3618 réponses à ce sujet

[alperez]

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.

If that was the case then i could easily be on board with keeping the base.

[Phaedon]

[quote]SandTrout wrote...
So why should we limit our options? We don't know what we'll need against them, so it is reasonable to grab anything we can use. We don't loose anything to 'non-conventional' tactics against the Reapers by accessing Collector technology. We're not trading the base for any advantages anywhere else, only sacrificing those possible advantages that it might provide.[/quote]

Are you really serious.

Good job ignoring 70% of the posts of this thread which mentioned that, a) Cerberus is not trustworthy, Cerberus has extreme pro-human and some anti-alien tendencies, and for hell's sake that, c) They literally consist of almost half of the enemies that you'll see in the game.

Yes, ignoring pretty much all of the arguments the other side has to offer, very cool of you. As long as they don't support your argument they can go, I guess.

Then again your post says "Well, you just said that due to X and Y anything that we get from the base will not be useful, so why limit our options?".




[quote]Difficult to say what specifics we can get from the base, but you said it yourself that we have already lasted weeks while the Protheans were essentially taken in a matter of hours, excepting clean-up. We're already doing better than the Protheans, and we're still in the fight. Note that Germany took France in a matter of weeks as well in WW2, due to superior tactics and technology. They were a tough enemy, but insurmountable? Hardly.[/quote]OK, I don't really know how much simpler I can explain this...

...but we didn't last longer than the Protheans because we (other than Shepard at least) are better than them. We did so because:

• The Protheans disabled the Reapers' ability to open the dark space relay through the keepers, therefore forcing Sovereign to find a way to open it.
• Shepard stopped Sovereign from opening the dark space relay, therefore killing the last Reaper in the galaxy, and the only one who could open the relay so that the invasion could begin.
• Shepard stopped the Collectors from developing the Human Reaper, which was supposed to take the place of Sovereign ("We will find another way, *engines power up*"), forcing the Reapers to lose any tactical advantage and having to travel all the way from dark space to attack, and therefore not overwhelming us, by not overwhelming the Citadel, and the homeworlds that are linked via the Citadel, just like the Protheans.
• Shepard stalled them by some months by destroying the closest relay they could get to.

They literally lost every single tactical advantage they used to have. Oh and if that's not enough,

...no, we didn't last for a week. We had huge civilian casualties within the first few days, and the forces ended up being on the run.

And to be clear, yes, if it took two big brigades of French soldiers to take down a single German soldier, who belonged in a much bigger army, then yes, the  French resistance wouldn't stand a chance. The chances of success would be zero.

Not to mention that it took more than 2 fleets to take down Sovereign, btw.




[quote]Your claiming that we (or Cerberus) is no better than the Reapers if we start trying to make our own Reaper, and then you imply that using any Reaper technology is the same thing as making a Reaper. This is a straw-man argument because no one is talking about making a Reaper, and the problem we have with making the Reaper is the means to do so, not the technology itself, which has no moral weight.[/quote]
Stop twisting my words, this is getting ridiculous. 
Yes, we are no better than the Reapers if we start making our own Reapers, I said that. If we use Reaper tech in that way, then yes. 

Look, my sentence is plain and simple, it's not that difficult to read it carefully.

I asked for clarification on what the uses of Reaper tech would be. If it involves harvesting (and as I added later, indoctrination), then no we are no better than them, end of story. Whether we use their pod technolodgy to produce smoothies, I couldn't care less.

Stop twisting people's words to keep up an argument that doesn't really exist. Cerberus is definitely immoral. The Reapers? Maybe. Possibly. Maybe even probably?


[quote] Hell, TIM stated as good of reasons as there are IN GAME, so I'm not going to repeat them. I'll just point out that the Research Team had been on-board the DR since before the Collector Vessel mission. Also, I have not contradicted anything that I have stated. Yeah, **** went south, but they did achieve a primary objective in locating and isolating the IFF.[/quote]
Whatever TIM said in-game has nothing to do with this. And you have obviously missed my point.

How could that be their main goal if they didn't even know that a Reaper IFF existed?


[quote]She got it from on-board data storage, which was my point.[/quote]Manipulate the facts as much as you wish, play the game again if you must, but the data came from the terminal and not the data banks. And yes, machines are needed to run a comparison.

