3434 réponses à ce sujet

[D.Kain]

KBomb wrote...

You think they fought for women’s rights because they were being secluded? Are you serious? You missed my point completely and I don’t know if you do it because you can’t come up with a rebuttal or if you’re just really that ..clueless. The point was not that women--or even the children who were secluded---could have fought for their freedom. The point was: it didn’t result in them killing hundreds of innocent people. If Morinth killed her would-be captors, you may have a leg to stand on with your arguments. She didn’t. She killed anyone she could gain power from. AY become addicted to melding and the power that comes from it. She killed, not for freedom, but for self serving purposes. No matter what her motives presently or in the future would be.
And in case you didn’t know: Seclusion isn’t imprisonment. Maybe you should learn that.

Well first then is that it wouldn't be wrong for those women to fight back and hurt people. And yes Morinth is selfish, but why shouldn't she be if she was treated bad? Seclusion IS improsonment, just with couch instead of rocks.

[D.Kain]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

She used the "gun, " did she not?

Yes she did. But she was punished for using the gun before she used it.

[KBomb]

D.Kain wrote...

Well first then is that it wouldn't be wrong for those women to fight back and hurt people. And yes Morinth is selfish, but why shouldn't she be if she was treated bad? Seclusion IS improsonment, just with couch instead of rocks.

That is skewed logic. So, a man grows up being abused. Terribly so. He goes to see a therapist who says, “This man is deeply disturbed. We need to put him into a hospital because he has the stepping stones of a madman.” He actually hasn’t committed any crime, so they do nothing. He then goes out and molests dozens of children. He shouldn’t be punished because they were going to seclude him before he committed the crime? Because he was treated badly and threatened with seclusion, he shouldn’t be accountable for his atrocities?

[D.Kain]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

She was punished for HAVING the gun, actually. She was "punished" (I don't agree with your assessment of punishment, but I'll go with it for now) for being ABLE to kill someone, not for actually killing someone. That may very well have been "wrong."

Now she HAS killed someone. She HAS used the gun. Thus, she should be punished for using the gun.

She actually used the gun because she was punished for having it. Thus she shouldn't be punished for using the gun. She should be asked nicely to stop. And be appologized too.

Modifié par D.Kain, 05 octobre 2011 - 01:42 .

[D.Kain]

KBomb wrote...

That is skewed logic. So, a man grows up being abused. Terribly so. He goes to see a therapist who says, “This man is deeply disturbed. We need to put him into a hospital because he has the stepping stones of a madman.” He actually hasn’t committed any crime, so they do nothing. He then goes out and molests dozens of children. He shouldn’t be punished because they were going to seclude him before he committed the crime? Because he was treated badly and threatened with seclusion, he shouldn’t be accountable for his atrocities?

That is not what happened in Morinth's case. What does it have to do with her?

[KBomb]

D.Kain wrote...

KBomb wrote...

That is skewed logic. So, a man grows up being abused. Terribly so. He goes to see a therapist who says, “This man is deeply disturbed. We need to put him into a hospital because he has the stepping stones of a madman.” He actually hasn’t committed any crime, so they do nothing. He then goes out and molests dozens of children. He shouldn’t be punished because they were going to seclude him before he committed the crime? Because he was treated badly and threatened with seclusion, he shouldn’t be accountable for his atrocities?

That is not what happened in Morinth's case. What does it have to do with her?

It has everything to do with her by your own logic. She had the propensity for doing great harm. They wanted to take steps to keep the public safe from said great harm. She didn’t like the steps and ran and committed her crimes against humanity and beyond. You think because she was threatened with those steps, she shouldn’t be punished for her crimes. It’s exactly like that.

[BlueMagitek]

D.Kain wrote...

Morinth is on my ship because she wants to be, not because I hold her. I am not going to do anything to harm her, until asari reveal AY, no matter how bad at first, and until they release AY. Then I will have an exuse to harm Morinth with her current life.

Morinth is my squadmate, she doesn't opperate on "the end justifies the means". I personally don't have problems with her, other people do. Keeping people safe from a predator that doesn't kill is a bad decision. 

I don't know if Morinth wants to meld, I really don't. And right now it doesn't matter.

All she has killed are the result of asari regulations.

You just said that you have her on your crew, which stops her from killing.  Hell, you take her into more danger than the Asari ever did, who just wanted to put her in a Monastary, the last place where you'd expect to be harmed.  You're basically holding a fugitive and demanding that a government release other prisoners.  Completely unrealistic.

You just said she did!  You just said it depends on what she wants to accomplish in the end and if she's justified in her actions for attempting that!  That's the ****ing definition of "ends justify the means"!   And she is a predator who HAS killed.

She ****ing offers to meld, she's addicted to it and she's been doing it for 400 years.  What more do you want?

No, she ran because of Asari regulations, everything she's done past that is on her shoulders.  Nef is dead because of Morinth and Morinth alone.

[D.Kain]

KBomb wrote...

It has everything to do with her by your own logic. She had the propensity for doing great harm. They wanted to take steps to keep the public safe from said great harm. She didn’t like the steps and ran and committed her crimes against humanity and beyond. You think because she was threatened with those steps, she shouldn’t be punished for her crimes. It’s exactly like that.

