3618 réponses à ce sujet

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

Here's the point, though. They know a Reaper can indoctrinate. 

And they were given several hints at that the indoctrination machine/whatever inside the Reaper was still functioning, as it takes days, if not weeks to be indoctrinated. And yet, they remained inside.

So why not send in mechs instead? Well, that would be a logical choice, and Cerberus and logic mix just as well as alkali metals and water.

It is their fault.

[TobyHasEyes]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

 I would disagree, and with ieldra2, on the point that the positive necessarily outweighs the negative, though I don't think your position is 'delusional' (an overly harsh term for a discussion like this)

 Possible positive impacts;
 Technology which aids the anti-Reaper effort but isn't decisive
 Technology which aids the anti-Reaper effort and wins the war

 Possible negative impacts;
 Rogue army / backfire which harms the anti-Reaper effort but not decisively
 Rogue army / backfire which harms the anti-Reaper effort sufficiently as to render the effort hopeless

 Obviously that last point is the clincher, to which I would say that a rogue army used tactically well could wipe out (especially using the technology in Arrival) entire star systems, and turn the tide in key combat areas. That or a technology backfire could cause untold damage, be that tech access, to the Reapers, of all anti-Reaper comms and plans. Or more damagingly, something on the scale of the technology apocalypse Overlord could have  created

 I am aware I referenced the Overlord scenario very frequently, however in my playthrough my ParaShep played through Overlord very shortly before facing that Collector ship decision. Such a potentially catastrophic lack of research security tipped the balance in my reasoning

[Medhia Nox]

@Iseldra2:

(1) Yes, taking advantage of small pox worked to the advantage of the Americans. Slavery built the American economy. Imperialism benefits the nation practicing it. "good" in the way you're using it - is totally subjective.

You're basing this on - "extinction of sentient races" - you and I won't ever be around to experience it, but our species will eventually go extinct. It's inevitable - whether it's from mutations that make ****** sapien no longer exist - or a comet that wipes out all complex life on Earth.

The Reapers don't wipe out life - I believe an argument could be made that they support genetic diversity. Sentient life causes biological stagnation - look at the apple. There are only 10% of the apple varieties that were originally present in the Americas left today. Sentient creatures are the cause of it. The Reapers support biodiversity.

So - "good" in this case might actually be allowing the Reapers to win. Though - as one of the species in question - it is likely that humanity would rather commit "evil" to achieve its ends solely for the sake of survival.

2) Cerberus is "evil". Well - Cerberus didn't factor into my reasons for destroying the Collector Base, but it was an extra treat that it pissed off TIM.

Stalin was our (the Allies) ally in World War 2 - and our enemy not shorly after. So sure - we can make peace with despots to destroy a greater threat.

Concerning Stalin - we did have a panic attack at the end of the war racing him to Berlin. And many Eastern European nations suffered for decades because of Russia's occupation. I wouldn't say our alliance was the direct cause - but out complacency with his evil, caused great hardship for many people (but it wasn't America or Britain - so who cares right?)

3) But there is NO game over screen for the Collector Base.

Bioware is telling you that "You cannot stop the Reapers except for by destroying the Relay.

Saying that "There was obviously no other way." is metagaming (which is fine, I don't really
have the problem with it most people do - at least in CRPGs).

Bioware tells us that there's "another way" by allowing us to choose.

You asserting there is "no other way" is refuted by Bioware.

4) I believe there is so much wrong here.

You're using the term "evil" because you feel you can desparage it because it's a primitive mode of thinking that involves mystical morality.

So - I'll use - dangerously irresponsible.

If I know that there is a thief outside of my house that knows how to pick padlocks - why would I lock my house with padlocks? And if I do - why would I be shocked if the thief broke in?

And "once the cycle is broken" is using Bioware knowlege. You know you'll be able to win.

That would be akin to saying - once I deal with the thief, there will be nobody who knows how to get into my house. But - the thief has already broken in, and is hiding in your closet ready to stab you to death.

