1667 réponses à ce sujet

[111987]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

111987 wrote...

I think that's a tough question. There are both strengths and weaknesses of both systems. I wouldn't presume to know which ultimately is better.

Regarding the fight against the Reapers though, I would say that true unity is more important than a 'competitive' alliance. I feel that if any side falters against the Reapers, pretty much everyone else will be doomed.

I'm not asking which you think is ultimately better. I'm asking which one you lean towards more.

Capitalism believes that competitive-arrangements spur more output and good. Socialism believes that true unity is both possible and desirable.

Both obviously have flaws. Capitalistic thought can turn from 'seek the best path to maximize your gains' to 'sabaogate your rivals': competition, rather than cooperation.  Communist belief of economic 'true unity' fails to accept that true unity is not possible, and does not exist, and that the inequalities will remain. One can see maximum-advantage turn into self-destruction: the other can ignore that people pursue personal advantage regardless of the form.


Without going into specific ME3 spoilers, for example, I can say that none of the other species and governments in Shepard's group are believers in 'True Unity': perhaps the only person who is is Shepard. We saw this in the E3 demos, for example, when the Krogan leader (Wrex or Wreave) is holding cooperation with the Turians hostage to the retrieval of fertile females. The Quarians are fighting the Geth for the homeworld, and the Geth are fighting for the Reapers for their own reason.  Heavy spoilers reveal even more.

Cerberus is not somehow exceptional in its pursuit of its own interest: most the groups in the galaxy are not only pursuing their own interests, but holding their Unity hostage to Shepard helping them do so. (This would be the socialist-fallacy of ignoring human nature to focus on individuals who express greed, while capitalism accepts human greed as a matter of course.)

Discussing ME3 spoilers, which I am unaware of, would be meta-gaming.

True unity in my book just means every race in one alliance, rather than multiple races in multiple alliances.

I don't think my personal views are really relevant.

[Dean_the_Young]

111987 wrote...

Discussing ME3 spoilers, which I am unaware of, would be meta-gaming.

True unity in my book just means every race in one alliance, rather than multiple races in multiple alliances.

I don't think my personal views are really relevant.

It helps give context to your thought process.

Cerberus being self-interested, for example, doesn't mean it couldn't be part of that one alliance. That's a 'capitalistic' view: that common cause doesn't mean universal common interests.

Where you get that 'Cerberus prioritizes it's interests' disputes with True Unity is the real question, but one that could be explained by a personal belief in collectivist belief systems.

[111987]

Saphra Deden wrote...

111987 wrote...

True unity in my book just means every race in one alliance, rather than multiple races in multiple alliances.

I don't think my personal views are really relevant.

It must be convenient to just invent your own definitions of concepts.

Is that why you won't really address Dean's post?

If you don't like the concept of 'true unity', than just get rid of the 'true'. Unity in the context of the Reaper War means every race is unified, in one alliance.

I did address Dean's post.

[naledgeborn]

In regards to the on-going morality dispute attached to the Collector base decision..

This has been raging for about 30 pages or so and I feel it's time I officially throw my lot in with the people who chose to preserve the base.

I can't help but notice that most arguments in favor of destroying the base is dependent on a personal ethical view of the base and its apparent functionality rather than a tactical one. Therefore they're for the most part foolish and narrow-minded. 

One argument in particular I find amusing. The base is an "abomination". How one can apply "abominable", a morally bound adjective, to describe an inanimate technological construct confuses me. The base at it's foundation is knowledge. Like a weapon, knowledge could be used for "good" or "evil" but remains inherently amoral. 

Earlier in this thread I demonstrated this in practice through the example of technology, and by extension knowledge, being used to both power nuclear warheads (that can potentially end millions of lives) and the construction of artificial pacemakers (that potentially saves millions of lives). It's all dependent on the application of said technology.