Those steps hurt her, even though she didn't do anything yet. And yes, that is why she shouldn't be punished. She should be asked to stop, and promised that they won't hunt her anymore.

[D.Kain]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

D.Kain wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

She was punished for HAVING the gun, actually. She was "punished" (I don't agree with your assessment of punishment, but I'll go with it for now) for being ABLE to kill someone, not for actually killing someone. That may very well have been "wrong."

Now she HAS killed someone. She HAS used the gun. Thus, she should be punished for using the gun.

She actually used the gun because she was punished for having it. Thus she shouldn't be punished for using the gun. She should be asked nicely to stop. And be appologized too.

You don't ask someone nicely to stop killing innocents, just because they were punished for having the gun. That isn't the way the world works, nor the way it SHOULD work. That would completely destroy the planet, guarantee it.

Think what you will. This is my choice in the game and I will make it as I see fit. I think that it is for the best and for destruction.

[KBomb]

D.Kain wrote...


Those steps hurt her, even though she didn't do anything yet. And yes, that is why she shouldn't be punished. She should be asked to stop, and promised that they won't hunt her anymore.

What kindergarten world do you live in? She has killed dozens upon dozens of innocent people, she is addicted to this practice and you think she will stop because you ask her to? I don’t even know what to say to that. That is the most asinine thing I have ever read.

And how does going into seclusion hurt her?

[D.Kain]

BlueMagitek wrote...

You just said that you have her on your crew, which stops her from killing.  Hell, you take her into more danger than the Asari ever did, who just wanted to put her in a Monastary, the last place where you'd expect to be harmed.  You're basically holding a fugitive and demanding that a government release other prisoners.  Completely unrealistic.

You just said she did!  You just said it depends on what she wants to accomplish in the end and if she's justified in her actions for attempting that!  That's the ****ing definition of "ends justify the means"!   And she is a predator who HAS killed.

She ****ing offers to meld, she's addicted to it and she's been doing it for 400 years.  What more do you want?

No, she ran because of Asari regulations, everything she's done past that is on her shoulders.  Nef is dead because of Morinth and Morinth alone.

She is on my crew because she chose to be, and because I chose her over Samara. I scratch her back, she scratches my back. It's up to the goverment to do what they will. If they are going to attack Morinth without releasing other AY I am going to defend her and kill them. 

It doesn't depend on it. I am just curious of what she wants to accomplish. If you want her to stop killing release the AY and ask her to stop, then you will have the right to kill her if she will still continue.

STOP beating that old horse. I already elaborated everything on that particular thing. OMG 
I am ok with her wanting to meld with Shepard, leave it at that, it is not bad.

It is on asari shoulders not hers. 

[D.Kain]

KBomb wrote...

D.Kain wrote...


Those steps hurt her, even though she didn't do anything yet. And yes, that is why she shouldn't be punished. She should be asked to stop, and promised that they won't hunt her anymore.

What kindergarten world do you live in? She has killed dozens upon dozens of innocent people, she is addicted to this practice and you think she will stop because you ask her to? I don’t even know what to say to that. That is the most asinine thing I have ever read.

And how does going into seclusion hurt her?

If she doesn't stop killing AFTER you grant AY a normal life. THEN you have an exuse to kill her. Until you do, you don't. 

Ask Morinth. She doesn't like seclusion, must be lonely and boring there.

[D.Kain]

jreezy wrote...

D.Kain wrote...
Morinth is my squadmate, she doesn't opperate on "the end justifies the means". I personally don't have problems with her, other people do. Keeping people safe from a predator that doesn't kill is a bad decision. 

I don't know if Morinth wants to meld, I really don't. And right now it doesn't matter.

All she has killed are the result of asari regulations.

So If I had a lion that's never killed anything before and let it roam the streets that would be a smart decision to you?

If that lion was ''****** sapiens'' then yes.

[1136342t54_]

jreezy wrote...

D.Kain wrote...
Morinth is my squadmate, she doesn't opperate on "the end justifies the means". I personally don't have problems with her, other people do. Keeping people safe from a predator that doesn't kill is a bad decision. 

I don't know if Morinth wants to meld, I really don't. And right now it doesn't matter.

All she has killed are the result of asari regulations.

So If I had a lion that's never killed anything before and let it roam the streets that would be a smart decision to you?

Predator and doesn't kill should not be in the same sentence.

[KBomb]

D.Kain wrote...

If she doesn't stop killing AFTER you grant AY a normal life. THEN you have an exuse to kill her. Until you do, you don't. 

Ask Morinth. She doesn't like seclusion, must be lonely and boring there.

So she has the right to kill because she would be lonely and bored? You know what? I don’t believe anything you say. There is no way you go to a University and take courses on psychology and anthropology. I question that you’re even twenty years old. You have very naïve and juvenile views---and not to be mean, but very disturbing ones. I think I am done. You creep me out.

[1136342t54_]

jreezy wrote...

I'm finding it hard to believe that you're actually debating with a young adult. He has the mentality of a child.

Not exactly. Even young children  can grasp the basic concepts of morality at least most of the times.