----

1) This is an automated Reaper factory. You think factories that are fully automated in real life had blue prints lying around?

EDI is a Mary Sue - that's true. She can magically decrypt everything a billions year old Machine Race has created. So you've got a point in saying that EDI can datamine the place.

Could you read a blue print for a car and recreate one from scratch?

Are these Reapers just toasters with tentacles? Or are they actually dangerous billions year old sentient machines. I'm confused in which direction Bioware is going to go with them.

2) "Based on experience and logic" - have you ever even been to a car manufactory? What kind of "experience" do you base your "logic" on?

I've been to a small handful of factories - and they don't have schematics lying around.

Theoretical work - and work involved in making blue prints and schematics - are often done at offices away from the factory and the workforce who would not have any clue what they're looking at.

If the Collector Base was receiving instruction via Harbinger (which it was) then the information left when the internet connection with the Reaper was severed (which it was). What do you think Harbinger was typing on those keys of his before he shut down? Sure - maybe he was trying to save his ship, maybe he's a scared little space captain too. But - he could also be a clever billions year old machine god entity.

3) I'd be more prone to thinking that Cerberus would become indoctrinated because of exposure to the Collector Base - not that they're Indoctrinated before the Collector base.

4) Again - sentient life might not be "good" for the universe and the Reapers know this. Culling it might be the same to them as culling out of control animal populations are to us.

Your assertion that sentient life is worth saving is baseless.

If you want to assert that you want to save yourself and your loved ones - and that you feel a connection to the greater galactic community. Good on you.

But any assertion that preserving current (because sentient life would return in the cycle) sentient life is an "absolute good" - is the same as evoking one of these uber-catastrophes.

----

Of course , you're just pushing your world paradigm... you're not interesting in trying to see another point of view. But, I had some free time - so not really a big deal to waste my time in this way.

I agree that saving the Collector Base is pragmatic.

But, I do not value pragmatism as a world view. I believe it has limited utility at best.

[Ieldra]

Pulletlamer wrote...
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.

If that is your main point, then I feel justified to reject it out of hand. Because if giving the base to Cerberus is "not justifiable by any means", then that means you would prefer a Reaper victory to winning with the help of Cerberus.

Thus, you would sacrifice all organic life in the galaxy on the altar of your principles. You do notice that this is very similar to how militant fundamentalists think, yes?

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?

The reasonable expectation - by experience and logic - is that we can find out something useful about the structure of an object if we examine in depth a facility that is used to make that object. In this case, a Reaper.

As for you "there is no guarantee that...." reponses. Read my post again:

"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"
 
In fact, all of your arguments except the ludicrous first (which I didn't consider because I didn't think someone would seriously argue that way - apparently I was mistaken) are already countered by by my post, so I don't know why you insist bringing them up again. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 août 2011 - 03:44 .

[Ieldra]

@everyone else:
Regarding my argument III-(1), it was not my intention to claim that conclusively, the chance of finding a decisive advantage against the Reaper on the base outweighs the risk of Cerberus helping the Reapers by getting indoctrinated etc... I only find it more plausible to assume that the effects of an indoctrinated Cerberus are not that big a help for the Reapers if Cerberus does get indoctrinated. You may weigh the risks and chances differently and come to a different conclusion. That's OK. I would like to see everyone's arguments in that case and see where it leads.

What I do claim conclusively, however, is the invalidity of the arguments of group I and II for destroying the base (see the previous page).

Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 août 2011 - 03:45 .

[AlanC9]

Ieldra2 wrote...
The reasonable expectation - by experience and logic - is that we can find out something useful about the structure of an object if we examine in depth a facility that is used to make that object. In this case, a Reaper. 

Not to mantion the corpse of an immature reaper, which is a lot more intact than the other one available for study.

