destruction of Sovereign and the defeat of the Collectors are part of what the Reapers want. Developing along the paths they desire, that includes the reset by the once-in-50k-years culling of intelligent organic species. Once that cycle is broken, development will continue outside of anyone's plans. There's also this: I very much doubt that the technologies the Reapers meant us to have include the technology they are built on.
Part II: Delusional practical arguments
I call these arguments delusional because they're so obviously wrong that I conclude that they're just after-the-fact justifications for a decision based on a moral intuition.
(1) "We can't reverse engineer it. It will take too long/There will be no useful data, schematics etc.". Remember this isn't a Reaper. This is a Reaper *factory*. To say that we won't find any schematics there is equivalent to saying that a car factory hasn't got any schematics of the cars built there. Also if EDI can datamine Collector databanks (as proven on the Collector ship), then it can datamine the base.
(2) "Keeping the base is based on blind faith (in finding something useful)". In fact, no, it is not blind faith but a reasonable expectation based on experience and logic. We can reasonably expect to find useful insights into the structure of Reapers on the base (see (1)). To say anything else is - again - akin to saying we can't find out anything useful about the structure of cars in a car factory. And again, it has already been shown that Collector data can be read by EDI.
In fact, the expectation that will we find other means to defeat the Reapers (see I-(3) above) is a much greater leap of faith.
(Some people have argued that the Collectors might not need schematics - that is, again, wishful thinking. Based on experience and logic, they should be there. As long as we have no evidence to the contrary, that expectation remains valid)
(2a) "Keeping the base is based on blind faith (in Cerberus not doing something horrible with it). That's a strawman argument. Those who keep the base are very much aware of the fact that TIM might do something horrible with it. We only say that this is a risk that must be taken since we're grasping at straws for a means to defeat the Reapers.
(3) "Cerberus is indoctrinated in ME3. The base will only make them stronger". This argument should have no weight in the decision, since Shepard does't know what will happen in ME3 when making the decision. Apart from that, from Bioware's latest information it appears that TIM is not indoctrinated but has some other mysterious agenda. For the argument "Cerberus *may* end up indoctrinated and helping the Reapers" see below.
(4) "There is no evidence that keeping the base won't result in a even bigger catastrophe". A bigger catastrophe than what? The extinction of all intelligent organic life in the galaxy? (That was indeed the context of the original argument). There are always infinite possibilities. The question is which of them are reasonable expectations. A bigger catatrophe than extinction of all intelligent organic life in the galaxy isn't exactly a reasonable expectation. It's just something to frighten people into going along with you.
Also please note the nature of evidence: Though it is, by its nature, never conclusive, in the absence of any deductive reasoning leading to scenario X, absence of evidence for X does indeed count as evidence for absence. Invoking greater catastrophes is akin to invoking God.
Part III: Arguments with some weight
(1) "Cerberus is too incompetent to deal with Reaper technology. They may end up indoctrinated and helping the Reapers". This is indeed a risk that we take by keeping the base. Cerberus' track record isn't exactly impressive. The question here is "Can we afford to destroy the base because of that risk?". If both of the following scenarios come to pass:
(a) Some knowledge is found on the base that makes a decisive difference to the Reapers' defeat.
( Cerberus becomes indoctrinated and ends up helping the Reapers.
...then that is still a preferable scenario provided that we can get our hands on that knowledge before it is too late. We do not know if we can do that, but it is a reasonable expectation that the knowledge in Cerberus' hands is more accessible than if only the Reapers had it.
If you, as a player who destroys the base, switch to argument III-(1) to support your decision after having read this post, then you will thereby have proven that you're using after-the-fact reasoning, that the argument follows the decision and not the other way round, and that the decision itself is based on something else but arguments. Namely, a moral intuition.
A note about the way some arguments have been going: those arguing against a proposition often expect their adversaries to present *conclusive* logic and evidence in order to concede the point and accept the validity of that proposition. That is not how things go in the real world since we never know what the future brings. We do, however, have decisions supported by different amounts of deduction and experience. The argument "There is no evidence that X won't happen" has zero weight unless you have some evidence that X might reasonably be expected to happen.
Part I: Delusional moralistic arguments
(1) "No good can come from it". This is plainly wishful thinking. History has proven again and again that yes, some good can come from absolutely dreadful stuff.
(2) "Cerberus is evil. We shouldn't help them". This is simplified, but in the end most arguments given are a permutations of this. This is based on screwed up priorities, disregarding that the Reapers are the greater evil. If you can help to prevent the greater evil by helping a lesser one, then that is the correct course to take. The Reapers are the greater evil in two ways: first, they want to destroy all intelligent organic life in the galaxy, which is, by almost all measures I can think of, a greater evil than to make one species dominant. Second, the manifestation of the lesser evil - Cerberus' rise to power - depends on their defeat. If the Reapers win, it won't matter at all if you have successfully denied Cerberus a cache of hyper-advanced technology.
