1127 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexXIV]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Someone With Mass: "Overly technical"?

Would you like to view pictures of stillborn babies? I can direct you to this thing called the internet... there are many.

======

As a note - if numbers indicate anything - "life" values non-sapience over sapience. There's one suicidal species of sapient apes - and untold millions of animal and plant life that would thrive perfectly fine without sapience. 

Believing it is "superior" is purely human ego.

Not saying they are superior, but non-sapient being probably deal with death better. To say it in a slightly simplified way, less intelligent life forms may be dead before they notice what is going on. Which you can see as a sort of blessing.

If we keep this discussion we can next argue whether it is better to be alive for a couple of months or not be born at all.

[Random citizen]

Luc0s wrote...

Random citizen wrote...

The problem here is the writing.

Well yeh, but from the choices we're given, the ones I listed are the most logical decisions to make.

Random citizen wrote...

Killing fist or letting him go are both pretty questionable choices. Turing him in to c-sec would have been much more reasonable. 

At that very moment you don't have time to turn him in to c-sec. You have to hurry to save the quarian (Tali). So that means at that moment the only options are letting him go, or killing him. I'd say killing him is the most reasonable thing to do, because he's a criminal scumbag gang leader.

Random citizen wrote...

Strangely enough, all too often the most logical action (given you are not an overly naive or seriously emotionally damaged psycho) is not really offered as an option.

Mind giving an example of a logical action that you would have taken if possible, but is impossible because it's not offered by the game as a decision?

Random citizen wrote...

Killing Shiala is extreme to say the least, but it is clear her condition is unclear so she should probably be put under medical and behavioural supervision.

Since we know near to nothing about indoctrination, I doubt putting her under medical supervision is a wise thing to go. Killing Shiala is extreme, but the save thing to do.

Random citizen wrote...

Saving the Rachni is of course preferable over, for all Shepard knows, completing the genocide of an entire spices and culture. Still, the Rachni are potentially highly dangerous and the planet should be put under heavy security so that nothing leaves the planet in an uncontrolled way.

This doesn't make any sense. You think anyone in the galaxy would agree with letting the rachni go? Shepard and his crew are the only ones that actually spoke with the rachni queen. And we know what the council is like. They'd probably just kill the rachni queen and cover it all up so that no one will ever find out that the rachni queen was even there.
If that's what you want, then why don't you just kill the rachni queen yourself?
If that's not what you want, then the best thing to do is not to inform anyone before the rachni queen actually escaped.

Random citizen wrote...

Killing Balak, its debatable.

No, it's not debatable. Either killing Balak or turning him in to the Alliance are the only right things to do here. Letting Balak go is the most irresponsible thing that Shepard can do. Balak is a terrorist worse than Osama Binladen. You think the US Navy would let Binladen go to save hostages? No. The fact that 4 innocent people have to die is a sad thing, but we have no other choice. Letting a terrorist of Balak's level go is simply a not an option (well, it is an option in the game, but no sane person would ever consider it).

Regarding the situation with Fist, he is pretty small time and has surrendered. But as I said, most of the problems comes down to the writing. I would not have designed the mission like that. Gunfire in Chora's Den should reasonably have alerted C-sec which should be there within minutes.

Shiala  is/was no intimidate threat to anyone but should of course not stay on Feros. Partly because her condition is unknown, partly because she needs to be debriefed and has potentially valuable Intel to share regarding Saren and his band of merry men. Again an example of strange writing.

The rachni are a problem only in vast space born numbers. The Council would hardly kill the rachni given the report. If her story is true, she is no immediate threat, her entire race was in fact victims. Still the situation needs to be monitored and kept under control.

Regarding Balak, If I was Shepard I would of course radio the Normandy to track and if possibly disable and board any ship that tried to escape the asteroid. 

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Medhia Nox wrote...

Did studying the Reaper tech in Arrival end in success? I don't recall - can someone remind me?

Yes, it allowed us to destroy the Alpha Relay and prevent the Reaper's early "Arrival."