[TobyHasEyes]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@everyone else:
Regarding my argument III-(1), it was not my intention to claim that conclusively, the chance of finding a decisive advantage against the Reaper on the base outweighs the risk of Cerberus helping the Reapers by getting indoctrinated etc... I only find it more plausible to assume that the effects of an indoctrinated Cerberus are not that big a help for the Reapers if Cerberus does get indoctrinated. You may weigh the risks and chances differently and come to a different conclusion. That's OK. I would like to see everyone's arguments and see where it leads.

What I do claim conclusively, however, is the invalidity of the arguments of group I and II for destroying the base (see the previous page).

 Understandable then, I have no problem with you reaching that conclusion, I recognise that it is a contentious issue and (if taken seriously) one of the tougher decisions of the series

[Phaedon]

[quote]Ieldra2 wrote...
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]
What is wishful thinking is you associating that with morals. It's simply offensive. 

Nothing advantageous can come out of it, since it practically can only cause harm to organic fleets, not Reaper ones. Unless you are suggesting that the base will somehow make every single vessel in the galaxy as powerful as a Reaper, and somehow produce thousands of new ships.



[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]
Greater evil?

You mean greater practical evil, right? For all we know the Reapers are only trying to do this to survive.

And again, that's assuming that anything useful can come out of the base, which as I said, it can't.

Let's cut the "Infinite possibilities" crap, please. Even if the technolodgy out of the base can, directly or not, make the organic fleets as powerful as the Reaper ones and have the same numbers (Hint: It's impossible), you have yet to point out to ONE potential technolodgy that could come out of the base and do this.


[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]
You have obviously never played Arrival, or you have no idea what a moral choice is. You were never given one in Arrival. It's very debatable if 300000 of innocent lives were worth a few months of stalling 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]
What do you mean by that? If we start making our own Reapers, then we are no better, how can you claim otherwise?



[quote]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.[/quote]
I am sorry.

But.

What.

They are so "obviously" wrong to you, and you still manage to stick morals somewhere in there. Please.

[quote](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]
A) You didn't pay attention to the Collector General and how he worked at all.
You missed a very small part about the databases...



...the one that it was a trap.


[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. [/quote]
Experience? Yeah, right.
Logic? If you can't provide reasonable arguments then it's not logic, obviously. You are still repeating "There has to be somewhere in there, even if I can't think of something!". You also state that there is any chance that the CB will let us help the base.

Again, blind statements, not backed up by any arguments.


[quote]We can reasonably expect to find useful insights into the structure of Reapers on the base (see (1)).[/quote]
Yes, if you missed the part about telepathy.

[quote]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. [/quote]
I am sorry, I can't take you seriously for saying "leap of faith" and implying that the CB will be a means of defeating the Reapers.

Also, learning useful things about the structure of cars in a car factory? Having the machines without schematics doesn't do anything...yes. 

And Reaper structure, I am sorry, but what are you on about? That thing is hardly 100 meters tall. Sovereign and Harbinger are both 2 kilometers in size. Not only does that thing miss an exoskeleton, shields, or a main weapon...

...it's a genetic material storage device for heck's sake.

You know where we could have learned things about Reaper structure? The Derelict Reaper. Cerberus has literally placed platforms all over it. Of course, with their idiocy, I suppose that it is possible that they didn't bother making a map, or taking some scans, or sending them to TIM.

[quote](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]
Actually, "experience and logic" is a nice phrase that once again carries no weight.

Collectors have the intelligence of animals, I doubt they can...read.

And you must have missed the part about the Collector General controlling them, who was in turn controlled by Harbinger.

[quote](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. [/quote]
No, just no.

It's a terrible logical mistake of your part, which wouldn't have happenned if you really thought before giving the base to TIM.

You do realize that the Reapers have several thousands ships, correct? And that a single one is more powerful than two major fleets?

And that all of the allied fleets combined would probably hardly make over 1000 ships, correct? (Hint: Read the codex entry about the Alliance).

In what way would Cerberus gaining the base make around 1000 vessels destroy the multiple thousands of much more powerful Reapers?