(3) "There must another way". Wishful thinking again. Imagine acting like this in Arrival. The result: a game over screen. Sometimes, we have no choice but to resort to unpleasant means or suffer an even more unpleasant fate.
(4) "By using Reaper technology, we are "developing along the path they desire'". First, it is implied that this path is evil, which is a simple assumption without any merit as an argument. Second, I very much doubt that the destruction of Sovereign and the defeat of the Collectors are part of what the Reapers want. Developing along the paths they desire, that includes the reset by the once-in-50k-years culling of intelligent organic species. Once that cycle is broken, development will continue outside of anyone's plans. There's also this: I very much doubt that the technologies the Reapers meant us to have include the technology they are built on.
Part II: Delusional practical arguments
I call these arguments delusional because they're so obviously wrong that I conclude that they're just after-the-fact justifications for a decision based on a moral intuition.
(1) "We can't reverse engineer it. It will take too long/There will be no useful data, schematics etc.". Remember this isn't a Reaper. This is a Reaper *factory*. To say that we won't find any schematics there is equivalent to saying that a car factory hasn't got any schematics of the cars built there. Also if EDI can datamine Collector databanks (as proven on the Collector ship), then it can datamine the base.
(2) "Keeping the base is based on blind faith (in finding something useful)". In fact, no, it is not blind faith but a reasonable expectation based on experience and logic. We can reasonably expect to find useful insights into the structure of Reapers on the base (see (1)). To say anything else is - again - akin to saying we can't find out anything useful about the structure of cars in a car factory. And again, it has already been shown that Collector data can be read by EDI.
In fact, the expectation that will we find other means to defeat the Reapers (see I-(3) above) is a much greater leap of faith.
(Some people have argued that the Collectors might not need schematics - that is, again, wishful thinking. Based on experience and logic, they should be there. As long as we have no evidence to the contrary, that expectation remains valid)
(2a) "Keeping the base is based on blind faith (in Cerberus not doing something horrible with it). That's a strawman argument. Those who keep the base are very much aware of the fact that TIM might do something horrible with it. We only say that this is a risk that must be taken since we're grasping at straws for a means to defeat the Reapers.
(3) "Cerberus is indoctrinated in ME3. The base will only make them stronger". This argument should have no weight in the decision, since Shepard does't know what will happen in ME3 when making the decision. Apart from that, from Bioware's latest information it appears that TIM is not indoctrinated but has some other mysterious agenda. For the argument "Cerberus *may* end up indoctrinated and helping the Reapers" see below.
(4) "There is no evidence that keeping the base won't result in a even bigger catastrophe". A bigger catastrophe than what? The extinction of all intelligent organic life in the galaxy? (That was indeed the context of the original argument). There are always infinite possibilities. The question is which of them are reasonable expectations. A bigger catatrophe than extinction of all intelligent organic life in the galaxy isn't exactly a reasonable expectation. It's just something to frighten people into going along with you.
Also please note the nature of evidence: Though it is, by its nature, never conclusive, in the absence of any deductive reasoning leading to scenario X, absence of evidence for X does indeed count as evidence for absence. Invoking greater catastrophes is akin to invoking God.
Part III: Arguments with some weight
(1) "Cerberus is too incompetent to deal with Reaper technology. They may end up indoctrinated and helping the Reapers". This is indeed a risk that we take by keeping the base. Cerberus' track record isn't exactly impressive. The question here is "Can we afford to destroy the base because of that risk?". If both of the following scenarios come to pass:
(a) Some knowledge is found on the base that makes a decisive difference to the Reapers' defeat.
(
Cerberus becomes indoctrinated and ends up helping the Reapers....then that is still a preferable scenario provided that we can get our hands on that knowledge before it is too late. We do not know if we can do that, but it is a reasonable expectation that the knowledge in Cerberus' hands is more accessible than if only the Reapers had it.
If you, as a player who destroys the base, switch to argument III-(1) to support your decision after having read this post, then you will thereby have proven that you're using after-the-fact reasoning, that the argument follows the decision and not the other way round, and that the decision itself is based on something else but arguments. Namely, a moral intuition.
Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 août 2011 - 10:34 .
#509
Posté 01 août 2011 - 10:41
Lotion Soronarr
-
- Members
- 14 481 messages
alperez wrote...
marshalleck
So where exactly do the council big 3 as you put it show their own bias towards humanity?
As for the aggresive racist batarians or saren, well one's dead and the other don't really care what anyone else thinks about them so it wasn't really those i was talking about.
It was more the volus ambassador's comments that show just how humanity is viewed in the galaxy.
Considering Kai Leng is TIM's goto guy and considering his backstory, he's a pretty good example of just the kind of people cerberus recruits.
As I said before - everyone looks out for their own interests. To belive otherwise is to be blind to how the wrold, and politics works.