But since you can claim differently apparently, do explain why the experiments from which the test subjects that you saw a bit earlier were dumped and their results are never mentioned by EDI. Let me guess, it's unimportant too, huh. If you say so, you are just further proving my point by dealing selectively with the facts, you and Lotion, for yet another time.


[quote]It is not a law, principal, truism, or anything. It is your own speculation regarding the relative might of the Reaper fleet renders any conventional conflict null and void, which has not been universally true in history. Could this position be applied accurately to some historical conflicts, yes, but it could not be applied broadly with any sort of accuracy.[/quote]Well, too bad, because that's not how it works.

If you are going to win, you won't win just due to luck, you must have more skilled troops, or more soldiers than they do, or soldiers that do more damage, or have better experience and be wiser in the battlefield. 

It's a fact that organics have NONE of these merits.

But have it your way, since you apparently love fiction, go ahead and tell us of a possible scenario where we win the Reapers in conventional warfare. And be detailed. "We divide them and then we concentrate fire on them" may sound a cool plan, but it doesn't explain how you divide them and how you concentrate fire on them when you have less ships, or how you manage to take them down when two fleets couldn't take down a single Reaper.

[quote]The HR is not the only piece of technology available, and there are probably tactical limitations to the Thanix which may or may not apply to other technology that is discovered in the CB. Also, the Thanix is impressive if it gives a Fighter similar firepower as a cruiser.[/quote]Try again. The turians had the main weapon. Are you suggesting that the Reapers have tech that could improve their own weapons but didn't figure it out earlier? How exactly would you be able to create a better weapon than the Thanix?

Inb4 vague answer in the lines of, "But there is something in the base that could do it! It's a reasonable what if! The possibilities are endless!"

[quote]All of your reasons that we "don't stand a chance" do not nullify the effectiveness of the CB tech in concert with any other tactics/advantages that we may develop. Your point continues to be that because the CB will not solve the Reaper problem on its own, that it provides nothing to the overall effort. Again, you persist with suicidal stupidity.[/quote]
Well at least you shut up claiming that the CB would improve our chances alone and you are claiming that in conjuction with something else, it would be effective.


No wait, you have been repeating that nonsense for pages. You have yet to say where that could be. Another Reaper? Another Reaper factory? Their homeworld? A Reaper base?

And what exactly would make the CB tech effective? You have yet to point out one piece of potential technolodgy.


[quote]Again, this is a false statement.[/quote]
Like the part that you said that it was referring to BOTH sides? 

But of course you won't admit a mistake, go ahead then.

[quote]She in no means attacks people who have been arguing III-(1) from the beginning.[/quote]
I have no idea if you deliberately ignored this part of my post or not, but:
[quote]And don't even bother playing the "but she said after!" card. You can perfectly have valid arguments for destroying the base and still learn of new ones.
[/quote]

[quote]Hell, if you check page one, you'll see that I posted my reasoning as nearly identical to III-(1) then, and have been arguing against flawed logic and false points since. Ieldra2 was pointing out that some people adopt good arguments after the point where there initial reasons are shown to be irrational, so that they do no have to admit that they are irrational.[/quote]
No, she is not pointing out anything.
She is downright claiming as a fact that if someone adapts that argument when they see that, they originally started with irrational arguments. Which is of course not true, and a stupid thing to say.


[quote]Your libel will not go unchallenged, and you should remember that, Phaedon.[/quote]
Nice try. 

You have on several occasions denied to think critically by saying that "It is logical that there will be stuff there" (not that that you mentioned any of these stuff or why it is logical), made a lot of mistakes which you never admitted,

and now you are defending this:

[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]

This absolutely ignorant post, which suggests that any players which adapt that argument are irrational, even if they originally had another argument.

The worst of it, of course is the "moral intuition" part. If it translates to anything close to "Cerberus have crossed the line several times in the past, I can't trust them.", which is exactly what it does, it is supposedly irrational, while the players who save the base, do so due to "experience and logic", which is of course never explained. 

And you know what? I am not surprised at all that you support this blind attack towards people who saved the base.

Your argument from the start has been "But you don't what exists in the base.", while you have made numerous assumptions of your own, and have maintained that it doesn't take strength, numbers, experience or smarts to defeat an enemy.  And you have to explain one type of technolodgy that could be helpful.

You are literally stating that the remains of the fleets which once had less than 1500 ships, all lacking in strength, experience and smarts can defeat multiple thousands of ships, all having much superior stength, experience and smarts.

Do I need to remind you that 2 big fleets couldn't even take down a single one of those ships?