Oh wait, even that's wishful thinking. Why would Cerberus share their tech with aliens or the Alliance?

[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]
That's absolutely irrelevant. You are giving the base to an organization who makes up 40% of your enemies in ME3.

[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.
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.   [/quote]
I have never read anything close to resembling that.

[quote]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.[/quote]
Why is that one of the two scenarios? Why is it even a scenario? Where is the "logic and experience" behind it?

[quote]( 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.[/quote]
Again, baseless wishful thinking with a huge flaw in logic.

The scientists in the Reaper IFF managed to do nothing before getting indoctrinated.

[quote]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. [/quote]
I don't know what your beef is with people having morals, but it is to the point of considering upholding your ethical code as an intuition, and suggesting the lack of a realistic way of thinking. Basically, you are being blinded, for a reason which I don't understand. Is being immoral and amoral edgy or cool or something? I must have missed it.

The thing is, I can only see you  basing your theories on a moral intuition.

• You say that the base will (based on your long-term experience with handling children torturers and extragalactic deities and logic, which you don't even  explain) make a decisive difference against the Reapers.
• You fail to propose any useful technolodgy that could come out of the base.
• You also fail to understand that the Reaper lavra is a very small component of the actual Reaper.
• You fail to understand that for your plan to work, the result must be that a single ship defeating 10-100 (maybe more) Reapers by itself, assuming that Cerberus will somehow sent all that tech to all of the species in the galaxy, which will in turn retrofit every single of their ships. And yes, that does include assuming that a single fighter with the upgraded technolodgy can take out 10-100 Reapers.
• You are blind as to the extent of the Cerberus threat. You claim that we don't know how things will turn out, when we know for a fact that 40% of the enemies in ME3 are Cerberus operatives (which would have to be funded by TIM, read my earlier post on this), and that TIM is an antagonist. You then go ahead and imply that it is very possible that Cerberus will have studied and reverse engineered the Reaper tech before they are indoctrinated. Yeah, just like it turned out last time, right? 

Your post further justifies the blind way of thinking that often comes with saving the base, and the actual lack of arguments, as well as failure to understand anti-arguments that the "Save the Base" side has had.

Modifié par Phaedon, 01 août 2011 - 04:08 .

[Phaedon]

Not replying to my argument Lotion? OK. I won't be back for the rest of the week anyway.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]Phaedon wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Cerberus cannot makehhte Alliance it's puppet government. Enough with the fairy tales already![/quote]
Your lack of reasons is very convincing. 

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."
[/quote]


[quote]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.[/quote]
It says that they can produce the best modified photorealistic videos in the galaxy. Your claim that detection tech is more advanced, is not only baseless, but it collapses over itself. Even if, for example, the STG has the best detection tech around, and somehow manages to detect the forged video, you assume that that technolodgy is shared among other governements or hell, the masses.

All they need to do is incite the masses, no matter how advanced the tech of the government is. Why? Simply, because even if the government manages to find out that the video is forged, no one has to to believe them because conventional and industrial detection applications wouldn't be able to detect any problems with the video.

And well, guess what, Cerberus acquired it for a reason.

[quote]2- theit backed candidtate LOST in case you haven't noticed. Obvuiousoy their abiltiy to influence politics is not as big as you think.[/quote]
Really, now?
The winning candidate was bribed and is on their side (Hint: He is knowingly being bribed by a terrorist group, he is an accomplice), and that was before the Alliance was attacked and had its forces on the run. When it was relatively stable. You do realize that even now, Cerberus has lackies even on the parliament.


[quote]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.
[/quote]
Uh what. The only thing they need to do is have a) Terra Firma win (perfectly possible with a major smear campaign and an unstable government which failed to repel the Reaper threat), Have some of the greater in importance ministers with them (Defence, Economics, etc), c) Make the masses believe that the aliens are their enemy.

[Phaedon]

HomelessGal wrote...

