535 réponses à ce sujet

[phimseto]

My problem isn't with whether or not we can support Cerberus, it is in how they are written in the game. If they're written as mustache-twirling villains kicking puppies because they're alien puppies, then that's a real narrative failure. There are compelling reasons for both sides of the argument, and I hope the writing team for ME3 is doing their best to reflect that complexity in the game. If they don't, and Cerberus just comes off as an obvious villain, then that's a real narrative failure and a damn shame.

[TobyHasEyes]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...


No reason designer babies would result in the exclusion of genes which can cause homosexuality

What parent is going to choose to have a gay kid? Homosexuals are rare enough as it is. In a world in which parents can choose to have normal children there will be even fewer homosexuals. They'll become increasingly rare.

 Putting aside the aforementioned complexities of a gene-sexuality relationship..

 Is the issue whether people will choose to have gay kids, or not choose to have the sexuality be so decided? Unless you are suggesting a program where the entire genome is constructed from blank, any other program would involve altering a base genome at desired zones

 I am sure many people would choose not to have that part decided. It may not be your view, but there is a multitude of people out there.. many who wouldn't adopt the 'heterosexuality is normal' stance

When you get to the point where people are able and willing to decide their upcoming child's features, there's no reason to doubt they'll have its sexuality be fixed if able to. I mean, if you care enough to have your own genes be customised to "perfection", you'd want the resulting child to eventually pass those on as well, right?

 I would firstly object that your interpretation of this genetic engineering presupposes a selfish intent.. if the intention was actually to make life as enjoyable for the child, then they might promote good health, desirable appearance, no genetic diseases etc. but be aware that contentment and sexual happiness can be found with homosexuality as much as with heterosexuality

 I would also state that if genetic engineering is as widespread so as to wipe out the gene-sexuality-something-that-allows-the-potential-to-be-gay, then securing the legacy of that would not be such an issue.. as there is a strong chance your child will choose to genetically engineer their offspring too

[CrutchCricket]

TobyHasEyes wrote...
 but be aware that contentment and sexual happiness can be found with homosexuality as much as with heterosexuality

Not unless the social stigma regarding homosexuality is also gone. No evidence of that one way or another in Mass Effect.

[CptData]

phimseto wrote...

My problem isn't with whether or not we can support Cerberus, it is in how they are written in the game. If they're written as mustache-twirling villains kicking puppies because they're alien puppies, then that's a real narrative failure. There are compelling reasons for both sides of the argument, and I hope the writing team for ME3 is doing their best to reflect that complexity in the game. If they don't, and Cerberus just comes off as an obvious villain, then that's a real narrative failure and a damn shame.

Concur. I don't like Cerberus - but I can't say that organization is "pure evil". It's not even "evil". It just doesn't fit to my way of life - and I don't claim my way of life is a "good" or the "right" one. In my eyes there's no good in a way that may lead to a good goal but violates any ethic, doesn't know loyalty, uses people as tools and so on. So although it's a good goal to strengthen mankind it's not a good idea to make everyone else to your enemy.

[Destroy Raiden_]

sponge56 wrote...

Pure Pareidolia wrote...

The problem is, what they say isn't what you see in-game. No matter the justification they give, it's always either a lie, poorly thought out, or exposes some other flaw.

In-game they're stupid, needlessly chaotic evil, and they're the only human supremacist group to have a 100% human kill count. They're poorly organized - TIM can't keep track of the numerous rogue cells permeating his organization, which at last count is pretty much every Cerberus operative you've ever encountered, including the Normandy if you pick the Paragon ending to ME2. They're laughably incompetent - branding all their merchandise with their logo, allowing you to be identified by literally anyone with a passing familiarity with them. And you do get identified by everyone who has even a passing familiarity with them. Their intel is essentially useless for all intents and purposes, and often drastically incomplete (sometimes intentionally), causing unnecessary danger for Shepard and co. Basically, the fact they could reconstruct Shepard and the Normandy can only be explained through divine intervention because this is the same group who decided to test the effects of thresher maws on colonists in order to find out what happens if you feed colonists to thresher maws.

Basically even if you grant that everything they do had the best of intentions or was just portrayed badly, they're still dangerously incompetent and needlessly cruel for no good reason. Basically, no amount of philosophy excuses the fact that whatever their goals, the only reason they haven't self destructed is because the writers love them so much.