Modifié par Phaedon, 01 août 2011 - 08:47 .

[Phaedon]

SandTrout wrote...
Conatix is largely speculated to be a Cerberus Front, but I was think more of the Ascension project. Cerberus oppertatives were providing technical and theoretical expertise, some of which likely came from the Pragia research, based on the journal entry that survived.

Sorry that I missed this bit on my first go through.

Ah, OK.

If it's speculated  to be a Cerberus front, then that's ample evidence, thanks I suppose I am wrong and you are right.

[Phaedon]

Ieldra2 wrote...
or strawman arguments rephrasing my arguments into something I never said.

Sugar coat it as you wish, I am going to be away for days anyway, but that won't change the fact that you use "logic and experience" as a valid reason for someone to save the base. With logic and experience being the assumption that there is any useful technolodgy in the base, when factually considering that the Reapers have superior:

• Numbers
• Firepower
• Experience
• Intelligence
• Defences
• Technolodgy

Improvements in conventional warfare won't help you win the war.

While at the same time, "moral intuition", which means to destroy the base due to distrust over Cerberus' methods is irrational. Nice.

I don't care if you support Cerberus irradiating colonists, turning them into husks, torturing childrens and whatnot, but some people have ethics.

Deal with it.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

I so many text walls i cant tell who's on which side

Not that anyone is taking sides....I think.

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 01 août 2011 - 09:10 .

[Phaedon]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...


I so many text walls i cant tell who's on which side

Not that anyone is taking sides....I think.

Just me getting pissed and raging at everyone, carry on.

[CroGamer002]

Phaedon wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...


I so many text walls i cant tell who's on which side

Not that anyone is taking sides....I think.

Just me getting pissed and raging at everyone, carry on.

And me watching the show.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

From what I'm reading,phaedon and teh fishscout are trying to make the point that neither choice is more valid then the other,in which case I agree.

I'm trying to watch a movie and read all this at the same time.

[Ieldra]

alperez wrote...
While you as usual make some very interesting points, the inherent problem in those points is the conclussion you've come to about them.

I have in no way implied that my conclusion about keeping the base is, well, conclusive. The point I was trying to make is that the arguments of group I and II are invalid as a reason to destroy the base, unless you count sticking to your moral principles as more important than survival of intelligent life in the galaxy.

You say the most prevalant arguments are basically broken down into the points you make, Delusional moral arguments, delusional practical arguments and arguments with some weight and you show your reasoning as to why each of these are how you say they are.

The problem of course is that you've decided that these arguments are Delusional moral, practical or arguments that have weight based on the reasoning that the arguments fail because you disagree with them.

The arguments I have argued against do not fail because I disagree with them. I disagree with them because they fail. If you think they do not fail, then tell me why! For instance:
(1) Why would you think it is an unreasonable expectation that we find useful knowledge about the Reapers on the base?
(2) Why would you think that "Cerberus is evil. We shouldn't help them" is a sufficient reason to destroy the base, and why do you think that that overrides concerns about defeating the Reapers.

I have been arguing from two premises:
(A) Our primary objective is to defeat the Reapers
( Survival of intelligent life in the galaxy is more desirable than sticking to a moral principle.

Of course you may not accept these premises. Indeed, not for the first time I get the impression that it is many people's primary objective to defeat Cerberus and not the Reapers, and I have also seen the argument that there are things more important than survival of intelligent life in the galaxy. But if you accept those premises, then you will come to similar conclusions as I have about the validity of some arguments.

For your post to be taken as anything other than a justification for why the base should be kept or for you using your reasoning to argue why that should be the case, you may have needed to also put forward the most prevelant arguments for keeping the base imo.

Yes, but that was not my primary intention. It was my intention to show which arguments will ultimately fail as justification for destroying the base.
Even so, the reasoning for keeping the base is contained in my refutation of the arguments for destroying the base. It goes as follows:

(1) We are grasping at straws for a means to defeat the Reapers. We have no idea how that might be done.

(2) The Reapers have superior technology and this is why they will most likely win. 

(3) Conclusion: to prevent that, we need to either close the technology gap, or obtain some other kind of understanding that will allow us to exploit an aspect of the Reapers to our advantage. 

(4) At the moment, the best chance of getting knowledge about the Reapers in order to do either is in a place where one was to be built, namely the Collector base. It is the best chance because the base is the *only* such place we know of. If you disagree with that, you will have to present a better place to obtain the knowledge.

