3434 réponses à ce sujet

[D.Kain]

jreezy wrote...

D.Kain wrote...

Lol So many negative replies.

Ok EVERYBODY, answer a question for me:

Is it ok to lock up dangerous ( but for the moment innocent ) people up for other peoples safety?

She ceased being innocent when she ran. "She proved her addiction".

BH. Sorry, but answer the question please. lol

Modifié par D.Kain, 01 octobre 2011 - 08:47 .

[SandTrout]

Now answer this, D.Kain:

Does being defrauded justify killing?

[1136342t54_]

SandTrout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The justicars are not the blame ether. Their job is to punish the wicked not kill AY. Samara did not become a justicar just so she is allowed to kill Mornith. She became a justicar so that at the time she need to kill Mornith she would not hesitate and back off from it.

Along these same lines, I wonder if the Justicar Code specifically referrs to AY. I actually doubt it, and I would assume that AY would be covered under provisions for murderers.

That would mean that if Morinth had simply escaped and remained celebate, then the Justicar code would not have required her death. Granted, we're lacking on the specifics here, but since Justicar duties are much more general than specifically dealing with AY, it would make sense to me.

Quite possible Ardat Yakshi was in mind. Remember they would need very very powerful and well trained Asari to kill experienced AY. Its likely to find AY they send a Justicar but the Justicar order was mostly made for different reasons.

[D.Kain]

SandTrout wrote...

Now answer this, D.Kain:

Does being defrauded justify killing?

Yes. I wouldn't BLAME a person that would kill say my friend, if he did it because he needed money to survive. I would kill that preson there and at that specific time, if my friend would be in danger. But if I was asked to deal with this problem and given the nescecery resourses, I would deal with the reason that made the killer defrauded and not just capture the killer.

[dreman9999]

D.Kain wrote...

Lol So many negative replies.

Ok EVERYBODY, answer a question for me:

Is it ok to lock up dangerous ( but for the moment innocent ) people up for other peoples safety?

If they can't control themselves, yes. If it's a condition that being around others makes it harder for them to control themselves, yes.
Tha'st why we have mental hospitals.

[D.Kain]

jreezy wrote...

D.Kain wrote...

jreezy wrote...

D.Kain wrote...

Lol So many negative replies.

Ok EVERYBODY, answer a question for me:

Is it ok to lock up dangerous ( but for the moment innocent ) people up for other peoples safety?

She ceased being innocent when she ran. "She proved her addiction".

BH. Sorry, but answer the question please. lol

I did. 

Answer the question about dangerous ( but for the moment innocent ) people, not Morinth. Get Morinth out of your head, I think she is exactly that, if you don't believe she is that, don't answer about her, but answer about that.

[D.Kain]

That is 2 people that said yes so far.

[TobyHasEyes]

D.Kain wrote...

Lol So many negative replies.

Ok EVERYBODY, answer a question for me:

Is it ok to lock up dangerous ( but for the moment innocent ) people up for other peoples safety?

 Not to bring it too close to real world situations, but if someone was attracted to children, and had sought out and watched innappropriate material of that nature, then although they had not yet hurt anyone they would be kept under close surveillance

 And that seems like a lamentable situation but a necessary response

 If I can use that example without bringing in discussing of the specifics of the crime, I hope that can show how it is not byond belief to see a situation where compromising the liberties of someone who has not yet commited a crime in order to protect others might be acceptable

 In both the real world example, and the Ardat-Yakshi example, it depends on the severity of the risk (both the nature of the possible crime, and its likelihood) and in the Ardat-Yakshi case I think we can conclude the severity of the risk is high

Modifié par TobyHasEyes, 01 octobre 2011 - 08:55 .

[D.Kain]

dreman9999 wrote...

D.Kain wrote...

Lol So many negative replies.

Ok EVERYBODY, answer a question for me:

Is it ok to lock up dangerous ( but for the moment innocent ) people up for other peoples safety?

If they can't control themselves, yes. If it's a condition that being around others makes it harder for them to control themselves, yes.
Tha'st why we have mental hospitals.

And I take that as a yes, and at the same time I take it as you viewing all the AY to be the same.

[D.Kain]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

D.Kain wrote...

Lol So many negative replies.

Ok EVERYBODY, answer a question for me:

Is it ok to lock up dangerous ( but for the moment innocent ) people up for other peoples safety?

 Not to bring it too close to real world situations, but if someone was attracted to children, and had sought out and watched innappropriate material of that nature, then although they had not yet hurt anyone they would be kept under close surveillance

 And that seems like a lamentable situation but a necessary response

So yes or no? Or do you think that AY should be free but just watched over?

[D.Kain]

jreezy wrote...

You just said get Morinth out of your head but then proceeded to tell me that she fits the situation which my previous answer already assumed. Once again, I already answered the question

Ok you think that innocent people that do not want to go to prison are to be dealt with. I take that as a yes then. Since they would have to go to the prison to not obey that regulation in the first place.

[D.Kain]

That is 3 yes so far.

[dreman9999]

D.Kain wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

D.Kain wrote...