Had that not have been studied... observe the consequence:


NOT STUDYING YOUR ENEMY IS ALWAYS A BAD IDEA...

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 20 décembre 2011 - 07:14 .

[Medhia Nox]

@AlexXIV: So - in that respect - would it be fine to euthanize the mentally handicapped since some are scarcely aware of their surroundings?

How about the mentally insane - since their "surroundings" often do not correspond to the physical setting they're located in?

At what point is "life" simply a noun worthy of no more consideration than... say - highway (something continually torn up and repoured - pitiful example -, but I'm at work)?

Why is sapience worthy of any more consideration at all? Simply because an ape protests it's inevitable death - does that make it any more worthy of living than bacteria?

=====

As for "Pro-Life" - I don't think the Krogan example is anything close to a woman deciding what to do with her body. Last thing I'll say specifically on that topic since I agree that it shouldn't be turned into a debate.

One Krogan stillbirth which occurs because of natural events - or even forced - is very different than an alien species infecting an entire population with forced sterilization (or near sterilization).

My Shepard made his stance very clear to Mordin - which, as I stated, is less "evil baby killer!" and more "did you even stop to think? Just how grossly irresponsible is the Council in general and the Salarians in particular?"

=====

I let Fist go knowing full well that he brought the wrath of the Shadow Broker down upon himself - there was hardly any punishment I could do that would be worse.

I let Shiala go because she was a victim of circumstance - one Asari, who seemed free of the Thorian (which is a self-defense mechanism which rare strains of fungus already does) - and perhaps some memories of her time with the Thorian would produce some results.

The Rachni - I'm not sure I would have said: "Sure, go run off and multiply." I think I would have allowed the Council to step in on this - but that option wasn't available. So - I let her go.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 20 décembre 2011 - 07:37 .

[Lumikki]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I'm saying that I am right because I backed it up with something concrete. If I didn't have that backing me up, I wouldn't be claiming anything. Once you do the same, we can talk.

You don't seem to understand what I'm trying to say or I'm explaining it wrong ways to you.

You perception is yours only, you back up your concrete reasons from you point of view only, based on you perception. This is little like selective reading, but more like selective understanding. Everyone does it even without knowing. People picks up everyting what fits they needs and consept of understanding as what they want. More like I want it to be this way so they pick everyting up what supports that consept.

I'm not arguing is your percpection right or wrong, because it has no meaning for what I'm talking. I'm arguing that all you see is just you perspection and no-one can change you point of view and you can't change others. When they don't agree with you. How ever, you are arguing that you perception is the right one, because it's yours and backed up with your own acceptable reasoning. When I'm arguing that everyone can have they own perceptions and it's not any better than someone else.

In simple way You are saying "My opinion is right, because I can backup it with more my options".

I think, You truly believe that you reasoning is the only one to make.

Then you ask others to make you own reasoning and show it as counter prove. People do it, but then you say it's wrong. You do this because it doesn't fit in your own consept of reasoning. It's endless circle of arguments, because no-one can change others options or reasoning as how they see stuff. What I ask is accept other peoples different view point possibilities to exist, even if you disagree it's reasoning.

Like say, okey that's one way to see situation, even if I don't see it that way.

Modifié par Lumikki, 20 décembre 2011 - 07:59 .

[Lumikki]

Luc0s wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

You perception is yours only, you back up your concrete reasons from you point of view only, based on you perception. This is little like selective reading, but more like selective understanding. Everyone does it even without knowing. People picks up everyting what fits they needs and consept of understanding as what they want. More like I want it to be this way so they pick everyting up what supports that consept.

Speak for yourself. If everyone always would be like this, science would be completely useless.

You think scientists create theories based on what they personally prefer? "Yeah, lets go with 'theory X' instead of 'theory Y' because I prefer the point of view from 'theory X' over the point of view of 'theory Y'.

If science worked like that, we'd all be taught creationism right now in schools in stead of the evolution theory.
Luckly for us, science doesn't work that way.


Now, I'm not saying that video-games should be (or could be) compared to science, but when I try to make a logical decision and back it up with something concrete, I try to do it as scientific as possible, if you understand what I mean.