And maybe Kai Leng is simply good at what he does, so TIM tolerates him?
Really, we can go about this the whole day, but the FACT is that we saw both perfectly friendly, and very racist people in Cerberus.
And we see perfectly friendly and racists people/alines..EVERYWHERE ELSE.
It's just how things are.
I don't see why you look at the ME universe and see aliens that look out after our interestes more than their own, there are no racists alines and humantiy is a scourge.
That image is quite simply incorrect.
Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 01 août 2011 - 12:07 .
#511
Posté 01 août 2011 - 10:44
Lotion Soronarr
-
- Members
- 14 481 messages
Someone With Mass wrote...
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Wrong.
You can talk with Hackett and he implies the OPPOSITE. He implies reapers CAN be hurt with conventional weapons and that indeed sovereing WAS taken down that way.
I'll jsut ignore the rest of your "you cannot hurt reaprs stuff", the other readers will thank me for it.
Where does Hackett say this, exactly?
And if Sovereign's shields went down because of the fire from the fleet (which is funny, because it looked more like the fleet was retreating and all the ships around Sovereign were reduced to scrap) then it would've been just that. If the shields caused an overload, he could've just rerouted it to non-critical systems, and then fight on without shields. The Normandy SR2's shields went down during the initial attack on the Collector ship past the O4R, but the whole system wasn't fried. The mass effect field generators just went offline.
And since there were no ships neither near or shooting at Sovereign at the time, I'm going with the avatar option.
Any explanation you can come up with to explain why a shield overload didn't stun Sovy, I can also use to explain why loosing avatral control didn't stun him.
And b.t.w. - the fleet wasn't retreating, Hacket specificly orders NOT to retreat and keep shooting.
#512
Posté 01 août 2011 - 10:46
Lotion Soronarr
-
- Members
- 14 481 messages
marshalleck wrote...
*applause for Ieldra2*
Seconded.
#513
Posté 01 août 2011 - 10:52
Tonymac
-
- Members
- 4 311 messages
Ieldra2
Very nice post - well thought out and articulated.
Very nice post - well thought out and articulated.
#514
Posté 01 août 2011 - 10:59
Seboist
-
- Members
- 11 989 messages
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
marshalleck wrote...
*applause for Ieldra2*
Seconded.
Thirded.
#515
Posté 01 août 2011 - 12:28
Medhia Nox
-
- Members
- 5 066 messages
@Ieldra2: Yes, the game will be designed to pat you on the back for your decision. If you feel smart after the game tells you that you're smart for clicking the buttons you did - the game did its job.
====
And if I'm not punished for destroying the Collector base - like you're so sure I ought to be - what will you do then?
Write verbose diatribes decrying the myopic ineptitudes of Bioware's design staff for not having the wherewithall to elucidate the axioms of historical, scientific, and philsophical knowledge that someone with your acumen in these fields demonstrates?
====
And if I'm not punished for destroying the Collector base - like you're so sure I ought to be - what will you do then?
Write verbose diatribes decrying the myopic ineptitudes of Bioware's design staff for not having the wherewithall to elucidate the axioms of historical, scientific, and philsophical knowledge that someone with your acumen in these fields demonstrates?
Modifié par Medhia Nox, 01 août 2011 - 12:47 .
#516
Posté 01 août 2011 - 01:00
Lotion Soronarr
-
- Members
- 14 481 messages
Medhia Nox wrote...
@Ieldra2: Yes, the game will be designed to pat you on the back for your decision. If you feel smart after the game tells you that you're smart for clicking the buttons you did - the game did its job.
====
And if I'm not punished for destroying the Collector base - like you're so sure I ought to be - what will you do then?
Write verbose diatribes decrying the myopic ineptitudes of Bioware's design staff for not having the wherewithall to elucidate the axioms of historical, scientific, and philsophical knowledge that someone with your acumen in these fields demonstrates?
Just because the game doesn't punish you if you jump naked into lava, doesn't make jumping naked (or clothed) into lava a smart decision.
Bt.w, using Sesquipedalian Loquaciousness doesn't impress me.
#517
Posté 01 août 2011 - 01:04
Medhia Nox
-
- Members
- 5 066 messages
Actually - ME 1 does punish you for driving into lava.
And the point of those words wasn't to impress you.
-----
Someone refusing to accept that they could be wrong - and might not be the genius they think they are - doesn't mean they're the genius they think they are.
And the point of those words wasn't to impress you.
-----
Someone refusing to accept that they could be wrong - and might not be the genius they think they are - doesn't mean they're the genius they think they are.
#518
Posté 01 août 2011 - 01:36
stysiaq
-
- Members
- 8 480 messages
Seboist wrote...
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
marshalleck wrote...
*applause for Ieldra2*
Seconded.
Thirded.
hmmm... Fourthed?
That's why I mostly keep the CB.