Another thing that I find amusing is the hypocrisy tied to the "Blind Paragon" logic. If one looks closely within the context of Mass Effect 2 itself one would be aware that the final decision in "Mordin: Old Blood" is a direct microcosm of the controversial "Collector Base Decision" with the distinct difference being that the ultimate Paragon/Renegade decisions/outcomes of these missions are on the opposing sides of the moral spectrum.

In the ending of Old Blood, Paragon Shepard rationalizes that using the cure would be wrong. "It's tainted" are the exact words used to describe P. Shepard's ethical stance. Mordin counters with the logic that preserving the Cure would mean that the human and krogan lives expended in making an unfinished cure viable wouldn't have been in vain. With Mordin's logic in tow the decision, according to Shepard, has a moral reversal of sorts. Paragons are apparently completely fine with this.

Fast-forward >> half a dozen loyalty missions later and Paragon Shepard is again presented with the same moral dilemma. However this time preserving the Collector Base is at the bottom of the dialogue wheel and therefore "wrong". Wouldn't the same logic Mordin used during Old Blood apply here? The Collector base is certainly "tainted". However destroying the Collector Base would ensure that the deaths of all of the Collector's victims would have been for nothing. Preserving the base is a way to honor their sacrifice.

So why do I see the very same so-called "Paragons" who preserved the Genophage Cure arguing in favor of destroying the Collector Base? Is it because of the selfish and petty grudge they have with TIM and Cerberus or is it the blind hypocrisy that comes along with Bio Ware's failed attempt at a morality spectrum?

Just my dos centavos.

Modifié par naledgeborn, 07 décembre 2011 - 09:20 .

[111987]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

111987 wrote...

Discussing ME3 spoilers, which I am unaware of, would be meta-gaming.

True unity in my book just means every race in one alliance, rather than multiple races in multiple alliances.

I don't think my personal views are really relevant.

It helps give context to your thought process.

Cerberus being self-interested, for example, doesn't mean it couldn't be part of that one alliance. That's a 'capitalistic' view: that common cause doesn't mean universal common interests.

Where you get that 'Cerberus prioritizes it's interests' disputes with True Unity is the real question, but one that could be explained by a personal belief in collectivist belief systems.

When people, governments, or whatever are uunified in an alliance, that member of that alliance all have a common goal. in this case, defeating the Reapers.

However, Cerberus has two main goals; defeat the Reapers, and secure human dominance. That second goal is dangerous as it likely would put Cerberus at odds with the rest of the galaxy.

[Dean_the_Young]

111987 wrote...

When people, governments, or whatever are uunified in an alliance, that member of that alliance all have a common goal. in this case, defeating the Reapers.

However, Cerberus has two main goals; defeat the Reapers, and secure human dominance. That second goal is dangerous as it likely would put Cerberus at odds with the rest of the galaxy.

All those other people, governments, and whatever also have other goals as well: their own interests.

The Council wants to beat the Reapers, and also stay top-dog. The Krogan want to beat the Reapers, and cure the genophage. The Quarians want to beat the Reapers, and beat the Geth. The Geth want to beat the Reapers, and not have to change their way of 'life.' The Terminus want to beat the Reapers, and not fall under Council influence. The Salarians want to beat the Reapers, but not set up another species like the Krogan to become threats down the road. Etc. The Hanar want to beat the Reapers, and not be sacrificed in the name of the greater good.

The thing about unified alliances is that they never have been all that unified: they have a common goal, but they don't share common interests by the nature of being in an alliance. That's just the nature of cooperation: you agree to work together because it's in your interests, but no one completely renounces their own interests.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 07 décembre 2011 - 07:00 .

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...

What? I guess if you were so smart you wouldn't need to study to understand the material in college? Is that what you're saying?

You aren't making any sense. You need to tone it down.

You always find a way to take everything out of context and completely miss the point.

[naledgeborn]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

All those other people, governments, and whatever also have other goals as well: their own interests.