This, its hard to say Bioware make them deliberately evil in some circumstances when in almost every circumstance they have been portrayed as morally loose morons.

But even the people they hire are questionable mentally the one mission in ME you storm the base kill the husk and find a bunch of scientist hold up in a room she says Cerberus won't save them and she's glade to die to further their knowledge and they all proceed to kill themselves in front of you nothing says we love our workers like brainwashing and turrets pointing the wrong way. There is nothing these guys do I can get behind. For some people they just need the illusion of a excuse or an out for the group and they're in kind of like the whole thought process of you killed that woman and her kids not because you were a horrible disturbed person who loves violence and terrorizing his fellow man its because you mom didn't hug you enough as a kid.  in Cerberus case its not that you wanted to feed colonist to thresher maws, turn humans into killing machines, or kill high ranking officials for asking questions you did it because you loved humanity so much you needed to uplift them and set them apart from those aliens.

[TobyHasEyes]

CrutchCricket wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...
 but be aware that contentment and sexual happiness can be found with homosexuality as much as with heterosexuality

Not unless the social stigma regarding homosexuality is also gone. No evidence of that one way or another in Mass Effect.

 What about racial stigma? Are you suggesting that, given the choice, African American children would choose to have Caucasian children?

 I am certain there are many gay couples having children via surrogate mothers that would balk at the idea that they would choose their child's sexuality.. and choose it to be straight simply to avoid their own hardships

 And I am certain the same is true of many (though not all) straight couples too

[Tonymac]

[quote]Ieldra2 wrote...

In this thread, I'd like to shed light on the question of why people support Cerberus. Not people in the Mass Effect universe, not the Shepards you’re playing – that’s roleplaying and could have any number of reasons - but people on these forums. This was triggered by several instances of people asking "They're evil. It's so obvious. Why would anyone want to support them?" others rumored to have been "shocked" by the realization that people do support them, etc. etc.

This post includes some observations I’ve made about the way Cerberus-related things are presented in ME1 and ME2, as well as personal opinions I have on morality and technology, which have caused me to give Cerberus quite a bit of benefit of the doubt. They have not caused me to support their agenda as a whole, even less their methods. But I believe that what I have observed has contributed to the fact that some people do.

I’m going to put the following topics up for discussion:
(1) The problem of invoking evil by association
(2) Presentation failure: trying too hard.
(3) Of evil methods and not-so-evil causes
(4) The bad name and the not-so-bad reality of consequentialism"

  I snipped this up a lot - just so that I could go through my discussion with you and keep it organised.

On 1)  Cerberus is and has gone rogue.  TIM is now in charge, but it was not always a human dominance organization.  Many of the Cerberus operatives from ME were salarian.  At some point it is easy enough to see that Cerberus changed goals and ideals  - I would tend to  believe that this was at the same time as TIM's rise to power.  I have not read the comics, so I can give no imput from them. 

Admiral Kohuko was found dead - remember?  Inside of a cerberus facility, at that.  There were many experimental facilities we went to - things we saw.  Tooms, akuze, pragia  - etc.  In all of these places there were unacceptable practices and experiments.  

On 2)  I think the writers did a good enough job.  They still want there to be a bit of confusion about TIM and Cerberus until ME3.  A lot of bad guys (think: Politicians) do a good amount of damage control, finger pointing, and PR moves to try to make people believe in them.  Yet the fact remains; if its a politician - its there to rape you, your wallet, and everyone you know.

On 3)  We all know about the death camps of WW2.  While a lot of medical advancements were made during this time, the ends cannot justify the means as far as decent and moral peoples are concerned.  A large amount of live human subject testing was done - and in almost all cases fatalities were produced in order to get results.   For instance, oxygen deprivation was a danger that German Luftwaffe pilots faced at high altitudes.  Human prisoners were tested, and their brains observed after periods in the decontamination chamber.  I am bringing this up more as a piece of history - but I see Cerberus as no different.  The ends do NOT justify the means.

At the end of ME2 Shepard explains to TIM that he will not sacrafice the soul of our species to win the war with the Reapers.  I believe that this epitomizes the difference between good and evil.   We have morals, and we stand by them because they define us.  To lose our morals is to lose ourselves, our souls..... 