In a general sense, I think the base would be worth keeping if all we got from it was greater insight into Indoctrination. Even better if we somehow came up with counter-measures as a result. Won't win the war on its own, but it'd be one less problem.

And how will that work? You are either studying an alive Reaper who will most likely indoctrinate you, or a dead one which can't produce indoctrination...waves.

[Ieldra]

@Medhia Nox:

(1) I did not claim that there was no other way to defeat the Reapers. What I said is that the assertion "there is another way" is an invalid argument for destroying the base unless you can present such a way.

(2) "Evil" and "good" are of course used from the human perspective. There is no other perspective where morality is concerned. The universe knows no good or evil.

(3) Blueprints are obviously not lying around. Quite obviously, I referred to data stored on computers, accessible through EDI's data mining. An automated factory needs a lot of data to function. More than a not automated one, in fact.

(4) I did acknowledge that Cerberus could become indoctrinated by something in the Collector base.

(5) I am indeed arguing from a position that saving intelligent life is preferable to not saving it. While it is quite correct that this value judgment cannot be taken as an absolute, I think it is a reasonable expectation that people here will generally share that view. After all, "defeating the Reapers" is what the story is about. If you discount that goal, we lose the grounds for this whole debate, and that you would do so just to counter me is

And lastly, yes, I do think that consequentialism is the most appropriate mode of thinking about things like this. Human deontological morality is not made for large-scale crisis scenarios. I can actually recommend a book about exactly that:

"Judgment Misguided. Intuition and Error in Public Decision Making", by Jonathan Baron. Oxford University Press, 1998.

@Phaedon:
My reply to your latest post will have to wait a day.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 août 2011 - 04:17 .

[Pulletlamer]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Pulletlamer wrote...
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.

If that is your main point, then I feel justified to reject it out of hand. Because if giving the base to Cerberus is "not justifiable by any means", then that means you would prefer a Reaper victory to winning with the help of Cerberus.

Thus, you would sacrifice all organic life in the galaxy on the altar of your principles. You do notice that this is very similar to how militant fundamentalists think, yes?

My main point was what I posted on the other page. That is a sumarization.

That said, you deny the fact that giving power, tech and/or weapons to a xenophobic criminal organization in exchange for a promise that they may aid you against the reapers is more a risk than anything else.

Your main point for keeping the base is that you are willing to take the risks of giving power to Cerberus just because they said they're going to aid you. Besides it's not like something prevents them from breaking his "promise".

I won't sacrifice all organic life, by any means. I don't know where the hell you got that from. I believe you got the wrong impression. Also, you're assuming no base = reapers win.

Funny, I thought the people that preserve the Base are the ones willing to do sacrifices to get reaper tech and power to defeat the reapers.

Ieldra2 wrote...
The reasonable expectation - by experience and logic - is that we can find out something useful about the structure of an object if we examine in depth a facility that is used to make that object. In this case, a Reaper.

As for you "there is no guarantee that...." reponses. Read my post again:

"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"
 
In fact, all of your arguments except the ludicrous first (which I didn't consider because I didn't think someone would seriously argue that way - apparently I was mistaken) are already countered by by my post, so I don't know why you insist bringing them up again. 

No, you're wrong. In fact I read all your quotes and answered them the best I could (I do mistakes, I'm human, and I don't usually write huge posts). You just reduced yourself to saying: You're wrong and your arguments are ludicrous. That's the best you can do? What an argument.

And that doesn't nullify my point by any means. I'm not saying there's no evidence that suggests the contrary of what I said (that there's no guarantee of Cerberus aiding you, etc etc) it's a fact.

You are giving power to Cerberus in exchange for a promise. You don't have any guarantee of anything.

You're handing the fate of the Galaxy to a xenophobic organization with a record full of criminal actions and experiment failures (that are also morally questionable) hoping that they won't screw it and they can actually do something useful about it.