The Council wants to beat the Reapers, and also stay top-dog. The Krogan want to beat the Reapers, and cure the genophage. The Quarians want to beat the Reapers, and beat the Geth. The Geth want to beat the Reapers, and not have to change their way of 'life.' The Terminus want to beat the Reapers, and not fall under Council influence. The Salarians want to beat the Reapers, but not set up another species like the Krogan to become threats down the road. Etc. The Hanar want to beat the Reapers, and not be sacrificed in the name of the greater good.

The thing about unified alliances is that they never have been all that unified: they have a common goal, but they don't share common interests by the nature of being in an alliance. That's just the nature of cooperation: you agree to work together because it's in your interests, but no one completely renounces their own interests.

I bet Stalin was glad he kept Churchill on speed dial when the Third Reich marched on the Soviet Union.

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...
You are stretching further and further these days to try and make Cerberus looks bad.

And I like every second of it.

Not that it's enough, since I'm so sick of the human superiority cliche that I want to be able to kill everyone that as so a much utters the words about it in the game. Mow them all down like ignorant neanderthals they are.

[Dean_the_Young]

naledgeborn wrote...

I bet Stalin was glad he kept Churchill on speed dial when the Third Reich marched on the Soviet Union.

I didn't want to invoke it, but WW2 is probably the best example of how the biggest alliances include different viewpoints.

Of course, the WW2 allies were split between East and West, with the East being, well, the Soviets alone effectively, and the West having the greatest common-interests of any contemporary alliance in the last century.

[PauseforEffect]

Saphra Deden wrote...

PrimalEden wrote...

<_<
*sigh* Why did the OP feel it necessary to post this?

Probably the same reason you were compelled to make that worthless post that contributed absolutely nothing to the discussion.

Can't you at least make an effort?

Did you save or destroy the Collector base? Assuming you had saved it how would you react when Cerberus takes sides with the Reapers?

Because I'm addressing the OP's title about rubbing in a sore point. Why I am obligated to participate in what is your own debate is another thing altogether.
I already gave my reasons for blowing up the Collector base for the same reason that Shepard has to fight Cerberus. They were going to be a hindrance to Shepard's efforts. Whether deliberately or unintentionally was what was in the air until ME3 was introduced. So while it's not much of a surprise for those who don't trust Cerberus with it to begin with, neither does it make it right for us to go around saying, "I told you so" to those who kept the base.

[111987]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

111987 wrote...

When people, governments, or whatever are uunified in an alliance, that member of that alliance all have a common goal. in this case, defeating the Reapers.

However, Cerberus has two main goals; defeat the Reapers, and secure human dominance. That second goal is dangerous as it likely would put Cerberus at odds with the rest of the galaxy.

All those other people, governments, and whatever also have other goals as well: their own interests.

The Council wants to beat the Reapers, and also stay top-dog. The Krogan want to beat the Reapers, and cure the genophage. The Quarians want to beat the Reapers, and beat the Geth. The Geth want to beat the Reapers, and not have to change their way of 'life.' The Terminus want to beat the Reapers, and not fall under Council influence. The Salarians want to beat the Reapers, but not set up another species like the Krogan to become threats down the road. Etc. The Hanar want to beat the Reapers, and not be sacrificed in the name of the greater good.

The thing about unified alliances is that they never have been all that unified: they have a common goal, but they don't share common interests by the nature of being in an alliance. That's just the nature of cooperation: you agree to work together because it's in your interests, but no one completely renounces their own interests.

The differences between those other motives and Cerberus's motives is that those motives aren't a direct threat to the overarching goal of defeating the Reapers. Curing the genophage won't ruin the galaxy's chances against the Reapers. The Quarians want to beat the Reapers and the Geth, which is why my Shepard urged them not to go to war and will do everything he can in ME3 to prevent a war. The Quarians are like Cerberus in the sense that their motivations threaten the war effort, and that is unacceptable.