#519
Posté 01 août 2011 - 01:47
TobyHasEyes
-
- Members
- 1 109 messages
@ Ieldra2
The thrust of what you call Argument III (1) is, when I have expressed it, this;
Cerberus' track record of experimental research means one of the following options is very likely
- Indoctrination. The consequences of this range from extremely minor in the grand scheme (Derelict Reaper) to much more damaging (Arrival indoctrinated succesfully wipe out a system)
- Mishandling of technology. The consequences of this range from relatively minor (such as when they unleashed rogue, disconnected Rachni upon the galaxy) to devastating (Overlord, technological apocalypse would guarantee failure against the Reapers)
The point made that in themselves, these consequences in no way outweight the damage of the Reaper cycle, that is obviously correct. None of the above consequences are worse than total annihilation
However the point I would make is that those consequences all have an impact on any other efforts to destroy the Reapers. An indoctrinared Cerberus wouldn't rival the destructive power of the Reapers, but tthey could seriously hamper the efforts to stop them
So what you are weighing up here is
- The chances of possible positive result (technology) decisively helping the anti-Reaper effort
- The chances of possible negative result (indoctrination, mishandling) decisively hampering the anti-Reaper effort
Therefore it is not as simple as if you destroy the Collector base you are making it more likely that the Reapers will win. You are concluding that there is far more chance of the Collector base' continued existence (and study by Cerberus) decisively hampering the anti-Reaper effort than helping it
You might disagree on the conception of Cerberus as being quite so hopeless, in which case you would conclude that there is more chance of it decisively helping the Reaper effort
The thrust of what you call Argument III (1) is, when I have expressed it, this;
Cerberus' track record of experimental research means one of the following options is very likely
- Indoctrination. The consequences of this range from extremely minor in the grand scheme (Derelict Reaper) to much more damaging (Arrival indoctrinated succesfully wipe out a system)
- Mishandling of technology. The consequences of this range from relatively minor (such as when they unleashed rogue, disconnected Rachni upon the galaxy) to devastating (Overlord, technological apocalypse would guarantee failure against the Reapers)
The point made that in themselves, these consequences in no way outweight the damage of the Reaper cycle, that is obviously correct. None of the above consequences are worse than total annihilation
However the point I would make is that those consequences all have an impact on any other efforts to destroy the Reapers. An indoctrinared Cerberus wouldn't rival the destructive power of the Reapers, but tthey could seriously hamper the efforts to stop them
So what you are weighing up here is
- The chances of possible positive result (technology) decisively helping the anti-Reaper effort
- The chances of possible negative result (indoctrination, mishandling) decisively hampering the anti-Reaper effort
Therefore it is not as simple as if you destroy the Collector base you are making it more likely that the Reapers will win. You are concluding that there is far more chance of the Collector base' continued existence (and study by Cerberus) decisively hampering the anti-Reaper effort than helping it
You might disagree on the conception of Cerberus as being quite so hopeless, in which case you would conclude that there is more chance of it decisively helping the Reaper effort
#520
Posté 01 août 2011 - 01:48
Ieldra
-
- Members
- 25 188 messages
What is more arrogant: to have confidence in one's own reasoning or to be certain of one's own opinion without any arguments?Medhia Nox wrote...
Someone refusing to accept that they could be wrong - and might not be the genius they think they are - doesn't mean they're the genius they think they are.
I could have made my point in a post 30% of the size, and phrased it simpler, but that would have resulted in a barrage of methodically flawed counterarguments of the kind I expanded my post to deal with in advance. That's the way a good debate contribution should work: by exposing the flaws in arguments instead of simply asserting that one's own opinion is true, and by making one's arguments as foolproof as you can make them.
If you are annoyed that my point is not so easy to counter, then I have done my job well.
All this, BTW; has nothing to do with what I expect Bioware to do with their story. The classic heroic tale values virtue and determination far more than strategic reasoning. It's only that the presence of the big Renegade decisions suggests that this time we might not be forced on that path. And I would like my decision to be acknowledged as strategically valid. I accept the possible downsides of my decisions. I only ask that the other side accepts theirs. If Paragons can always have their cake and eat it while Renegades always draw the short end of the stick and getting something akin to a Pyrrhic victory, then I do claim, indeed, that the universe is designed along lines not compatible with the real world. For were the real world like that, there would never be any conflict between the necessary and the desirable.
#521
Posté 01 août 2011 - 01:53
Someone With Mass
-
- Members
- 38 560 messages
Whatever. The Incompetent Man can't control his cells if his life depended on it (Example? The derelict Reaper. Could've give them more info about the Reapers than the Collector base ever could, but their raging idiocy made sure that's not going to happen), so I have no reason in the world to give the base to those retards.
Screw up once, shame on me. Screw up twice, shame on you. Screw up trice, go to hell.
Screw up once, shame on me. Screw up twice, shame on you. Screw up trice, go to hell.
#522
Posté 01 août 2011 - 02:00
Lotion Soronarr
-
- Members
- 14 481 messages
Someone With Mass wrote...
