1381 réponses à ce sujet

[Arkitekt]

111987 wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

111987 wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Say what? So the humans who legitimize the Alliance are what? Collectives?

The Alliance was legitimized by the governments of indepdendent nations, whom in turn represented the people living in those nations.

Do you really not see the difference here?

Let me draw a map for you. You said that the governments get their legitimacy from their own constituents. I asked you if that makes Cerberus legitimate as well, since their constituents also consent to Cerberus existence, actions, politics, etc.

I'm just following your logic, which does not seem to reflect your opinion.

Ugh, no, because a government is not the same thing as an organization.

So only governments can lend legitimacy to organizations, and governments only have legitimacy from their own constituents?

You'd make a fine bureaucrat. You really believe that kind of ****. I believe in none of that. I only see power: some people have power. Some people do not need the constituents of a thing called "country" approval to have that power. Some cannot have any power without that same approval. It depends upon the country. And then there's the "implicit" consent thing, which is an euphemism for "Let's all pretend that the people have any power over the governments and sing kumbayahs while the actual people in power perforacte the rectums of the civilians at will".

And "legitimacy" is only the rethorical key word that "pundits" use when they have an "opinion" on the state of affairs of some organization or government. You'll have pundits that will debate whether if China's government is "legitimate" or not, for example. And it's funny to watch them discuss semantics like this. It's like watching flies circling a lightbulb.

[111987]

Saphra Deden wrote...

111987 wrote...

I support none of those things.

Oh no my friend, I'm afraid you do. You might not want to admit it and indeed you've gone through some impressive mental gymastics to deny it, but you do support it. If you support Council, if you feel someone being coerced is giving legitimate consent, then you support dictatorships, imperialism, bullying, and a whole host of other things too.

Might makes right, right?

I never said I supported the Council. That system is definitely flawed. But since there isn't any alternative, it's not like we have a choice.

[111987]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Cerberus is illegal, but it is legitimate.

Explain, please.

[111987]

Saphra Deden wrote...

111987 wrote...

I never said I supported the Council. That system is definitely flawed. But since there isn't any alternative, it's not like we have a choice.

It's legitimate then, even though neither you nor anyone else has any choice? That's what you were saying. Species can opt out, but only if they want to be vulnerable and destitute. If they want prosperity and security they must submit to a government that recognizes its own right to violate the law and which gives them no say in how it is operated.

Like I said, it is not a perfect system.

[111987]

Saphra Deden wrote...

111987 wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Cerberus is illegal, but it is legitimate.

Explain, please.

Cerberus says it believes in advancing the human cause. Who has the right to tell Cerberus that it can't? I decide for myself what humanity is and how it is best advanced. The Alliance is just a government, an institution of man, like Cerberus. So if I think Cerberus better represents what I believe then it is legitimate to me.

Under that logic, no-one should be subject to laws and rules as long as they believe they are right.

You see the problem?

[General User]

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...

Other than reviving Shepard and rebuilding the Normandy what has Cerberus really done for humanity?
Or is that enough?
 

They took out geth strong holds during the Eden Prime War.

They saved the Citadel from a batarian bioweapon attack.

They assassinated and/or maginalized dangerous alien extremists.

[111987]

Saphra Deden wrote...

111987 wrote...

Under that logic, no-one should be subject to laws and rules as long as they believe they are right.

You see the problem?

No, I don't. Rules are applied to those who don't have the means to ignore them. It's the natural state of things.

We're going to have to agree to disagree here.

[Dave of Canada]

They're also responsible for human biotics and strengthening them by handing the Alliance their rogue facility at Teltin's data rather than leaving it to rot.

[Archontor]

Saphra Deden wrote...

111987 wrote...

Under that logic, no-one should be subject to laws and rules as long as they believe they are right.

You see the problem?

No, I don't. Rules are applied to those who don't have the means to ignore them. It's the natural state of things.

 

No, a rule when fairly applied prevents the brutal from unfairly dominating those to weak and too moral to defend themselves.

[goofyomnivore]

The recovery of the Reaper IFF was pretty important to humanity as well.

[Archontor]

Dave of Canada wrote...

They're also responsible for human biotics and strengthening them by handing the Alliance their rogue facility at Teltin's data rather than leaving it to rot.

 

They're also responsible for all the babies that died or live with disabilities due to eezo exposure.

[sponge56]

Archontor wrote...


No, a rule when fairly applied prevents the brutal from unfairly dominating those to weak and too moral to defend themselves.

An unfairly applied or morally questionable rule is still a rule though

[Archontor]

sponge56 wrote...

Archontor wrote...


No, a rule when fairly applied prevents the brutal from unfairly dominating those to weak and too moral to defend themselves.

An unfairly applied or morally questionable rule is still a rule though

 

That dosen't mean we should stop making rules just that we must make them better.

[goofyomnivore]

They're also responsible for all the babies that died or live with disabilities due to eezo exposure.

When they were conducting these "exposures" Cerberus was still with the Alliance, IIRC.

[Archontor]

strive wrote...

They're also responsible for all the babies that died or live with disabilities due to eezo exposure.

When they were conducting these "exposures" Cerberus was still with the Alliance, IIRC.

 

This is true but if they were prepared to split from the Alliance they were probably prepared to act without their bidding

[C9316]

strive wrote...