(5) What Cerberus will or will not do with the base is insufficient as a moral argument for destroying the base, because the Reapers are the greater evil even if we assume that Cerberus will wipe out every species but humans. In fact it works the other way round: as long as we don't have the slightest inkling of a better way to gain that understanding, we are morally obliged to take the opportunity and keep the base even at the cost of Cerbnerus doing something horrible with it. Disagreeing with this means disagreeing with premise ( aboive.   

(6) Cerberus may end up indoctrinated and helping the Reapers. But even in this case, it is better to keep the base because it is a reasonable expectation that indoctrinated Cerberus will not be a great deal of help for the Reapers, considering the power they already wield, while if we can get our hands on the knowledge contained in the base, it might result in a decisive advantage.

I hold my reasoning to be conclusive except for (6). (1) is an obvious fact, (2) is what the experience with Sovereign shows us. (3) Is the conclusion of (1) and (2). (4) is again, an obvious fact of current knowledge. (5) Is a logical conclusion from premise (. I challenge anyone to poke holes in it not based on spurious assumptions. That something *can* (= is not impossible to) happen to make my claims invalid has zero weight unless you can show that it can reasonably expected to happen. It is possible to fight the Reapers another way? Tell me how, amek arguments that that scenario can reasonably be expected, or your argument has zero weight. It is possible to gain the necessary knowledge somwhere else? Tell me where, tell me that that source can be reasonably expected to contain that knowledge, or your argument has zero weight. 

So then, here is it: the only argument with weight for destroying the base, if you accept premises (A) and (, is that Cerberus might become indoctrinated and help the Reapers. I think it has not enough weight, but I accept that you can weigh the risks and benefits differently than I do and come to the conclusion that it's best to destroy the base.  But the main point remains: if you accept the premises, then this is the only argument with weight.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 août 2011 - 09:34 .

[SandTrout]

Good job ignoring 70% of the posts of this thread which mentioned that, a) Cerberus is not trustworthy, Cerberus has extreme pro-human and some anti-alien tendencies, and for hell's sake that, c) They literally consist of almost half of the enemies that you'll see in the game.

A) They can be trusted to save their own skins, The Reapers will wipe out all existing sapient species, and actually have the means to succeed. Anything that Cerberus may do after the Reapers is not as bad as what the Reapers WILL do if they are not stopped, C) Meta-gaming does not apply to discussions of valid reason that an IC Shepard would or would not do anything. I am only ignoring point that have already been dealt with or are completely invalid to this discussion in any case.

Whatever TIM said in-game has nothing to do with this. And you have obviously missed my point.

How could that be their main goal if they didn't even know that a Reaper IFF existed?

TIM didn't know with certainty, but he speculated that it might be the reason that no other ship has successfuly navigated the O4 relay. He states this explicitly. He presented that as something to be looked for, by the research team, if it existed.

Manipulate the facts as much as you wish, play the game again if you must, but the data came from the terminal and not the data banks. And yes, machines are needed to run a comparison.

And machines are required to build stuff, like weapons that were produced at the CB. Those machines would require some sort of programing or baseline data to operate. The concept is not that difficult, you just ignore it, and claim that there is no usable data at the CB.

Yes, all of those things that we did between ME1 and ME2 removed tactical advantages that the Reapers had, and you are correct that it was not enough on its own to stop the Reapers. That doesn't mean that we should have just discarded those advantages.

As for lacking any strategic advantages, you are incorrect. We can build/rebuild fleets, the Reapers cannot. Even if we take out 1 Reaper per engagement, that is a permanent loss for the Reapers, while we can rebuild any lost ships. This is where the hit-and-run tactics with the fleet can come into play. If we can muster adequate firepower, then hit a single Reaper with everything we have, blow it, and run. Even if we loose 10 ships (which is less than against Sovereign, IIRC), those are 10 ships that we can rebuild, while the Reaper is not going to get replaced for the next 50k years. We DO outnumber them billions to 1, and we have vast pools of manpower to draw from, and industrial bases that can be used to start pumping out warships at a significant rate.

Try again. The turians had the main weapon. Are you suggesting that the Reapers have tech that could improve their own weapons but didn't figure it out earlier? How exactly would you be able to create a better weapon than the Thanix?

The Thanix is a crude copy of a Reaper main weapon, and there is no doubt in my mind that there are ways to refine it by increasing its output, efficiency, and other aspects. Just because we have a firearm doesn't mean that we cannot improve firearms. We have been for the past 500+ years.