Whatever. The Incompetent Man can't control his cells if his life depended on it (Example? The derelict Reaper. Could've give them more info about the Reapers than the Collector base ever could, but their raging idiocy made sure that's not going to happen), so I have no reason in the world to give the base to those retards.
Screw up once, shame on me. Screw up twice, shame on you. Screw up trice, go to hell.
Again, how could one go about it?
It's not TIM's fault the team got indoctrinated. There's no defense agaisnt that.
Any team, sent by anyone, would end up indoctrinated. And you can't afford NOT to send a team.
#523
Posté 01 août 2011 - 02:02
Ieldra
-
- Members
- 25 188 messages
In case I have not made it explicitly clear: I acknowledge the possibility that Cerberus failures might hamper the anti-Reaper effort, and that there is a non-zero probability that the disadvantage resulting from that scenario is decisive. It is exactly my point that if that possibility did not exist, there would be absolutely no point in destroying the base.So what you are weighing up here is
- The chances of possible positive result (technology) decisively helping the anti-Reaper effort
- The chances of possible negative result (indoctrination, mishandling) decisively hampering the anti-Reaper effort
Therefore it is not as simple as if you destroy the Collector base you are making it more likely that the Reapers will win. You are concluding that there is far more chance of the Collector base' continued existence (and study by Cerberus) decisively hampering the anti-Reaper effort than helping it
You might disagree on the conception of Cerberus as being quite so hopeless, in which case you would conclude that there is more chance of it decisively helping the Reaper effort
However, what I doubt is that these failures are actually likely to be decisive, as in that they would make the Reapers win when without them they wouldn't. The reason why I doubt that is this: while for us any additional knowledge of the Reapers might constitute a significant advantage that we didn't have before, for the Reapers - the greater power by a big margin, based on their passed successes - Cerberus' help is much more likely to be insignificant.
Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 août 2011 - 02:03 .
#524
Posté 01 août 2011 - 02:09
Lotion Soronarr
-
- Members
- 14 481 messages
TobyHasEyes wrote...
@ Ieldra2
The thrust of what you call Argument III (1) is, when I have expressed it, this;
Cerberus' track record of experimental research means one of the following options is very likely
- Indoctrination. The consequences of this range from extremely minor in the grand scheme (Derelict Reaper) to much more damaging (Arrival indoctrinated succesfully wipe out a system)
- Mishandling of technology. The consequences of this range from relatively minor (such as when they unleashed rogue, disconnected Rachni upon the galaxy) to devastating (Overlord, technological apocalypse would guarantee failure against the Reapers)
The point made that in themselves, these consequences in no way outweight the damage of the Reaper cycle, that is obviously correct. None of the above consequences are worse than total annihilation
However the point I would make is that those consequences all have an impact on any other efforts to destroy the Reapers. An indoctrinared Cerberus wouldn't rival the destructive power of the Reapers, but tthey could seriously hamper the efforts to stop them
So what you are weighing up here is
- The chances of possible positive result (technology) decisively helping the anti-Reaper effort
- The chances of possible negative result (indoctrination, mishandling) decisively hampering the anti-Reaper effort
Therefore it is not as simple as if you destroy the Collector base you are making it more likely that the Reapers will win. You are concluding that there is far more chance of the Collector base' continued existence (and study by Cerberus) decisively hampering the anti-Reaper effort than helping it
You might disagree on the conception of Cerberus as being quite so hopeless, in which case you would conclude that there is more chance of it decisively helping the Reaper effort
I would argue that the positive results are greater then the negative, as Cerberus cannot have as big an negative impact as it could have a positive one.
#525
Posté 01 août 2011 - 02:13
Pulletlamer
-
- Members
- 858 messages
I'll try to give my point to Ieldra2 arguments.
[quote]Part I: Delusional moralistic arguments
(1) "No good can come from it". This is plainly wishful thinking. History has proven again and again that yes, some good can come from absolutely dreadful stuff. [/quote]
Still I consider that from what you learn from Cerberus along the game and their plans, it's still possible that:
[quote](2) "Cerberus is evil. We shouldn't help them". This is simplified, but in the end most arguments given are a permutations of this. This is based on screwed up priorities, disregarding that the Reapers are the greater evil. If you can help to prevent the greater evil by helping a lesser one, then that is the correct course to take. The Reapers are the greater evil in two ways: first, they want to destroy all intelligent organic life in the galaxy, which is, by almost all measures I can think of, a greater evil than to make one species dominant. Second, the manifestation of the lesser evil - Cerberus' rise to power -depends on their defeat. If the Reapers win, it won't matter at all if you have successfully denied Cerberus a cache of hyper-advanced technology. [/quote]
They can be considered evil or not, that's debatable. What we know is that they make morally questionable (very questionable in my opinion) experiments and are not afraid of using force or any other means to obtain what they want. Also they well consider they crew/scientist or operatives expendable and are willing to sacrifice them to reach their goal.