One of the things that makes Cerberus so bad is the 'advancement of humanity' bit.  Now look.....  I hate batarians.  If I could cue the 'duelling banjos' or that scene from pulp fiction and let the batarians have it, I would.  They are evil slavers, and for the most part suck.  However, if I do tha tthen I am no better than Cerberus, am I?  The galaxy has to work together to stop the reapers.  In fact, we need a lot of help from races that are not even here anymore, like the Protheans.  Either we stand together, or fall forver.  This means that there is NO group that comes first. 

A hero puts the lives of others before their own.  Would a mother leave her child still in a crib to escape a burning house?  Did the firefighters at the world trade center quit and leave because it was hopeless?  We do what we must - even in the face of imminent death.  It is no different in this galactic war.  We will make our advancements across the galaxy, isolating reapers (if possible), sharing our IFF and technology, standing as one.  If the reapers can make Krogan, Asari, Batarian and all of these other Husks work together to crush the opposition, then we must be willing to stand as effective units.  We need allies, and to work together on the unit level and the galactic level, sharing rescources, helping eachother out, and surviving this reaper invasion. 

It would also be nive if we could re-activate Vigil. because he had a way to observe if a mind was indoctrincated.  This could be very useful in deciding what refugees to admit, and which to leave behind.  We can't  have any sleeper agents, now can we? 

[CrutchCricket]

TobyHasEyes wrote...
 What about racial stigma? Are you suggesting that, given the choice, African American children would choose to have Caucasian children?

 I am certain there are many gay couples having children via surrogate mothers that would balk at the idea that they would choose their child's sexuality.. and choose it to be straight simply to avoid their own hardships

 And I am certain the same is true of many (though not all) straight couples too

Irrelevant. Point was that choice isn't just about child happiness. Also that mainstream happiness does not equal "deviant" happiness if stigma is associated with "deviance"

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 22 novembre 2011 - 04:11 .

[someone else]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Cerberus has far more successes than they do disasters. They succeed and fail about as much as anyone else in the games.

Ok if you say so - but in terms of advancing their overall goals they've got shep & the collector base and the organization itself  - I know you feel that's been worth the effort, justifyies the means [...there's an echo in here, echo in here, echo in here...]

Now TIM and Shep no longer see eye to eye (know they never did, couldn't resist, though) and not every scenario will include two-weeks-all-expenses-paid-airfare-included at the Hideout of the Infamous Collectors.

All their other efforts to find a means of a) handling the reaper threat and ensuring human dominance throughout the galaxy have not paid off.   TIM has all his chips on black - if he wins, Cerebrus is the conqueroring hero, if not, an epic failure [epic in the real sense, not "huge and sloppy", which seems to be the popular def)

Its like venture capital - all you need is one success to turn all your failures into "learning experiences."

[TobyHasEyes]

CrutchCricket wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...
 What about racial stigma? Are you suggesting that, given the choice, African American children would choose to have Caucasian children?

 I am certain there are many gay couples having children via surrogate mothers that would balk at the idea that they would choose their child's sexuality.. and choose it to be straight simply to avoid their own hardships

 And I am certain the same is true of many (though not all) straight couples too

Irrelevant. Point was that choice isn't just about child happiness. Also that mainstream happiness does not equal "deviant" happiness if stigma is associated with "deviance"

 I don't believe I stated that the choice was 'just' about child happiness, I simply said it was wrong to assume it would always be about securing a genetic legacy of some kind. In fact my response above which you have dismissed as irrelevant was making the very point that although choosing option (a) may involve more stigma against the child, the parent may still choose (a) or allow for (a).. in other words, it may not simply be about the child's happiness

 And I still make the point that changing the genes for eye colour, or hair colour, or gender, would be FAR less complex than dictating the genes for sexuality, as there is a much less direct relationship than the already indirect relationship of the above features

[CrutchCricket]

TobyHasEyes wrote...
 I don't believe I stated that the choice was 'just' about child happiness, I simply said it was wrong to assume it would always be about securing a genetic legacy of some kind. In fact my response above which you have dismissed as irrelevant was making the very point that although choosing option (a) may involve more stigma against the child, the parent may still choose (a) or allow for (a).. in other words, it may not simply be about the child's happiness

 And I still make the point that changing the genes for eye colour, or hair colour, or gender, would be FAR less complex than dictating the genes for sexuality, as there is a much less direct relationship than the already indirect relationship of the above features

You also argued against selfish intent. So if the choice isn't made for the child's benefit, what is it made for?

[Kaiser Shepard]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

I would firstly object that your interpretation of this genetic engineering presupposes a selfish intent..