Well at least you shut up claiming that the CB would improve our chances alone and you are claiming that in conjuction with something else, it would be effective.

The fundamental point has been that the CB would increase our chances, and is to be part of many aspects that also increase our chances, not be a binary, as you are claiming! I really want to say things to you that would get me banned right now.

And what exactly would make the CB tech effective? You have yet to point out one piece of potential technolodgy.

Power supplies, shields, the Collector Vessel's main weapon, its scanners that could detect the Normandy in spite of stealth technology, the Collector rifle that you end up with as a Heavy Weapon, biotic implants, FTL communications.

Ah, OK.

If it's speculated to be a Cerberus front, then that's ample evidence, thanks I suppose I am wrong and you are right.

Way to ignore Ascension. You're the one who brought up Conatix, not me. My point was Ascension.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Fish did you blow the base?

Just checking.

[SandTrout]

To clarify my understanding of the discussion, Phaedon is claiming that there is 0 value in keeping the base for reasons A, B, and C. I am pointing out that Reasons A, B, and C are not a valid basis for making a good decision regarding the base, and that I chose Reason D for destroying the base.

The funny thing is that I agree with his conclusion, but I take objection to his reasons. Kind of the concept that "I would rather you hate me for everything that I am than to love me for something that I am not," I guess.

Yes, I blew up the base.

Modifié par SandTrout, 01 août 2011 - 09:46 .

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Kthxbai

It's confusing.It's madness.madness?.................THIS IS  BIOWARE SOCIAL!

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 01 août 2011 - 09:52 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]Pulletlamer wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I'd disagree here. Cerberus can very well do good things and has done good things.[/quote]

Tell me the good things they've done besides bringing back Shepard to life to stop the Collectors. Reconstructing the Normandy and bringing part of Shepard crew back doesn't count, since that's included in Shepard mission.

By their experiments and criminal actions only bad things have happened.[/quote]

Strengthening of humanity = good.
Without their infulence, humanity would have been weaker. And we need every ounce of strength we can muster now.

See, TIM aint' stupid. He knew about the repaers long before everyone else. That's why he created Cerberus. That's why he's pushing so hard into dangerous research and even using rather questionable methods.
Because he knows we are not ready. Because he knows reapers could arrive at any time and we got no time to loose.

Just as Shep sees the 300.000 batarians a necessary sacrifice to delay the reapers, so does TIM see all the experiments and causalites that happen a necessary sacrifice to find the power to stop the reapers.




[quote][quote]
enhanced tech of any kind should find some use. Of course, you can bet Cerberus will be looking for tech with military applications.[/quote]

Yes? Why are you so sure? What makes you think they won't study indoctrination, perhaps? Or try to build a Reaper of their own or some other crazy plan like that? You can't know what Cerberus it's going to do with it.

Saying: Of course Cerberus will look for military applications it's not an argument, since you don't know so much about Cerberus that you can't predict their actions at all.[/quote]

Why would they even try to build their own reaper, when they could build a reaper-like ship that could have all the power, and none of the dangers (sentience) or price (human goo) involved?
Indoctrination? I can see them studying it, sicne learnign how to defend itself against it would be a great asset.

As to why military applciations? Because Cerberus has been trying from day 1 to strenghten humanity. Especially military. Their actions so far prove that.




[quote][quote]
I'd say good things are by defenition also beneficial..at least in that context.
Is your use of the word "good" refferencing a molar kind of good, or the practical kind.
And good for whom?[/quote]

I meant good things morally (as good/evil), and beneficial practically, so that we might find it actually useful.[/quote]

That's assuming you can get both.



[quote]
That you have an alternative and it may seem viable (you can't say it's viable for sure) doesn't mean it's the best or the only one. There's always other options.[/quote]

which is?


[quote]
There can also be horrible consequences if you actually do give them the Collector Base. Like: more indoctrinated people, Cerberus having more power...

and the other consequence is infinetly more horrble...

By keeping the base you're not actually given a weapon of mass-Reaper destruction or something like that.

How do you know? We dont' know exaclty what can come, but we can reasonably expect something usefull to come.

You're not giving more trouble to yourself at all. The best thing Cerberus could do with the Base was finding something that helps their own interests. Even then you're exposing people to indoctrination and other type of dangers that may become another trouble.

