1127 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexXIV]

Luc0s wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

So... Is constant linking of articles supposed to impress anyone?
What is their purpose? To try to get some sort of credibility? To make yourself look smarter?

Ya know, some psychologists would say that show deep underlying insecurity..

Oh this isn't a surprise to say the least. She's been doing this since the beginning. Throwing around names of researchers that lived more than 200 years ago to make a point, linking to questionable articles thinking she actually knows what she's talking about.  And then she accuses me of pulling an 'argument from authority' on her! Funny isn't it?

Yeah good thing you people are above personal attacks and insults when argueing. If you start fighting dirty don't be surprised your opponent is doing the same tbh.

[Dean_the_Young]

AlexXIV wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

So... Is constant linking of articles supposed to impress anyone?
What is their purpose? To try to get some sort of credibility? To make yourself look smarter?

Ya know, some psychologists would say that show deep underlying insecurity..

Oh this isn't a surprise to say the least. She's been doing this since the beginning. Throwing around names of researchers that lived more than 200 years ago to make a point, linking to questionable articles thinking she actually knows what she's talking about.  And then she accuses me of pulling an 'argument from authority' on her! Funny isn't it?

Yeah good thing you people are above personal attacks and insults when argueing. If you start fighting dirty don't be surprised your opponent is doing the same tbh.

So, you're really just admitting you're as bad as they are.

While the forfeiture of any moral highground is a nice departure from the norm, it fails to be balanced out by any cutting insights or demonstrations of objectivity or superior rationalism. Slinging mud for it's own sake, rather than with any real accomplishment for doing so.

The only person you discredit is yourself.

[AlexXIV]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

So you're saying I should ally with he Reapers against Cerberus? I'll discuss with my advisors about this plan.

It'd be a trust issue if I could not trust anyone. But being paragon I trust alot of people and factions. Just not TIM. Doesn't it somehow interest you why the mostly trusting Paragons not trust TIM? While all the untrusting renegades suddenly trust TIM? Weird, isn't it?

Since trust isn't actually part of the P/R system, no, it isn't, because it never applied.

Most people's trust issues with Cerberus are more than matched by other groups they're quite happy to ally with (the Council), and even exceeded by groups they would also ally with were it part of the game (the Batarian hegemony).

I disagree. I think trust is indeed part of the paragon/renegade system. For example I let the Rachni Queen go because I trusted her words while Renegades didn't. Same with the Geth/Heretics. You trust the Geth to be an ally so you strengthen them by rewriting. Or the Council at the end of ME1. Same thing. Paragon is about following rules and trust in others. Renegade is about breaking rules and only trust yourself.

Common misconceptions.

The Paragon isn't about trust, it's about mercy. You can assign trust as your personal motivation, but that's your addition to the game. Not what the game gives you. Mercy is independent of trust, and the Paragon spectrum is no more about trust or rule-following than the Renegade spectrum. Paragon wavers between 'lawful' and 'feelgood' as much as Renegade bounces between 'libertarian' and 'authoritarian.'

This is exactly why Renegades choose the base. They get to the point with empty hands. Because they screwed over their allies. So the base is their last hope. They choose to keep it out of desperation. Paragons have made allies and friends everywhere and have other options.

If that's your projection onto an entire spectrum of people, far be it from me to dispute your delusion.

So, sure. That's exactly what happened.

Mercy is also about trust. If you spare an enemy you put trust in him. If you follow laws you put trust in the people who made it. Basically violence is in many cases a loss of trust. Loss in trust of non-violent means. Authority does not equal lawfulness. Authority is if you have means to force people. It can be by law of course, but it can also be by any other means.

I may do injustice to some renegades, probably you too with my generalisation. But I think it is still motivation for many to keep it. It's almost logical. If you renegaded your way through ME and ME2, will you return to the Alliance with empty hands? Or rather stay with Cerberus? Seems obvious to me.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AlexXIV wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

So you're saying I should ally with he Reapers against Cerberus? I'll discuss with my advisors about this plan.