It saddens me that the best you could do was disproving my arguments with a single quote and calling them ludicrous. In fact, if you've taken the time to read my post carefully, as I did with yours, you maybe wouldn't have said that.

Besides I don't ever said once the word "evidence" in my post. Asking for evidence would be retarded.

On a side note, I agree completely with Phaedon's post.

Modifié par Pulletlamer, 01 août 2011 - 04:28 .

[Tonymac]

HomelessGal wrote...

In a general sense, I think the base would be worth keeping if all we got from it was greater insight into Indoctrination. Even better if we somehow came up with counter-measures as a result. Won't win the war on its own, but it'd be one less problem.

Indoctrination is a serious issue.  It is a major portion of how Reapers bring down a species, in my opinion.  Indoctrinated people are like turncoats - they give up all of their information to the Reapers.  They also seem to be controlled by Reapers in their actions, such as Dr Amanda Kenson was.

I believe you are correct - if we could even find a way to stop the indoctrination process then we would have a lot more operational freedom in dealing with Reapers and Reaper tech.

[Someone With Mass]

Phaedon wrote...

HomelessGal wrote...

In a general sense, I think the base would be worth keeping if all we got from it was greater insight into Indoctrination. Even better if we somehow came up with counter-measures as a result. Won't win the war on its own, but it'd be one less problem.

And how will that work? You are either studying an alive Reaper who will most likely indoctrinate you, or a dead one which can't produce indoctrination...waves.

The best thing to do would be to develop some kind of scanner that can detect indoctrination fields/waves/whatever and then construct a counter-measure, instead of constantly throwing people at it until either they're all dead or the problem that has nothing to do with indoctrination is solved.

[Phaedon]

Someone With Mass wrote...
The best thing to do would be to develop some kind of scanner that can detect indoctrination fields/waves/whatever and then construct a counter-measure, instead of constantly throwing people at it until either they're all dead or the problem that has nothing to do with indoctrination is solved.

Assuming that that can even happen of course, the Reapers have been known to share links with their subject from as far away as dark space (Evolution, Retribution), if the signal is that strong, I strongly doubt that there is a "fix" to it.

[Ieldra]

@Pulletlamer:
Actually, I said nothing about that,and that is the reason why I didn't answer at length, because all your arguments lead to the same point.

I *EXPLICITLY* said that I do not expect Cerberus to be helpful. I expect them to want to survive, and work to that end. I expect the KNOWLEDGE in the base to be eventually helpful. As long as you don't concede that point and base your answers on what I really said instead of what you read into them, I don't feel obliged to deal with your answers at length.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 août 2011 - 04:39 .

[Someone With Mass]

Phaedon wrote...
Assuming that that can even happen of course, the Reapers have been known to share links with their subject from as far away as dark space (Evolution, Retribution), if the signal is that strong, I strongly doubt that there is a "fix" to it.

Yeah, but those victims were also infused with Reaper technology, which boosts said signal, while those who are simply indoctrinated goes nuts after a while.

And if some salarian can come up with a way to scan the keepers, which until then was impossible, then I think someone might come up with a way to scan indoctrination fields. 

[Pulletlamer]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Pulletlamer:
Actually, I said nothing about that,and that is the reason why I didn't answer at length, because all your arguments lead to the same point.

I *EXPLICITLY* said that I do not expect Cerberus to be helpful. I expect them to want to survive, and work to that end. I expect the KNOWLEDGE in the base to be eventually helpful. As long as you don't concede that point and base your answers on what I really said instead of what you read into them, I don't feel obliged to deal with your answers at length.

I understood your point perfectly. Maybe you don't understand mine?

I already did respond to your expectations of obtaining data from the base:

Also I remember you all that there's not guarantee that:

1.Cerberus can extract useful data to combat the Reapers. It's a possibility. And by combat I mean how to destroy / attack a Reaper.


2. Cerberus is willing to share that probable data with Shepard or other factions.


3. 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.


4. 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”

Modifié par Pulletlamer, 01 août 2011 - 04:46 .