We are, after all, talking about humans here.

if the intention was actually to make life as enjoyable for the child, then they might promote good health, desirable appearance, no genetic diseases etc. but be aware that contentment and sexual happiness can be found with homosexuality as much as with heterosexuality

Sure, I'm not even arguing that, but if you could fix the child's sexuality to not only make sure it'll eventually reproduce like you did (or through less artificial means), but also don't risk it won't fit in when it comes to that aspect... why not?

Also, what makes it okay in your mind to alter the child's appearance to be 'desirable' instead of 'undesirable', but not to alter its sexuality to be hetero instead of ******?

I would also state that if genetic engineering is as widespread so as to wipe out the gene-sexuality-something-that-allows-the-potential-to-be-gay, then securing the legacy of that would not be such an issue.. as there is a strong chance your child will choose to genetically engineer their offspring too

What of it?

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 22 novembre 2011 - 04:25 .

[TobyHasEyes]

CrutchCricket wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...
 I don't believe I stated that the choice was 'just' about child happiness, I simply said it was wrong to assume it would always be about securing a genetic legacy of some kind. In fact my response above which you have dismissed as irrelevant was making the very point that although choosing option (a) may involve more stigma against the child, the parent may still choose (a) or allow for (a).. in other words, it may not simply be about the child's happiness

 And I still make the point that changing the genes for eye colour, or hair colour, or gender, would be FAR less complex than dictating the genes for sexuality, as there is a much less direct relationship than the already indirect relationship of the above features

You also argued against selfish intent. So if the choice isn't made for the child's benefit, what is it made for?

 I didn't argue against selfish intent..  the post I was replying to had presupposed the intent was to establish a genetic legacy, and had drawn conclusions from that presupposition, and I argued that there was no reason to assume that that was the intent

 I don't either believe you have to assume the intent would be the interests of the child. I don't doubt that there will be a multitude of motivations to genetic engineering should it come about, including both of the above, but I am sure in the mass of varying intents that there will be many which will not see determining the sexuality as desirable, let alone determining it as heterosexuality

[FJVP]

CptData wrote...

Concur. I don't like Cerberus - but I can't say that organization is "pure evil". It's not even "evil". It just doesn't fit to my way of life - and I don't claim my way of life is a "good" or the "right" one. In my eyes there's no good in a way that may lead to a good goal but violates any ethic, doesn't know loyalty, uses people as tools and so on. So although it's a good goal to strengthen mankind it's not a good idea to make everyone else to your enemy.

These are my exact feelings when it comes to Cerberus. If history has thaught us something is that when you gain power through morally wrong acts people are bound to form alliances to overturn you eventually unless that you keep them under constant oppresion, and that is only bound to generate more hatred which again in turn would only cause people to try to exterminate you. 

That doesn't mean that I don't support Cerberus or that I'm against their ideal but merely that I wish I could simply be left alone without having to be bound to some form of organization. Not the Alliance, not Cerberus, not the Council. That way I would be free to side with any organization depending on what the situation demands without having to worry that it could backfire at me if those actions go againstthe faction that I'm currently allied with. Alas so far none of the ME or DA games so far allow me this, which is a shame.

Modifié par FJVP, 22 novembre 2011 - 04:32 .

[TobyHasEyes]

 @ Kaiser Shepard

 Yes we are talking about humans here. Humanity has a vast plethora of differing motivations and intents, not all of which are selfish. And certainly not all are selfish in the direct sense in which you interpret the term.

 - - - -

 I would suggest there are a multitude of answers which would explain why someone might choose not to fix the child's sexuality to make them reproduce like yourself, which take little imagination. A homosexual couple might believe they were made stronger by the experience, so make their child gay. A couple might wrongly assume that making their child homosexual would bring about some prejudicial benefit. A couple may feel like it is not their place to decide a child's sexuality, but intend to free them of poor health. There are a multitude of reasons, some good, some bad.

 I also should say that I do not see a significant moral difference between genetically engineering a child's appearance and a child's sexuality.. I personally find both of them somewhat repellant ideas, certainly were they to follow current methods, but my argument is not dependent on there being a moral distinction between the two

 - - - -

 What of it? If your child chooses to radically alter their inherited genome for their child, then you haven't made it so that those features you desired in your child have passed on.. which would meant it was a lost venture. Any recognition of this would mean that insisting on heterosexuality for that purpose would be flawed. 

