1104 réponses à ce sujet

[RAF1940]

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...

Well, if the asari race (as in, every single last one of them) agreed to let me bang whoever I wanted when I wanted, I might consider saving the asari.

That appears to be the consensus. 

[Warlocomotf]

RAF1940 wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

The Asari found and uplifted the Hanar; an example then of Asari encountering another sentient species, one totally incapable of defending themselves, and rather than eradicate them (as you have suggested the Asari must have done in the past) they uplifted them and introduced them to the galactic community.

True, but the asari aren't a "war species" anyway.

But who's to say humanity or the turians wouldn't "lift up" a species? Humans aren't evil.

I think the first contact war is a good indicator that at least the Turians aren't particularly welcoming.
The Asari welcomed the Salarians to the citadels as equals- I don't think a whole lot of humans would be open to that idea had they been the sole inhabitants of the citadel.

Humanity by it's nature has always been either aggresively against, or incredibly cautious to "new things".

[Weskerr]

Warlocomotf wrote...

Weskerr wrote...

Self-interested desires are always in competition with each other.

That's a claim you're going to have to substantiate. If that were in fact true, then you're saying that cooperation is... Well, what?

I think you misunderstood what I said. When I talk about self-interested desires I am referring to all the desires vying for satiation in one person or one group. Cooperation is the association of two or more people or groups of people for a common benefit. In other words, cooperation is working together to fulfill the same desires.Also, cooperation doesn't mean that the parties involved don't have other desires that conflict with each other (conflicting desires between or among parties).

[Warlocomotf]

Weskerr wrote...

Warlocomotf wrote...

Weskerr wrote...

Self-interested desires are always in competition with each other.

That's a claim you're going to have to substantiate. If that were in fact true, then you're saying that cooperation is... Well, what?

I think you misunderstood what I said. When I talk about self-interested desires I am referring to all the desires vying for satiation in one person or one group. Cooperation is the association of two or more people or groups of people for a common benefit. In other words, cooperation is working together to fulfill the same desires.Also, cooperation doesn't mean that the parties involved don't have other desires that conflict with each other (conflicting desires between or among parties).

I did not misunderstand what you said. You said self interested desired are always in competition with each other- they're not. Sometimes they might well be, but they're not automatically or by definition.

Cooperation can be in the interest of all parties, and self interest is not by definition in competition with another's self interest. If it were in fact by definition against another's self interest, than many things would suddenly no longer fall under self-interest.

People do things that help others, if you want to argue that everything is in self interest because "doing something to help others makes you feel good about yourself" then you can't argue that this somehow means your interests are automatically in conflict with others.

[Weskerr]

Warlocomotf wrote...


However "everything is self intrest" is a semantics argument that really is not relevant to the context in which the Asari were accused of being self-interested. It is an evasion argument at best.

I missed this post. How is it semantics?

[Warlocomotf]

Weskerr wrote...

Warlocomotf wrote...


However "everything is self intrest" is a semantics argument that really is not relevant to the context in which the Asari were accused of being self-interested. It is an evasion argument at best.

I missed this post. How is it semantics?

The definition of semantics:

The meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence,

Discussing the meaning of the term 'self-intrest' or what falls or does not fall under it is semantics. Sometimes argueing semantics can be relevant to a discussion- however in this case it is not; because the term was clearly used as a negative term to describe the Asari- which means that a discussion as to what the poster meant by the word could be relevant, but the argument that there's no such thing as a selfless act is not relevant because it eliminates the implied negativity of the context the word was used in.

[Kaiser Shepard]

What Dean said.

[Weskerr]

Warlocomotf wrote...


I did not misunderstand what you said. You said self interested desired are always in competition with each other- they're not. Sometimes they might well be, but they're not automatically or by definition.

Cooperation can be in the interest of all parties, and self interest is not by definition in competition with another's self interest. If it were in fact by definition against another's self interest, than many things would suddenly no longer fall under self-interest.

You are misunderstanding me. You think I'm claiming that one person's self-interests are always in competition with another's self-interests. I did not claim this. In fact, you're agreeing with what I did say.

Warlocomotf wrote...
People do things that help others, if you want to argue that everything is in self interest because "doing something to help others makes you feel good about yourself" then you can't argue that this somehow means your interests are automatically in conflict with others.

Again, you're attributing something to me that I didn't say. I never said that because everything is done out of self-interest cooperation is impossible. Cooperation is possible because the parties involve share the same self-interests.

[Weskerr]

Warlocomotf wrote...



The definition of semantics:

The meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence,

Discussing the meaning of the term 'self-intrest' or what falls or does not fall under it is semantics. Sometimes argueing semantics can be relevant to a discussion- however in this case it is not; because the term was clearly used as a negative term to describe the Asari- which means that a discussion as to what the poster meant by the word could be relevant, but the argument that there's no such thing as a selfless act is not relevant because it eliminates the implied negativity of the context the word was used in.

You'll have to point out to me where, in any of my posts, I discussed the meaning of "self-interest." I thought everyone agreed on its meaning since no one contested anyone else's use of the term.

[Warlocomotf]

Weskerr wrote...

You are misunderstanding me. You think I'm claiming that one person's self-interests are always in competition with another's self-interests. I did not claim this. In fact, you're agreeing with what I did say.