[quote](3) "There must another way". Wishful thinking again. Imagine acting like this in Arrival. The result: a game over screen. Sometimes, we have no choice but to resort to unpleasant means or suffer an even more unpleasant fate.[/quote]
Again, you're also thinking wishfully. What makes you think that keeping the base guarantees you something?Or that it is the unpleasant mean to have success?
You're giving advanced technology to Cerberus, you're not guaranteed that they might help you or anything. Also Shepard breaks all relations with Cerberus at the end of ME2, so nothing guarantees you they are by your side, or working to defeat the reapers. It's all a possibility based on speculation and your hopes for that to happen.
I don't say there's another way. There might be. What I know is that giving strength to Cerberus is not a guarantee for aid against the Reapers.
[quote](4) "By using Reaper technology, we are "developing along the path they desire'".
First, it is implied that this path is evil, which is a simple assumption without any merit as an argument. Second, I very much doubt that the destruction of Sovereign and the defeat of the Collectors are part of what the Reapers want. Developing along the paths they desire, that includes the reset by the once-in-50k-years culling of intelligent organic species. Once that cycle is broken, development will continue outside of anyone's plans. There's also this: I very much doubt that the technologies the Reapers meant us to have include the technology they are built on.[/quote]
No one said it's evil, but it's just common sense. Having tech that indoctrinates people or turns them into husks that all work for the greater evil that's coming is bad. Therefore, it's not an assumption is evil, it's a fact.
I don't know what the reapers want, we are all making assumptions on that topic here. Therefore all your arguments can be ignored since they are assumptions and speculation. I could assume the contrary and be right.
You can doubt what you want, doesn't change the fact reaper tech is dangerous, and by having and keeping it, you are doing what the reapers expect (and want) to happen.
[quote]Part II: Delusional practical arguments
(1) "We can't reverse engineer it. It will take too long/There will be no useful data, schematics etc.". Remember this isn't a Reaper. This is a Reaper *factory*. To say that we won't find any schematics there is equivalent to saying that a car factory hasn't got any schematics of the cars built there. Also if EDI can datamine Collector databanks (as proven on the Collector ship), then it can datamine the base.[/quote]
I didn't say that (that there is no data I mean), and I don't see any reasons why there shouldn't be useful data there. There might be. Still that doesn't imply anything (see below).
[quote](2) "Keeping the base is based on blind faith (in finding something useful)". In fact, no, it is not blind faith but a reasonable expectation based on experience and logic. We can reasonably expect to find useful insights into the structure of Reapers on the base (see (1)). To say anything else is - again - akin to saying we can't find out anything useful about the structure of cars in a car factory. And again, it has already been shown that Collector data can be read by EDI.
In fact, the expectation that will we find other means to defeat the Reapers (see I-(3) above) is a much greater leap of faith. (Some people have argued that the Collectors might not need schematics -that is, again, wishful thinking. Based on experience and logic, they should be there. As long as we have no evidence to the contrary, that expectation remains valid)[/quote]
Yes it is. A reasonable expectation based on experience and logic? What logic? You're interpreting that the most logical thing is keep the base. You are being biased here. Do you mean the logical thing to do is keep the base?
For the same reason I could say it's reasonable to destroy the base, based on experience (What Shepard learns about Cerberus along the game) and logic (that taking into account all the bad things Cerberus has done with it, the most practical solution is destroying it).
Also I remember you all that there's not guarantee that:
[quote](3) "Cerberus is indoctrinated in ME3. The base will only make them stronger".
This argument should have no weight in the decision, since Shepard does't know what will happen in ME3 when making the decision. Apart from that, from Bioware's latest information it appears that TIM is not indoctrinated but has some other mysterious agenda. For the argument "Cerberus *may* end up indoctrinated and helping the
Reapers" see below. [/quote]
I never based my defense around that, because that could be well considered as metagaming. I'm just going to give my point of view, that is that the most responsible choice is destroying the base so you don't have headaches nor have to care about people getting indoctrinated (by it) because you saved it.
Also as I said, giving dangerous tech to dangerous people that might keep his promise of aiding you against a greater threat it's still a dangerous move since you compromise yourself to give power to them.
[quote](4) "There is no evidence that keeping the base won't result in a even bigger catastrophe". A bigger catastrophe than what? The extinction of all intelligent organic life in the galaxy? (That was indeed the context of the original argument). There are always infinite possibilities. The question is which of them are reasonable expectations. A bigger catatrophe than extinction of all intelligent organic life in the galaxy isn't exactly a reasonable expectation. It's just something to frighten people into going along with you.[/quote]
Sorry I'm tired of bringing my point. Giving tech to a xenophobic organization with fame of being terrorists (whether or not they actually fit in the definition is debatable, you can call them criminals if you prefer, doesn't change their actions)even assuming they are willing to help you and aid you against the reapers, isn't justificable by any means. You're still giving power to criminals. Also the end doesn't justify the means.