Cerberus on the other hand, their goal puts them against the other races. Like the Quarians, this is not acceptable. Giving Cerberus the base would be the equivalent of giving the Quarians a bomb to blow up the Geth; I wouldn't do that either.

Of course everyone has ulterior motives, but the groups whose ulterior motives out themselves against the ultimate goal of defeating the Reapers need to be dealt with in some form.

[naledgeborn]

111987 wrote...

Giving Cerberus the base would be the equivalent of giving the Quarians a bomb to blow up the Geth; I wouldn't do that either.

... 

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]Hah Yes Reapers wrote...
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I feel the need to adress some rather redicolous fears:

1. TIM/Cerberus will use the CB to build a reaper
There are many problems with this assertion:

- What makes you think TIM would do that? What possible gain can be made from this? It's REDICOLOUSLY impractical as means to fight the reapers (or anyone else for that matter). TIM may be many thing, but he isn't THAT stupid.[/quote]

"Only two things are infinite in this world: the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not even sure about the former!" - Albert Einstein.

I've seen plenty of stupid on Cerberus' part to not write off the posibility of him not being THAT stupid. This idea is more of a hope than a conclusion that one can safely arrive at.[/quote]

Ironicly, that same posts applies to Alliance and Sheppard..and you.


[quote]
[quote]- Why make a reaper when you can equip a ship with reaper tech - thus having a ship with just as powerfull shields, engines, weapons, etc.. WITHOUT any problems of control or human abduction?[/quote]
Unfortunately, that's not our call to make either way.[/quote]

So exactly does that adress my point?

You're basicly saying TIM and Cerberus will do something incredibly stupid and inefficient, for no other reason that it is stupid....

 
[quote]
[quote]- What makes you sure the Alliance of Council wouldn't do the same?[/quote]Who said they'd hand it to them? Giving the base to the Alliance/Council is another whole story in itself.[/quote]

That was aimed at people who say they would give the base to Alliance/Council.



[quote]
Don't need the base is not a claim I would make. However, the idea that is our ONLY option is another absolute claim that is holds no water. We have working knowledge now, and there will undoubtedly be further opportunity for more research/study during the war efforts. Those should be taking place regardless the base decision anyway.

There is minimal evidence about a massive technological leap measured in centuries too. It's just a guess, like guessing that the base won't be needed to win the war.[/quote]

No, it's not a guess, nor is it a leap.

What working knowledge do we have?
Opportunity DURING the war effort? You want to act when most of your navy is destroyed, your homeworlds are burning and indoctrination is runing rampant?
By that time it will be too late. What, you expect the reapers will kindly wait for us?

As to technological leap - all the evidence is there. Tech 200 years mroe advanced than yours will give you a 200 year technologcal leap, once fully studied. I mean - that just basic common sense right there.

The Protean cache jumped human tech 200 years, and reapers are far more advanced then phroteans.


[quote]
[quote]3. We can't give Cerberus the base, because it will do bad things with it afterwards
Another flawed argument.
It puts the fear and danger of Cerberus ahead of Reapers - which is beyond redicolous[/quote]

No it's not. The worst tactical blunder one can make is to underestimate their enemy. You said it yourself, the base could contain massive technological knowledge/strength for whoever is left to salvage it. Who's to say that's not enough to make Cerberus as dangerous if not worse (especially if they choose to strike after the Reapers ravage the galaxy and are weaker than before)? Rhetorical question - the answer is no one. The possibilities for how they could use it are endless (and I detailed some of those in the post above).[/quote]

A load of BS.

How the heck can Cerberus be more dangerous or worse than the reapers? By what abortion of logic can one possibly come to that conclusion? Reapers destroy all life in the galaxy. They come in the thousands.

Cerberus, even with the tech granted by that ONE base, is limited by it's size (and I would say logistics). The worth of the base is in knowledge gain and technology distributed - if cerberus onyl keep everything to itself, then the value is greatly diminished.