Lol So many negative replies.

Ok EVERYBODY, answer a question for me:

Is it ok to lock up dangerous ( but for the moment innocent ) people up for other peoples safety?

If they can't control themselves, yes. If it's a condition that being around others makes it harder for them to control themselves, yes.
Tha'st why we have mental hospitals.

And I take that as a yes, and at the same time I take it as you viewing all the AY to be the same.

They do this with people who have schizophrenia. If they are in the open, they are highly druged and monitored if the case is very storong.. If not they are isolated.

[SandTrout]

D.Kain wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

Now answer this, D.Kain:

Does being defrauded justify killing?

Yes. I wouldn't BLAME a person that would kill say my friend, if he did it because he needed money to survive. I would kill that preson there and at that specific time, if my friend would be in danger. But if I was asked to deal with this problem and given the nescecery resourses, I would deal with the reason that made the killer defrauded and not just capture the killer.

You're a monster.

[dreman9999]

D.Kain wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

D.Kain wrote...

Lol So many negative replies.

Ok EVERYBODY, answer a question for me:

Is it ok to lock up dangerous ( but for the moment innocent ) people up for other peoples safety?

 Not to bring it too close to real world situations, but if someone was attracted to children, and had sought out and watched innappropriate material of that nature, then although they had not yet hurt anyone they would be kept under close surveillance

 And that seems like a lamentable situation but a necessary response

So yes or no? Or do you think that AY should be free but just watched over?

Who would watch over them? What happens when the AY tries to mind contol them and mate with them?

[1136342t54_]

D.Kain is attempting to use a strawman argument. A very bad one at that. His little questions are a pathetic way to get people to unintentionally agree with him about Morinth when in fact he screwed up. The way people are answering the question is if they are dealing with people who have no actual addiction to killing or hurting people.

[TobyHasEyes]

D.Kain wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

D.Kain wrote...

Lol So many negative replies.

Ok EVERYBODY, answer a question for me:

Is it ok to lock up dangerous ( but for the moment innocent ) people up for other peoples safety?

 Not to bring it too close to real world situations, but if someone was attracted to children, and had sought out and watched innappropriate material of that nature, then although they had not yet hurt anyone they would be kept under close surveillance

 And that seems like a lamentable situation but a necessary response

So yes or no? Or do you think that AY should be free but just watched over?

 Given that the risk in the case of the Ardat Yakshi is murder; indeed a fanciful murder in which its occurence makes it less likely the individual will be caught, or will refrain, then I think being seperated from the general public would be necessary

 It is a pitiable situation but when the risks are so high, nobody benefits from having them exposed to temptation

 For your argument to have moral weight, we would have to have reasonable expectations that it is possible that an Ardat-Yakshi can be in the general population and never offend.. and I don't believe we have had any evidence to suggest that is the case

[D.Kain]

1136342t54 wrote...

D.Kain is attempting to use a strawman argument. A very bad one at that. His little questions are a pathetic way to get people to unintentionally agree with him about Morinth when in fact he screwed up. The way people are answering the question is if they are dealing with people who have no actual addiction to killing or hurting people.

Actually so far 3 people DON'T agree with me, by answering my question. So no.

[D.Kain]

Ok 4 people have answered yes.

THIS here is the main argument we are dealing with.

Modifié par D.Kain, 01 octobre 2011 - 09:03 .

[Saaziel]

D.Kain wrote...

Lol So many negative replies.

Ok EVERYBODY, answer a question for me:

Is it ok to lock up dangerous ( but for the moment innocent ) people up for other peoples safety?

Its too broad a question to answer definitively; We'd need to establish the parameter of both the condition if locked up and the level of threat posed to people.

As a general answer I'd say yes , if the locked up condition are humane and the threat is severe (as in life threatening).

If i have a gun to your head , I don't think we should wait for me to pull the trigger to have a legitimate reason to stop me. On the other hand i shouldn't be treated as if i did pull the trigger; Otherwise it would fall in the pre-emption paradox .

On the subject punishing choices: I think punishing Sheppard and punishing the player is two different thing. What may be beneficial to Sheppard may be detrimental to the gaming experience. For example saving the base gives TIM the resources necessary to insta-gib Reapers: Great for Shep , boring for the player.

Specifically on Morinth/Samara : One's a disciplined, trained warrior of great biotic capability, the other is a glorified bar fly with unknown biotic potential & personality. If she would have had knocked out Samara in the confrontation , showing greater biotic potential , then we'd have something to discuss; As it is its not even a choice in my opinion.

Should the player be punished for choosing Morinth? Normally i'd say yes , but seeing how the renegades are still crying over a couple missing in-game e-mails years after the facts , its safe to assume we'd never hear the end of this one.

So i say: No

Modifié par Saaziel, 01 octobre 2011 - 09:17 .

[SandTrout]

D.Kain wrote...

Ok 4 people have answered yes.

THIS here is the main argument we are dealing with.

No, it is a minor arguement.

The main argument is weather being in a crappy situation gives you the right to use dispropotionate force to make the situation worse for everyone involved.