They may become a greater threat or cause a bigger cathastrophe than the Reaper threat, yes.
Part III: Arguments with some weight
[quote](1) "Cerberus is too incompetent to deal with Reaper technology. They may end up indoctrinated and helping the Reapers". This is indeed a risk that we take by keeping the base. Cerberus' track record isn't exactly impressive. The question here is "Can we afford to destroy the base because of that risk?".[/quote]
I'm not willing to take the risk of giving them power just because they might help me in the end. They are still dangerous. Giving them power doesn't help it.
No, the risk is too great.
[quote](a) Some knowledge is found on the base that makes a decisive difference to the Reapers' defeat.[/quote]
You just contradicted yourself with your point that useful data might be extracted from the base.
[quote]( Cerberus becomes indoctrinated and ends up helping the Reapers [/quote]
Or we defeat the reapers and Cerberus guess what? They still have power while other forces and governments in the galaxy are weaker.
[quote]Part I: Delusional moralistic arguments
(1) "No good can come from it". This is plainly wishful thinking. History has proven again and again that yes, some good can come from absolutely dreadful stuff. [/quote]
Still I consider that from what you learn from Cerberus along the game and their plans, it's still possible that:
- Even if something good came from it, Cerberus used it to actually do good things. Based on what we know from them, it's very probable that wouldn't happen.
- Even assuming that good things came from it, they would actually be useful to use against the Reapers.
- Also assuming that good things can come from it and can actually be beneficial, it's wishful thinking too. That's not an argument to defend the opposite opinion, since same rules can apply.
[quote](2) "Cerberus is evil. We shouldn't help them". This is simplified, but in the end most arguments given are a permutations of this. This is based on screwed up priorities, disregarding that the Reapers are the greater evil. If you can help to prevent the greater evil by helping a lesser one, then that is the correct course to take. The Reapers are the greater evil in two ways: first, they want to destroy all intelligent organic life in the galaxy, which is, by almost all measures I can think of, a greater evil than to make one species dominant. Second, the manifestation of the lesser evil - Cerberus' rise to power -depends on their defeat. If the Reapers win, it won't matter at all if you have successfully denied Cerberus a cache of hyper-advanced technology. [/quote]
They can be considered evil or not, that's debatable. What we know is that they make morally questionable (very questionable in my opinion) experiments and are not afraid of using force or any other means to obtain what they want. Also they well consider they crew/scientist or operatives expendable and are willing to sacrifice them to reach their goal.
- Having a greater evil doesn't mean you should focus on it or invalidate a lesser one. By that rule when there's a serial killer the police should only focus on capturing it, while leaving lesser crimes be commited on the streets. I'm sorry but that's in fact very stupid.
- They may well become the greater evil if you give them enough power. Why would I give power to someone that may become my enemy during or after the reaper threat? Seems unreasonable to me. It would be similar to the example I used above.You give guns to criminal so they help you catch a serial killer. Giving power to dangerous people just to help you defeat a more dangerous threat it's still a bad idea.
- Plus you're just giving yourself (Shepard) trouble. If you destroy the base you don't have to worry so much about the possibilities of Cerberus having so much power and potential. We know they get reaper tech anyway, so they may get power regardless of the choice, but that doesn't mean we should put things easy to them.
[quote](3) "There must another way". Wishful thinking again. Imagine acting like this in Arrival. The result: a game over screen. Sometimes, we have no choice but to resort to unpleasant means or suffer an even more unpleasant fate.[/quote]
Again, you're also thinking wishfully. What makes you think that keeping the base guarantees you something?Or that it is the unpleasant mean to have success?
You're giving advanced technology to Cerberus, you're not guaranteed that they might help you or anything. Also Shepard breaks all relations with Cerberus at the end of ME2, so nothing guarantees you they are by your side, or working to defeat the reapers. It's all a possibility based on speculation and your hopes for that to happen.
I don't say there's another way. There might be. What I know is that giving strength to Cerberus is not a guarantee for aid against the Reapers.
[quote](4) "By using Reaper technology, we are "developing along the path they desire'".
First, it is implied that this path is evil, which is a simple assumption without any merit as an argument. Second, I very much doubt that the destruction of Sovereign and the defeat of the Collectors are part of what the Reapers want. Developing along the paths they desire, that includes the reset by the once-in-50k-years culling of intelligent organic species. Once that cycle is broken, development will continue outside of anyone's plans. There's also this: I very much doubt that the technologies the Reapers meant us to have include the technology they are built on.[/quote]
No one said it's evil, but it's just common sense. Having tech that indoctrinates people or turns them into husks that all work for the greater evil that's coming is bad. Therefore, it's not an assumption is evil, it's a fact.