After all, a thousand cerberus troops equipped with reaper tech are a formidable force - but against MILLIONS of troops of other factions AND a navy?
The possibilites are NOT endless. they are in fact, quite limited.


[quote]
[quote]The first order of buisness is to ensure the survival of the current life cycle in the galaxy. Sorting out the details is left for later. We only get one shot at survival here - if you mess up, there is no fxing it later. Yet some people glady gamble with the entire galaxy just to satisfy their twisted morals.[/quote]

No. Nobody is going to fight for survival if it means living as a pisspot to one man/race/organization/nation/what-have-you. There is no difference beween that and getting reaped: either you die, or live as a slave.[/quote]

And you have some proof Cerberus would even want to enslave everyone? Or more importantly, be capable?

I'll give you another food for thogutht - slavery is a temporary condition. Extinction is permanent.
The bonds of slavery can be broken. The bonds of death cannot.





[quote]
Assuming the races survive, therein you've posed an obvious threat. If given Reaper weapons, what's to stop Cerberus from wiping them all out beforehand to ensure they remain the strongest group in the galaxy and have a leg-up in control over everyone else, practicality? Who's to say an opportunity won't arise where they can safely do so without damaging the war efforts?[/quote]

With what? Cerberus doesn't have a navy.
It doesn't have the numbers to cover or control such a huge area of space.
It's like saying blackwater could conquer the whole earth if we give them advanced weapons.


[quote]
By the way, if you think that the galaxy will be littered with reaper corpses for us to pick up and use ourselves, the argument that we have no other alternatives outside the base suffers a bit.[/quote]

Nope. Because you'll only have those corpses AFTER you survive the invasion. And if you don't have the tech necessary to do it beforehand you wont' survive it.



[quote]
[quote]Not to mention the base is only that - only one base. Cerberus isn't a big organization. Even with all the tech from that base, Cerberus cannot really stand against the entire galaxy - that's assuming it would even want to do something like that.[/quote]

You see now where a double-standard has been formed? On one hand, the base has tech that can boost us forward centuries and it's absolutely necessary to maintain to fight the war. On the other, it's not enough to make Cerberus a serious threat. Lots of assumptions are being thrown around here, none with sound basis.[/quote]

That's not double-standard. That logic.

The base can boost US (humanity, the races). If every ship gets outfitted wiht better tech - hell yea. The odds just shifted considerably.
I only the few cerberus transports get equipped with that tech? Not really.

It's a matter of scale.
Species and governments have the resources and logistics for mass-deployments and use of that tech. They also have the numbers necessary to make most of it.
Cerberus doesn't.



[quote]
Cerberus may not be big. But in their small size, they're still very dangerous. They've threatened technological apocalypse. They've conducted rachni experiments that blew up in their face, dumping them on random planets where the Alliance had to clean up after them. Their failure on Teltin produced one of the galaxy's most notorious criminals in Jack. That's what they do on a small-scale, merely when conducting experiments (which they will be doing, on the base!)[/quote]

And all of those were easily dealt with.
Not really big problems. A drop in the ocean compared to the reapres.
The races of the galaxy could easily wipe out Cerberus at any time - but they never put much effort into it.ž


[quote]
BTW, there's plenty of reason to suppose they might want to stand against the galaxy. If any organization, Cerberus not withstanding, has the power (keyword: power, not just "strength" or "numbers") to do so then I should doubt that they would just sit on it.[/quote]

Like what? Why would they stand agaisnt the galaxy?
Cerberus worked at improving relations between humanity and other races (case in point, the Pope).



[quote]
[quote]So the whole "cerberus will conquer everyone" is ramping up the fear of an event that is so unlikely, you might as well start living in a bunker out of fear a small meteorite will hit you exactly on the head.[/quote]

No, it is a legitimate long-term concern to consider, whether or not everybody wants to. It's not like I hold a grudge against Cerberus, I just recognize the danger that decision could pose.