You have point there, but science and mathematic is more how to I would say, less emotional. Even then, some stuff are colored by people personals view points even in science. If they would not be, we would not have different opinions and view points, because we all would logically allways agree the best most logical choice. That doesn't make that choice right or wrong, just best choice with limited knowledge.

That's my point, we don't end in best most logical point here in this forum, because our own personality and knowledge is changing our perception. We see situations differently because we are different people. We make different choices because we have different reasoning. What I don't like is that some people think that they own reasoning is only one what can exist, thinking like they thinking is the absolute logical truth.

Modifié par Lumikki, 20 décembre 2011 - 08:19 .

[ODST 5723]

Perception definitely affects science. Otherwise, there would be no room for competing hypotheses or theories. Those varying perceptions are what allow us to make sense of things and why no one perception means more than any other.  The most rational argument in the world may still not be the correct one and in a argument between two parties, neither has to be right.  However, you can't really argue perception. 

To claim otherwise would be similar to arguing with a stranger about their own subjective tastes and preferences. It's an argument with no value.

Modifié par ODST 5723, 20 décembre 2011 - 08:42 .

[Lumikki]

Luc0s wrote...

No, the reason why this debate never ends is the same reason why the debate between scientists and creationists never end. It's simply because one party refuses to face the facts and admit that they have nothing to stand on, which leads to great frustration for the other party.

What you say here is. I'm right you others are wrong, please change your opinions, because I say so.

Do you understand the fustruation of that message?

What I say, Don't promote you self as God as all knowing, but be modest and think maybe others have some points too. Now I don't say You can't be right, but other hand someone is allways wrong too, when there is conflicting arguments.

Modifié par Lumikki, 20 décembre 2011 - 08:43 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

There is such a thing, however, as objective evidence. Reality is not a matter of preference.

[Lumikki]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

There is such a thing, however, as objective evidence. Reality is not a matter of preference.

Are you sure?

When there is car accident you ask from multible witness what they saw?
Are they all telling same thing?

[ODST 5723]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

There is such a thing, however, as objective evidence. Reality is not a matter of preference.

There is.  However the same objective evidence can be used to come to some very different conclusions thanks to perception. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lumikki wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

There is such a thing, however, as objective evidence. Reality is not a matter of preference.

Are you sure?

When there is car accident you ask from multible witness what they saw?
Are they all telling same thing?

That's a difference in point of view, perception, and memory. 

Not a difference in what actually happened. 

If those same witnesses all happen to be filming at the time, their recordings will not conflict on details they all show. 

[Lumikki]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

There is such a thing, however, as objective evidence. Reality is not a matter of preference.

Are you sure?

When there is car accident you ask from multible witness what they saw?
Are they all telling same thing?

That's a difference in point of view, perception, and memory. 

Not a difference in what actually happened. 

If those same witnesses all happen to be filming at the time, their recordings will not conflict on details they all show. 

Yes, but that the hole point.

Humans doesn't really ever know what actually happen, because it's allways colored by they perceptions. Camera how ever has no personality, so it can show actual FACT.

When humans starts to say they opinions are facts, what are based they own perceptions, they have lost they ways.

Modifié par Lumikki, 20 décembre 2011 - 09:23 .

[AlexXIV]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@AlexXIV: So - in that respect - would it be fine to euthanize the mentally handicapped since some are scarcely aware of their surroundings?

How about the mentally insane - since their "surroundings" often do not correspond to the physical setting they're located in?

At what point is "life" simply a noun worthy of no more consideration than... say - highway (something continually torn up and repoured - pitiful example -, but I'm at work)?

Why is sapience worthy of any more consideration at all? Simply because an ape protests it's inevitable death - does that make it any more worthy of living than bacteria?

I'm not saying non-sapient life is worth nothing. I say sapient life is to be prefered if you have a choice. Let's say you have one heart to transplant. You can choose to give it to a mentally handicapped or a normal person. Choose. Let's say you can give it to a 18 years old or a 60 years old. Choose. Let's say you can give it to someone who got into this situation because he ate too fat or someone who got stabbed in a robbery. Choose.