[Phaedon]

Someone With Mass wrote...
Yeah, but those victims were also infused with Reaper technology, which boosts said signal, while those who are simply indoctrinated goes nuts after a while.

And if some salarian can come up with a way to scan the keepers, which until then was impossible, then I think someone might come up with a way to scan indoctrination fields. 

Yes, I suppose. Though scanning the Keepers I can't help but find a small accomplishment. He managed to gather info about their genetic material by scanning their skin, not that big a deal, imo.

The problem with indoctrination is that: a) It could very well be...magic, Reapers are deities for all we know, If we find a way to stop indoctrination now, we would have to supply...anti-indoctrination helmets to everyone remotely important, and our tech wouldn't really live on. Still, we have no guarantees that we will completely block indoctrination since well, it's energy, it can pass through anything, the signal can just be weakened to the point that it is not strong enough to have a significant change to our way of thinking...or maybe not?, c) The Reapers don't seem to have a problem kicking our asses without indoctrination.

That is of course if we assume that:
a) The HR is alive.
The lavra contained the indoctrination generator (we have no proof as to that, and the lavra is a very small part of the actual Reaper)
c) The radioactive pulse didn't screw up with electric devices...such as the HR.

Modifié par Phaedon, 01 août 2011 - 05:01 .

[Pulletlamer]

Phaedon wrote...

The problem with indoctrination is that: a) It could very well be...magic, Reapers are deities for all we know,

Actually I believe it's not magic. Reaper tech is formed by nanites (Paul Grayson was implanted with Reaper tech and the nanites controlled his body and mind). My guess is by standing near reaper tech someone can take nanithes by airway. Once they are in your body they start reproducing and controlling your mind.

It's a theory, of course.

[The Twilight God]

HomelessGal wrote...

Grayson was providing the ol' Indoctrination field by the end of retribution, wasn't he?

Yes, the humanoid reaper avatar that was formerly Grayson was.

[Sisterofshane]

Ieldra2 wrote...

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.

What is more arrogant: to have confidence in one's own reasoning or to be certain of one's own opinion without any arguments?

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.

It's a great argument, but you go based on the assumption that without any extra knowledge of Reaper Technology, it will be impossible to defeat the Reapers.  There is evidence that this is not true.  Humanity has defeated a Reaper and Reaper Technology (Collectors Base) before, with almost NO knowledge to draw upon.

Also, there is evidence that the Protheans had a more advanced knowledge and understanding of Reaper Technology than we currently have ( as evidenced by their ability to constuct a working prototype of a mass relay, and as I noticed on a recent thread, that the VI on Ilos had the ability to detect indoctrination upon an individual, whereas we don't even know what truly causes it), and they still failed in defeating the Reapers.  So to assume that any information gained from the collector base would turn the tide of the impending war, we would also then have to assume that said knowledge we find would need to be substantive enough that we could definitively defeat the Reapers in an upcoming war.  

Given that within the 2-3 years from the defeat of Sovereign (a fully functioning Reaper, not just a prototype or a partially finished one), and that within five hundred years and access (albiet limited) to Collector technology and our limited understanding of both, we have failed to come up with any viable solution to the Reaper threat, and that our time frame (roughly 6 months) til Reaper arrival, it makes it highly unlikely that even an extraordinary force of brilliant individuals would be able to find anything relevant before it would be too late, and if they did, that we wouldn't have the time to implement said tech/strategy before the reapers effectively wiped us out.

Add with that the extremely high possiblility of Ceberus screwing this up (they've screwed up everything else before, except for resurrecting Shepard, in which they very nearly screwed up), plus the idea that Humanity has already come farther than ANY OTHER CIVILIZATION in the history of the galaxy by delaying the cycle of extinction not only once, but twice on what limited knowledge we have, it's not so risky a bet to destroy the reaper base.  That's the way my Shep sees it.

[Rekkampum]

Nice to see some of the old guys here in a lively debate.