Rachni Wars: short-term solution: have the krogan fight it. Long-term consequence: krogan are the new problem. Why? Because they had the power (this word again!) to do it after wiping out the previous biggest threat in the galaxy. It is not out-of-the-question to think the same scenario could manifest here.[/quote]

Faliure to win rachni wars: Extermiantion.
Krogan rebbelions are a better outcome in comparison.
Also, Krogan are a race and had the resources of an entire race - multiple planets, million of soldiers, an armada, etc....
Cerberus has none of it.


[quote]
Let's also take a step back and remember this is a video-game we're talking about, where such extreme/unlikely scenarios that I've been outlining here are more feasible of turning out than it probably would be in reality. It's not metagaming, not really. Just acknowledging that the "extreme" scenarios are not entirely extreme when dealing with a game. Extreme is par for the course and should be handled as such.
[/quote]

It is metagaming, because Shepaprd doesn't know it's a game.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Saphra Deden wrote...

What the hell is wrong with you people????????

I made a list. Will PM it to you.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...
You are stretching further and further these days to try and make Cerberus looks bad.

And I like every second of it.

Not that it's enough, since I'm so sick of the human superiority cliche that I want to be able to kill everyone that as so a much utters the words about it in the game. Mow them all down like ignorant neanderthals they are.

Well...such strong emotions and hate CERTANLY won't affect your judgment in any way. No, sir..

[Lotion Soronarr]

111987 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

111987 wrote...

When people, governments, or whatever are uunified in an alliance, that member of that alliance all have a common goal. in this case, defeating the Reapers.

However, Cerberus has two main goals; defeat the Reapers, and secure human dominance. That second goal is dangerous as it likely would put Cerberus at odds with the rest of the galaxy.

All those other people, governments, and whatever also have other goals as well: their own interests.

The Council wants to beat the Reapers, and also stay top-dog. The Krogan want to beat the Reapers, and cure the genophage. The Quarians want to beat the Reapers, and beat the Geth. The Geth want to beat the Reapers, and not have to change their way of 'life.' The Terminus want to beat the Reapers, and not fall under Council influence. The Salarians want to beat the Reapers, but not set up another species like the Krogan to become threats down the road. Etc. The Hanar want to beat the Reapers, and not be sacrificed in the name of the greater good.

The thing about unified alliances is that they never have been all that unified: they have a common goal, but they don't share common interests by the nature of being in an alliance. That's just the nature of cooperation: you agree to work together because it's in your interests, but no one completely renounces their own interests.

The differences between those other motives and Cerberus's motives is that those motives aren't a direct threat to the overarching goal of defeating the Reapers. Curing the genophage won't ruin the galaxy's chances against the Reapers. The Quarians want to beat the Reapers and the Geth, which is why my Shepard urged them not to go to war and will do everything he can in ME3 to prevent a war. The Quarians are like Cerberus in the sense that their motivations threaten the war effort, and that is unacceptable.

Cerberus on the other hand, their goal puts them against the other races. Like the Quarians, this is not acceptable. Giving Cerberus the base would be the equivalent of giving the Quarians a bomb to blow up the Geth; I wouldn't do that either.

Of course everyone has ulterior motives, but the groups whose ulterior motives out themselves against the ultimate goal of defeating the Reapers need to be dealt with in some form.

Funny how you deliberatly fail to mention all the races.

Also funny how you ignore the fact all governments have the interests of their own poeple at first place. They all want dominance - they just aren't saying it out loud.

Cerberus goals aren't a direct threat to the anti-repaer effort. Quite contrary. They are the first one to start fighting them.

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Well...such strong emotions and hate CERTANLY won't affect your judgment in any way. No, sir..

I just love when people like you are telling me that I have biased viewpoints.

Creates such laughable hypocrisy.

[LucidStrike]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Cerberus defender here.

...

...

...

...Screw you guys. I'm taking my stealth warship and going home.

Ha.