Cerberus interest are humantities interests (in this instance especially). Cerberus wants humanity to survive.
Any time ANYONE researches repaer tech, they could be (you never know) exposing oneselves to indoctrination.
Yet the tech must be researched anyway.

Not having weapons against the reapers is trouble, yes, I agree, but we actually don't know if something useful can be extracted from the base so it's still not that big of a deal. You're throwing yourself against impossible odds anyway, with base or without it. And remember that base it's not at your disposal. it's for Cerberus.

If you're facing impossible odds, the logical thing to do would be to find a way to increase those odds, no matter how risky.

[/quote]


[quote]
[quote]Not quite.
The base is there. There is a high chance something usefull may come from it. And you got plenty of reasons to believe Cerberus will help you (it's in their best interest too). So you got good grounds to hope for good results fro mthe base. You can actually base that hope on something.

But hoping that something else will turn up. On what do you base that? Nothing.
Hence wishfull thinking.[/quote]

I fail to see where there's a high chance? Something useful to combat the reapers and how to actually kill them with weapons etc, (you know practical stuff) I doubt it.

Useful about indoctrination? Maybe, since during the process people can become indoctrinated from it and are more or less avaibable to study. That's all I can't think off. Some collector tech that it does not stand a chance against the Reapers. Thanix Canon > Collectors.

The Reaper Larva don't holds much information on how to defeat the Reapers, since it was in fetal status without the shell.[/quote]

Again, you can't know that. You can't tell we can't get anything usefull. That scenario is FAR more unlikely than the opposite - that we do get somethin usefull. How usefull - I don't know. But any help is better than no help.

And you haven't adressed the wishfull thinking part there. Hope on finding something else is unfounded.



[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote..

Sovereign quite clearly said MASS RELAYS.
That's the parth they desire..for us to be dependant on the mass relays, thus enabling them to lock us out, and take us out, isolated and alone.
No sane person would belive they want us to get our hands on their core technolgoy. By killing Sovereign ,we already started diverging from that path.[/quote]

He didn't. He said using our technology. That includes all technology. Not by using the "mass relays".
The one that guessed the Mass Relays were Reaper and not Prothean technology was Shepard due to his visions and whatnot.[/quote]

He said "our technology - the technology of mass relays". You might want to double-check your sources there.
Here:


Even a first-grader could figure out what he meant.



[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote..
And this would actually be a less optimal solution.[/quote]

Why?[/quote]

Because reapers..



[quote][quote]
I'm more concerend about headaches for not being able to stand up to the reapers...[/quote]

You shouldn't be so concerned, since even if they (Cerberus) found a way to stand up /defeat to the reapers in a fight by studying the base (which I doubt), they might not even not help you, but become indoctrinated or work for the enemy.

Therefore better to destroy it and be safe.[/quote]

a) they got no reason NOT to help you
You are not safe if you destroy it. You're doomed as the reapers will come and reap you.


[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote..
[quote]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.[/quote]

Except when it does.[/quote]

It never does in my book. That's why we have different opinions.[/quote]

Then you can go ahead and die at the hands of the reapers.
Darwin will be gratefull.
Those that do not fight for survival tooth and nail, don't deserve to surive.



[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote..

[quote]Pulletlamer wrote...
They may become a greater threat or cause a bigger cathastrophe than the Reaper threat, yes.[/quote]

LOL!
You cannot possilby be serious here...[/quote]

You understood wrong. The key word in that sentence is may. And I was bringing that along with my point above.
[/quote][/quote]

No. It doesn't work even with a "may".

[alperez]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I have in no way implied that my conclusion about keeping the base is, well, conclusive. The point I was trying to make is that the arguments of group I and II are invalid as a reason to destroy the base, unless you count sticking to your moral principles as more important than survival of intelligent life in the galaxy.

If i mistook your conclussion, i apologise.

But to some people morality is more important than survival, Basically been given a choice to lose that morality in order to save life is a choice to far for some people.

If your given a gun and told to kill someone or someone else dies, do you then kill someone to save someone else.

It's not really an apt analogy, but its the best way i can come up with to try and explain why morality for some people is as much of a key to choice making as simply surviving.

The arguments I have argued against do not fail because I disagree with them. I disagree with them because they fail. If you think they do not fail, then tell me why! For instance:

*snipped

1. i'm not saying that is unreasonable to assume that their may be knowlege on the base.