I don't know what the reapers want, we are all making assumptions on that topic here. Therefore all your arguments can be ignored since they are assumptions and speculation. I could assume the contrary and be right.
You can doubt what you want, doesn't change the fact reaper tech is dangerous, and by having and keeping it, you are doing what the reapers expect (and want) to happen.
[quote]Part II: Delusional practical arguments
(1) "We can't reverse engineer it. It will take too long/There will be no useful data, schematics etc.". Remember this isn't a Reaper. This is a Reaper *factory*. To say that we won't find any schematics there is equivalent to saying that a car factory hasn't got any schematics of the cars built there. Also if EDI can datamine Collector databanks (as proven on the Collector ship), then it can datamine the base.[/quote]
I didn't say that (that there is no data I mean), and I don't see any reasons why there shouldn't be useful data there. There might be. Still that doesn't imply anything (see below).
[quote](2) "Keeping the base is based on blind faith (in finding something useful)". In fact, no, it is not blind faith but a reasonable expectation based on experience and logic. We can reasonably expect to find useful insights into the structure of Reapers on the base (see (1)). To say anything else is - again - akin to saying we can't find out anything useful about the structure of cars in a car factory. And again, it has already been shown that Collector data can be read by EDI.
In fact, the expectation that will we find other means to defeat the Reapers (see I-(3) above) is a much greater leap of faith. (Some people have argued that the Collectors might not need schematics -that is, again, wishful thinking. Based on experience and logic, they should be there. As long as we have no evidence to the contrary, that expectation remains valid)[/quote]
Yes it is. A reasonable expectation based on experience and logic? What logic? You're interpreting that the most logical thing is keep the base. You are being biased here. Do you mean the logical thing to do is keep the base?
For the same reason I could say it's reasonable to destroy the base, based on experience (What Shepard learns about Cerberus along the game) and logic (that taking into account all the bad things Cerberus has done with it, the most practical solution is destroying it).
Also I remember you all that there's not guarantee that:
- Cerberus can extract useful data to combat the Reapers. It's a possibility. And by combat I mean how to destroy / attack a Reaper.
- Cerberus is willing to share that probable data with Shepard or other factions.
- There's no guarantee Cerberus will help Shepard with that data. It's all based on a precipitated, quick and desesperated promise The Illusive Man says at the Reaper base.
- Even if Cerberus would be willing to share the data and or help Shepard with the Reapers, they may very well become a threat at the end of the “war”.
[quote](3) "Cerberus is indoctrinated in ME3. The base will only make them stronger".
This argument should have no weight in the decision, since Shepard does't know what will happen in ME3 when making the decision. Apart from that, from Bioware's latest information it appears that TIM is not indoctrinated but has some other mysterious agenda. For the argument "Cerberus *may* end up indoctrinated and helping the
Reapers" see below. [/quote]
I never based my defense around that, because that could be well considered as metagaming. I'm just going to give my point of view, that is that the most responsible choice is destroying the base so you don't have headaches nor have to care about people getting indoctrinated (by it) because you saved it.
Also as I said, giving dangerous tech to dangerous people that might keep his promise of aiding you against a greater threat it's still a dangerous move since you compromise yourself to give power to them.
[quote](4) "There is no evidence that keeping the base won't result in a even bigger catastrophe". A bigger catastrophe than what? The extinction of all intelligent organic life in the galaxy? (That was indeed the context of the original argument). There are always infinite possibilities. The question is which of them are reasonable expectations. A bigger catatrophe than extinction of all intelligent organic life in the galaxy isn't exactly a reasonable expectation. It's just something to frighten people into going along with you.[/quote]
Sorry I'm tired of bringing my point. Giving tech to a xenophobic organization with fame of being terrorists (whether or not they actually fit in the definition is debatable, you can call them criminals if you prefer, doesn't change their actions)even assuming they are willing to help you and aid you against the reapers, isn't justificable by any means. You're still giving power to criminals. Also the end doesn't justify the means.
They may become a greater threat or cause a bigger cathastrophe than the Reaper threat, yes.
Part III: Arguments with some weight
[quote](1) "Cerberus is too incompetent to deal with Reaper technology. They may end up indoctrinated and helping the Reapers". This is indeed a risk that we take by keeping the base. Cerberus' track record isn't exactly impressive. The question here is "Can we afford to destroy the base because of that risk?".[/quote]
I'm not willing to take the risk of giving them power just because they might help me in the end. They are still dangerous. Giving them power doesn't help it.
No, the risk is too great.
[quote](a) Some knowledge is found on the base that makes a decisive difference to the Reapers' defeat.[/quote]
You just contradicted yourself with your point that useful data might be extracted from the base.
[quote](
Cerberus becomes indoctrinated and ends up helping the Reapers [/quote]Or we defeat the reapers and Cerberus guess what? They still have power while other forces and governments in the galaxy are weaker.
Modifié par Pulletlamer, 01 août 2011 - 02:46 .