In some cases you have to make a call whether you want or not. And while judging may seem unethical to you, you may not have a choice because if you don't choose, the result is even worse. As for example both die.

I never said that the genophage is not bad or something to be proud of. I said it was probably the right call to prevent worse. I could be wrong mind you, but that's rather due to the fact that I am not allmighty, not that I have wrong ideals, imo. Blaming Mordin for trying to fix a mistake someone else made doesn't make anything better imo.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 20 décembre 2011 - 09:02 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Luc0s wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

There is such a thing, however, as objective evidence. Reality is not a matter of preference.

Are you sure?

When there is car accident you ask from multible witness what they saw?
Are they all telling same thing?

That's a difference in point of view, perception, and memory. 

Not a difference in what actually happened. 

If those same witnesses all happen to be filming at the time, their recordings will not conflict on details they all show. 

Yes, but that the hole point.

Humans doesn't really ever know what actually happen, because it's allways colored by they perceptions. Camera how ever has no personality, so it can show actual FACT.

When humans starts to say they opinions are facts, what are based they own perceptions, they have lost they ways.

My friend, I agree that perception can be misguiding and lead you away from the actual facts. That's why we have to: Test, Observe, Analyse, Repeat.

When multiple tests produce the same results and all the results point towards one direction, one can safely assume that this direction is true and factual.


Now, my argument for keeping the Collector base is, that past observations have shown that reaper technology can be really succesful. More often than not, did studying the reaper's technology result in saving our lifes. Remember the Conduit, the Thanix Cannon, EDI, the Reaper IFF, Object Rho and of course Shepard himself, that has been resurrected with the help of reaper tech.
Indeed, Shepard has reaper tech in his body and without it, he wouldn't even be alive right now.
That's why we should study the Collector base too.

The study of the derelict reaper, and Object Rho, succeeding in spite of themselves -- the original purpose of both largely failed, an outsider had to step in after the team was lost to the reaper tech they were studying, the outsider was almost killed in the process, etc. 

The conduit was Prothean work.  Although I suppose one could argue that any study of the mass relays was studying "reaper tech"... I don't think we've seen any indication that the relays are mind-warping, right? 

Beyond speculation, what do we have that tells us that Shep has even one bit of reaper tech "installed"?

As for EDI and the Thanix cannon, I have to grant you those, as we've seen nothing that I know of to indicate that any harm came to the team working those projects. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 20 décembre 2011 - 09:23 .

[AlexXIV]

Luc0s wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

There is such a thing, however, as objective evidence. Reality is not a matter of preference.

Are you sure?

When there is car accident you ask from multible witness what they saw?
Are they all telling same thing?

That's a difference in point of view, perception, and memory. 

Not a difference in what actually happened. 

If those same witnesses all happen to be filming at the time, their recordings will not conflict on details they all show. 

Yes, but that the hole point.

Humans doesn't really ever know what actually happen, because it's allways colored by they perceptions. Camera how ever has no personality, so it can show actual FACT.

When humans starts to say they opinions are facts, what are based they own perceptions, they have lost they ways.

My friend, I agree that perception can be misguiding and lead you away from the actual facts. That's why we have to: Test, Observe, Analyse, Repeat.

When multiple tests produce the same results and all the results point towards one direction, one can safely assume that this direction is true and factual.


Now, my argument for keeping the Collector base is, that past observations have shown that reaper technology can be really succesful. More often than not, did studying the reaper's technology result in saving our lifes. Remember the Conduit, the Thanix Cannon, EDI, the Reaper IFF, Object Rho and of course Shepard himself, that has been resurrected with the help of reaper tech.
Indeed, Shepard has reaper tech in his body and without it, he wouldn't even be alive right now.
That's why we should study the Collector base too.

What disturbs me is that you reason that because nothing happened in the past, nothing is going to happen in the future. It's like saying I walk this road for hours and I didn't meet anyone. So logically I will not meet anyone in the future either. Point is it can happen, even if not in the past. And don't get me started about giving it to Cerberus of all people ...