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

As OP and others noticed, the weak portrayal of Cerberus that is determined by bioware as an evil organization doesn't conclude to a general Badness of it.
Despite some unwanted mistakes, averagely It has had good achievements.

I support Relative Consequentialism with some Moral Restrictions and Taboos. Yeah, deal with it!

[someone else]

Saphra Deden wrote...

There are no gay people in Mass Effect because the likely result of genetic engineering, designer babies if you will, would mean the exclusions of genes which can cause homosexuality.

Saphra Wins!   Thread is majorly diverted to a discussion of a possible genetic propensity for homosexuality and the societal conditions which might incline parents to select it out. 

and on the strenght of a throw-away comment.  Brilliant.  -  Saphra, if you were running Cerebrus, reaper would tripping over themselves to get back to dark space...

Modifié par someone else, 22 novembre 2011 - 04:37 .

[TobyHasEyes]

someone else wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

There are no gay people in Mass Effect because the likely result of genetic engineering, designer babies if you will, would mean the exclusions of genes which can cause homosexuality.

Saphra Wins!   Thread is majorly diverted to a discussion of a possible genetic propensity for homosexuality and the societal conditions which might incline parents to select it out. 

and on the strenght of a throw-away comment.  Brilliant.  -  Saphra, if you were running Cerebrus, reaper would tripping over themselves to get back to dark space...

 Aye well.. I prefer this topic of discussion anyway, and have gone to it willingly

[CrutchCricket]

someone else wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

There are no gay people in Mass Effect because the likely result of genetic engineering, designer babies if you will, would mean the exclusions of genes which can cause homosexuality.

Saphra Wins!   Thread is majorly diverted to a discussion of a possible genetic propensity for homosexuality and the societal conditions which might incline parents to select it out. 

and on the strenght of a throw-away comment.  Brilliant.  -  Saphra, if you were running Cerebrus, reaper would tripping over themselves to get back to dark space...

lol, we've been had!

[Ieldra]

@Tonymac:
You didn't understand my points.

(1) I didn't say I support Cerberus. I tried to explain why I - and others - are tempted to give them benefit of the doubt even in the face of their obvious evil.

(2) You have a different picture of the advancement of humanity than I do. Plainly: every single faction that has ever existed in the history of Earth has tried to gain power, and it has tried to gain more power than its neighbours. Every single country in the world today does that, and every single country tries to use and develop new technologies to gain an advancement according to their ability and priorities. Nobody calls it evil. Ambition is not evil.

(3) The "we don't need allies" part of TIM's plan is not one I support. It doesn't preclude trying to gain an advantage.

(4) I pointed out why the death camp analogy does exactly NOT work. Why bring it up again?

And, as an aside, in my games Shepard never utters that line about the soul of our species. I dislike the metaphor because it implies there is something unchanging about humanity. Well, there isn't. We determine what we want to be. At least that's the ideal from my point of view.

[Killjoy Cutter]

OP: you say you want to explain why some people support Cerberus, but instead you wrote a long post explaining why it's "dumb" to be opposed to Cerberus.

[Ieldra]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
OP: you say you want to explain why some people support Cerberus, but instead you wrote a long post explaining why it's "dumb" to be opposed to Cerberus.

I'm usually not that direct, but: your reading comprehension sucks.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Went back and re-read your opening post, and... nope, same conclusion..

In this thread, I'd like to shed light on the question of why people support Cerberus. Not people in the Mass Effect universe, not the Shepards you’re playing – that’s roleplaying and could have any number of reasons - but people on these forums. This was triggered by several instances of people asking "They're evil. It's so obvious. Why would anyone want to support them?" others rumored to have been "shocked" by the realization that people do support them, etc. etc.

From there, you go on to give a long and detailed set of counter-arguments against those who don't support Cerberus. 

It's not anyone else's fault or "lack of comprehension" if you can't tell the difference between giving reasons why someone would support Cerberus, and attempting to discredit opposition to Cerberus.   You never actually present a reason to support Cerberus.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 22 novembre 2011 - 06:08 .

[Aeowyn]

Why I am not surprised that you came to that conclusion?

Modifié par Aeowyn, 22 novembre 2011 - 06:31 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Aeowyn wrote...

Why I am not surprised that you came to that conclusion?

Perhaps because I've been trying to figure out why / how people could be fans of Cerberus for a while, and that post isn't any kind of answer.