Ahh, I get what you meant now. In that case you ignored the question posed to you. If you have compelling evidence that the Asari is open and welcoming to new species- than what compelling evidence do you have to argue that the Asari wish to dominate or alike?

Or; what reason do you have to believe that the Asari's self interests are a bad thing for the galactic community?

[Virginian]

I don't know.

It would depend on a lot of things.

1. How bad is Shepard treated at trial.
2. Liara is my Femshep's lover.
3. My own personal dislike of most humans I meet in real life.
4. Which one is easier (later playthrough would do the opposite)
5. Which one gets Udina killed and Anderson saved (if either is even a possibility)
6. My mood good or bad.
7. Will the asari reward me with asari concubines? Parade? Statue? (I WANT A FEMSHEP STATUE THAT LOOKS LIKE MY FEMSHEP NOT SOME GENERIC MALE WARRIOR ALA DA2)
8. Which one will let me kill TIM (later playthroughs I will save him just to see the difference, if at all possible)

[Destroy Raiden_]

It depends if Earth can be saved if it looks possible for me I'll chose Earth over the Asari.

[RAF1940]

Destroy Raiden wrote...

It depends if Earth can be saved if it looks possible for me I'll chose Earth over the Asari.

It isn't really Thessia vs. Earth; it's humans or asari.

[RAF1940]

Virginian wrote...
6. My mood good or bad.

LMAO 

[HiddenKING]

E. Honda is boss!

Modifié par HiddenKING, 21 août 2011 - 05:44 .

[DRUNK_CANADIAN]

Xilizhra wrote...

RAF1940 wrote...

I don't think a higher population is really a good reason (quote won't work on my phone).

All right. So you should save fewer people because... why, exactly?

They are my people.

That alone should be enough, some things can't be explained in pure simplistic mathematics. Same reason you care for your own family and provide for them, and not for some other random person's family.

[RAF1940]

DRUNK_CANADIAN wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

RAF1940 wrote...

I don't think a higher population is really a good reason (quote won't work on my phone).

All right. So you should save fewer people because... why, exactly?

They are my people.

That alone should be enough, some things can't be explained in pure simplistic mathematics. Same reason you care for your own family and provide for them, and not for some other random person's family.

Exactly!

[Weskerr]

Warlocomotf wrote...

Weskerr wrote...

You are misunderstanding me. You think I'm claiming that one person's self-interests are always in competition with another's self-interests. I did not claim this. In fact, you're agreeing with what I did say.

Ahh, I get what you meant now. In that case you ignored the question posed to you. If you have compelling evidence that the Asari is open and welcoming to new species- than what compelling evidence do you have to argue that the Asari wish to dominate or alike?

Or; what reason do you have to believe that the Asari's self interests are a bad thing for the galactic community?

Well I'll answer the second question first. I don't believe that self-interest is inherantly bad.  I believe that self-interest is just a fact of human nature. Based on this belief, I think any action one takes is based on self-interest:

If the Asari want to cooperate with other species, it's because (they think) it best serves their self-interests. They may think that waring with the other species to gain dominance over them is too risky and too costly, or they may think that it would be impossible to win. If they lost, then they would have gained nothing and would probably be in a worse position than before they made war. Being at peace best serves their interests.

To answer your first question, I believe that it is naive to think that neither the Asari, nor the Turians, nor the Salarians, nor the Humans want dominance over anyone else. I think they all wish to have control and the upper hand, but they think that being peaceful with one another is better than waring with one another because the former better serves their self-interests than the latter. In this case, peace has less risk involved than war. They believe that the benefits that come with peace outweigh the possible benefits that come with winning a risky, unpredicatable war. Even if everyone chooses peace over war, you can count on each species secretly developing technologies that give them an edge over their counterparts.

What we know for certain is that the Asari understand that war is a reality. If they didn't understand this, then they would not have a military. Their military exists to protect and promote their self-interests just like the other species' militaries exist to protect and promote their own. Self-interest guarantees that war will always exist. If altruism and selflessness were a fact of human nature, then there would never be war.

[Asari_Party]

Yes

Liara is my LI and Shepard doesn't want to sleep on the couch.

[RAF1940]

Roxy12 wrote...

Yes

Liara is my LI and Shepard doesn't want to sleep on the couch.

Liara is disconnected from society though. I'd say she cares more about Shep than the asari.

[ashwind]

No.

Even if I were an Asari, I would still save humanity instead of the Asaris.

Reason:
Asari enjoy very long life span, they always produce Asari babies no matter what/who they mate with. Even if Liara is the only Asari left, in a few hundred years, the galaxy will be full of smur... I mean asari again.

Humanity on the other hand would be extinct if we do not have a healthy population 

p/s: Have no fear Asari, Shepard will mate with Liara non stop to revive your people :devil:

Modifié par ashwind, 21 août 2011 - 06:15 .

[Wulfram]

The Asari only start having kids after 350 years of life. Which means a very slow and fragile population recovery. And also that mating with Liara is purely recreational.

[Lotion Soronarr]

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...

Well, if the asari race (as in, every single last one of them) agreed to let me bang whoever I wanted when I wanted, I might consider saving the asari.

If I save humantiy, I could get all the babes I want. Who needs the squidheads?