2. if an organisation is deemed evil (although i'd argue more misguided and untrustworthy) and they are the organisation you need to trust or give the base too (then the possible repurcussions of that action) are as big a threat/danger to you, as the main threat/danger you face.

A) But its also to ensure that we are in fact saving the galaxy.

this though is where morality and your moral compass have an issue, if the only way to save the galaxy is to abandon your moral principles, then to some people losing your morality is a price to high.

Basically morality is unique to the indvidual, one person may consider something immoral that another does not, so while to you or i making a choice to save the galaxy may override a moral argument, to others it would not, because of that suggesting that sticking to a moral principle is less desirable than even saving the galaxy is a false argument.

*snipped*

(1) keeping the base is also grasping at straws, is it not?

(2) true, but using the same technology that they do, doesn't equate or even suggest victory would be easier.
 
(3) indeed we do, but again that doesn't mean we must keep the base or that the base is in anyway key to closing that gap or understanding them more ( what it does however suggest is that you believe that may be the case) which while a vaild argument can be offset by someone not believing the same as you do.

(4) while on the face of it this is correct, it also fails in the respect of in gaining that knowledge it isn't us that actually do so or it doesn't take into account the inherent danger of either what it may cost to gain that knowledge or what the people who gain that knowledge may do with it.

(5) the reapers are the greater evil perhaps, but that doesn't negate any qualms that someone may have about cerberus and the moral implications of handing a base over to them, When those qualms are factored into the equation then the issue is less black and white than you portray it here.

While on the face of it there is no better way in finding out the things you want than the base, this also assumes that those things are in fact on the base, something you can expect or hope for but not now, its an intangible just as is the potential hazard in trying to find out those things.

(6) makes no sense or i'm reading it wrong. Cerberus may end up indoctrinated but that's not a reason to destroy the base, because an indoctrinated Cerberus is no threat or no real advantage to the reapers,simply because the reapers are already such a threat?

Either i'm misunderstanding what your trying to say here or what your saying is completely irrational.

How could another threat irrespective of its size not be a problem considering we're already facing a threat?

The problem is that you reach the conlussions you do based on the premise that the base is important in fighting the reapers, that because of this importance any negative consequences that can arise are irrelevant and that keeping the base in some way strengthens your hand fighting the reapers.

This is a completely valid and logical argument and one your perfectly entitled to believe and use as a reason to keep the base.

However, it can also be argued that whatever potential reward the base may contain, be it info or tech, the risk to getting your hands on that reward is too high and the reward itself may turn out to be inconsequential anyway.

That once you weigh up the risk vs. reward potential of keeping the base it can come down too heavily on either side of the equation for a multitude or reasons, and that's what informs your choice

[SandTrout]

For a detailed version of Ieldra's Reason 6, see my first post on this thread, on the first page. It is my main reason for blowing up the base.

BTW< Alperez, I would like to say that discussing the topic with you is much more pleasant than most of the internet. You understand Ieldra's point, even if you disagree with her conclusions.

[SandTrout]

Saphra Deden wrote...

There is no basis to believe that Cerberus would become indoctrinated studying the base.

Except the 'dead' Human Reaper, and that every other interaction with known Reaper technology excepting the Relays and Citadel (and I have my suspicions about those) has resulted in indoctrination.

Object Rho: Not an actual Reaper, but a piece of tech that caused indoctrination and remote control.

Evolution's Reaper Artefacts.

The UNC mission that mentions an alliance team that disappears after locating an alien artifact that indoctrinates them and turns them into Husks.

The Derelict Reaper.

So, no conclusive evidence that the CB will, for sure, result in indocrtinating whatever research team sent to it. Every indication that the risk exists.

Modifié par SandTrout, 01 août 2011 - 10:48 .

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

@Saphra....BW disagrees on the "you cant win if you blow it up" claim.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

@Saphra....BW disagrees on the "you cant win if you blow it up" claim.

Meta-gaming.

Doesn't change anything.Meta-gaming or not your claim is incorrect.

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 01 août 2011 - 11:14 .

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...



Doesn't change anything.Meta-gaming or not your claim is incorrect.

I don't think you understand what meta-gaming is or what this topic is about.

Why don't you save yourself the embarrassment and get the hell out?

ah yes,typical saphra,turning to personal attacks. I do know what metagaming is,and I also know what the topic is.Point is your claim isn't an established fact,so you can't present it as such.

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 01 août 2011 - 11:24 .