They're also responsible for all the babies that died or live with disabilities due to eezo exposure.

When they were conducting these "exposures" Cerberus was still with the Alliance, IIRC.

Perhaps, but I doubt the Alliance condoned that...

[KJandrew]

I'm not sure if Cerberus are good or not, I usually oppose them anyway. Mainly because my main Shep is a spiteful bastard, they started it by trying to murder me with a Thresher Maw and so i'll try and **** them over every chance i get

[Andorfiend]

Arkitekt wrote...

Let me draw a map for you. You said that the governments get their legitimacy from their own constituents. I asked you if that makes Cerberus legitimate as well, since their constituents also consent to Cerberus existence, actions, politics, etc.

I'm just following your logic, which does not seem to reflect your opinion.

No. Cerberus is still not legitimate, becuase their actions are not limited to, or reflect merely upon themselves and their people.

The children tortured on Pragia were not solely the children of Cerberus personel.

The marines eaten on Akuze were not Cerberus personel.

The lives endangered by feral Rachni were not solely those of Cerberus personel.

The politicians assassinated were not Cerberus personel.

Savvy? Cerberus's actions reflect on more than just Cerberus. Look at the attack on the Quarian flotilla. If the Quarians were a little less knowledgeable about humanity, they could easily have interpreted that as an attack by humanity as a whole, or at least the Alliance. And then the largest fleet in the Galaxy woudl be hostile to us, instead of just TIM.

Cerberus's actions could easily have led to the total destruction of humanity several times. Yet they have no oversight, or representation from the rest of humanity. They are merely the tools of some half-indoctrinated tool. And therefore illegitimate.

For a modern parallel do you really think Al-Queda is a legitimate representative for Islam as a whole? Does Timothy McVeigh speak for all the American people? Were Jack the Rippers actions 'legitimate?'

[Andorfiend]

Arkitekt wrote...

Humanity knows nothing about what it "wants". Most of their constituents are clueless dumb****s. I approve of Cerberus high road method. Also, transhumanism is what Cerberus sees as the only method of advancing humanity. Unless of course one is a luddite, against all forms of technology or transformations. But those have lost their ideological war for centuries now. Begone with them.

Hey, just like mankind itself! At least they are trying something. They are acting upon the universe, transforming it. I have much more respect towards that than the usual "politically correct" do-nothing say-nothing all praise the status quo that you seem to tolerate.

You really and truely believe that the only alternative paths are the systematic torture and murder of children, or to be a '"politically correct" do-nothing say-nothing all praise the status quo luddite?" Are you aware that you are quite, quite mad?

[Dean_the_Young]

Are you aware that you are quite incapable of actually addressing what people say or do, rather than your imagination's elaborate exagerations?

No? Didn't think so.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 01 décembre 2011 - 10:38 .

[Arkitekt]

Andorfiend wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Let me draw a map for you. You said that the governments get their legitimacy from their own constituents. I asked you if that makes Cerberus legitimate as well, since their constituents also consent to Cerberus existence, actions, politics, etc.

I'm just following your logic, which does not seem to reflect your opinion.

No. Cerberus is still not legitimate, becuase their actions are not limited to, or reflect merely upon themselves and their people.

This is an entirely different line of reasoning, so why the hell do you start with "no"? My sentence was 100% correct and it followed the logic at hand, which was corrected / improved just a tad later. You may disagree with the logic, and so would I (for obvious different reasons), but that's a different discussion.

Follow the goddamned conversation.

The children tortured on Pragia were not solely the children of Cerberus personel.

Irrelevant. His simpler definition pressuposed that legitimacy only comes from the constituents.

Again, follow the conversation.

The marines eaten on Akuze were not Cerberus personel.

The lives endangered by feral Rachni were not solely those of Cerberus personel.

The politicians assassinated were not Cerberus personel.

Savvy? Cerberus's actions reflect on more than just Cerberus. Look at the attack on the Quarian flotilla. If the Quarians were a little less knowledgeable about humanity, they could easily have interpreted that as an attack by humanity as a whole, or at least the Alliance. And then the largest fleet in the Galaxy woudl be hostile to us, instead of just TIM.

What the hell does this matter anyway? Since when is a government less "legitimate" when it trespasses its own constituency and starts meddling with others? Never, that's the frakkin answer.

Cerberus's actions could easily have led to the total destruction of humanity several times. Yet they have no oversight, or representation from the rest of humanity. They are merely the tools of some half-indoctrinated tool. And therefore illegitimate.

Ridiculous inane assertion. Your regurgitations are meaningless. Cry as you will, it doesn't make Cerberus "illegitimate" per se. You fail to understand the difference between your dislike of Cerberus and "legitimacy". But let's bite the cake and ask: where could their actions "easily have led to the total destruction of humanity" not only once but "SEVERAL times"?!? Now you are just making **** up.

And no, TIM is not indoctrinated. Not half, not a quarter, zilch. This is too obvious.

For a modern parallel do you really think Al-Queda is a legitimate representative for Islam as a whole? Does Timothy McVeigh speak for all the American people? Were Jack the Rippers actions 'legitimate?'

Spam the thread with ridiculous comparisons and you'll be laughed at. Cerberus being compared to Al Quaeda is an abomination of logic. Timothy? Really? And Jack the Ripper.

Come back with less asinine analogies and maybe I'll be less inclined to puke and actually reply with some content.