[ODST 5723]

Luc0s, studying Reaper tech never saved "our" lives and it remains to be seen if it broke the cycle.

And your "perception" on this one seems to be countered by the Reapers themselves who have cycles of facts supporting their position.

Not to mention that you're pushing some fairly weak "facts" as evidence supporting your position here. For one, Object Rho and the Reaper IFF had some very dire consequences. Not to mention, Shepard's the lynchpin that holds that argument together. I also am not aware of it being established yet as fact that Reaper tech led to his resurrection. As much as I want to agree, I don't see that as haven been proven yet nless i missed something.

[Andorfiend]

Luc0s wrote...

Lotion and I base our logical decisions (in our "logical Shepard" playthrough) not on what we personally prefere, but on what we factually observe (well, as far as facts in video-games go that is).


The reapers are comming, that's a fact.
The Illusive Man is in danger as much as Shepard is, that's a fact.
The Illusive Man cannot rule a galaxy if all life (including TIM himself) is destroyed by the reapers, that's a fact.
Thus, TIM and Shepard share a common goal; defeating the reapers. That's a fact.
Reaper technology has proven usefull in the past (Thanix cannon among other things comes to mind), that's a fact.
The Collector base is reaper technology that might give us intel on how the reapers function, based on the fact that the Collector base was used to create a (human) reaper. That's a fact.

So, keeping this Collector base instead of destroying it, is a logical thing to do. Handing it over to TIM is questionable, but we have no other choice at the time. Considering that blowing up the entire base is the only alternative, I'd say it's more sensible to keep the base and hand it over to TIM, than blowing up a possible valuable source of intel on the reapers.

If you believe otherwise, be free to lay out your arguments based on concrete and rational reasoning, based on the in-game FACTS. I'll be more than willing to analyse your arguments and see if they can match up against the arguments for saving the base that I just listed here, based on the FACTS that I have.

You are failing to include one important presupposition: That TIM will respond to these facts in a rational and lucid manner. TIMs track record makes this supposition highly suspect.

You also fail to mention that research into reaper tech has produced far fewer hits than misses. Usually it results in the entire research team getting indoctrinated and/or husked. With the arrival of the Reapers imminent the threat of introducing indoctrinated agents that can be actively manipulated is much more dangerous than the default risk if the Reapers are not around to control the indoctrinated. This skews the 'risk' side of the equation much higher.

If we could give the base to someone besides TIM (and I have no idea why we can't, since the Normandy is the only ship capable of using the Omega-4 relay, but let's ignore that) then I think a pretty good argument could be made for keeping the base. TIM however has a magnificent track record of botched Reaper tech research (hint: The thanix cannon was developed by the Turians, not Cerberus) and since he is a black ops douchebag another screwup runs a far higher risk of leaking indoctrinated agents than a properly managed project with oversight backed up by cruisers would.

It's a risk/reward equation.

The reward is gaining Reaper tech. Giving the short timeline until the Reaper arrival the odds of gaining new tech in time to put it into production and then the field seems pretty slim. This makes the attainability of the reward a long shot.

The risk is two-fold. One risk is that the research team will get indoctrinated and fall under Reaper control giving them highly skilled and dangerously placed agents. The most likely outcome of that? They go ahead and give us some new tech to give to our troops in the field. Sadly this new tech has not had the indoctrination tech stripped out of it. Pretty big potential risk.

The second risk factor is the TIM will attain some genuinely usefull new tech but then use it in a counter-productive fashion. Given TIMs track-record that's almost a certainty. He'll probably think he's doing what needs to be done, but I don't trust his judgement. At all.

So of the three outcomes possible from keeping the base (Reward, nothing, bad stuff) the reward seems to be by far the smallest chance, and the risk is large both in chance of ocurrence and potential threat. Worst of all the most harmfull 'bad stuff' scenario is indistingishable from the reward scenario until it's far, far too late.

Still think it's a chance worth running?