It'd be a trust issue if I could not trust anyone. But being paragon I trust alot of people and factions. Just not TIM. Doesn't it somehow interest you why the mostly trusting Paragons not trust TIM? While all the untrusting renegades suddenly trust TIM? Weird, isn't it?

Since trust isn't actually part of the P/R system, no, it isn't, because it never applied.

Most people's trust issues with Cerberus are more than matched by other groups they're quite happy to ally with (the Council), and even exceeded by groups they would also ally with were it part of the game (the Batarian hegemony).

I disagree. I think trust is indeed part of the paragon/renegade system. For example I let the Rachni Queen go because I trusted her words while Renegades didn't. Same with the Geth/Heretics. You trust the Geth to be an ally so you strengthen them by rewriting. Or the Council at the end of ME1. Same thing. Paragon is about following rules and trust in others. Renegade is about breaking rules and only trust yourself.

That's how you do it. But don't apply that to anyone.
Trust is a non-issue when making those big choices.

I go with a unknown, analyze both outcomes, then go for the ones that are most likely to help.

The rachni are very indoctrination-vulnerable. And there's no way to confirm anything the queen sez.
The Geth can be re-written/infected by the reapers. And Legion may be lying.

Those choices are less clear then the CB.

Your definition of Paragon and Renegade is definately not something people wil agree on.

This is exactly why Renegades choose the base. They get to the point with empty hands. Because they screwed over their allies. So the base is their last hope. They choose to keep it out of desperation. Paragons have made allies and friends everywhere and have other options.

ROFL.

Allies? With all the allies you can gather your chances of victory are still abysmal.

A renegade player doesn't go after the base because he hoesn't have allies. He goes after the best because IT WILL NOT BE ENOUGH.

[goofyomnivore]

One of the big Paragon ideals(curing the Genophage) goes against your primary ally's trust and rules. So I don't see how you're "following the rules and be trustworthy" doing that. Rather you're taking a deviant or Renegade approach and going against the status quo.

Modifié par strive, 21 décembre 2011 - 01:54 .

[Dean_the_Young]

AlexXIV wrote...

Mercy is also about trust. If you spare an enemy you put trust in him. If you follow laws you put trust in the people who made it. Basically violence is in many cases a loss of trust. Loss in trust of non-violent means. Authority does not equal lawfulness. Authority is if you have means to force people. It can be by law of course, but it can also be by any other means.

Mercy is only about trust if you assign trust to it. The two are not intrensically linked. Many cultures assign mercy for other reasons: mercy for its own sake, mercy as a form of morality regardless of trust, mercy as an aspect of the mercy-givers own morality. There are realms of contexts in which mercy is completely removed from an expectation on the part of the one receiving mercy.


Nor is violence intrensic with a loss of trust. It can correlate, but there are many reasons violence occurs... and trust is one of them. There are many settings in which it is precisely because we do trust people, that we oppose them. That their views and positions are credible enough that we see no mutually acceptable position.

I may do injustice to some renegades, probably you too with my generalisation. But I think it is still motivation for many to keep it. It's almost logical. If you renegaded your way through ME and ME2, will you return to the Alliance with empty hands? Or rather stay with Cerberus? Seems obvious to me.

Your perogative to keep your delusions. When you assign views and motivations to others, there's little else to be said except the recognition of a strawman fallacy.

[AlexXIV]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Your perogative to keep your delusions. When you assign views and motivations to others, there's little else to be said except the recognition of a strawman fallacy.

Well we are just talking here. If I offend anyone I am not above apologizing. Let's try to not be too serious, ok? If I was provoking then maybe for the sake of provocation, which is rather common and can yield a couple of interesting or at least funny results.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 21 décembre 2011 - 02:05 .

[AlexXIV]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Mercy is only about trust if you assign trust to it. The two are not intrensically linked. Many cultures assign mercy for other reasons: mercy for its own sake, mercy as a form of morality regardless of trust, mercy as an aspect of the mercy-givers own morality. There are realms of contexts in which mercy is completely removed from an expectation on the part of the one receiving mercy.


Nor is violence intrensic with a loss of trust. It can correlate, but there are many reasons violence occurs... and trust is one of them. There are many settings in which it is precisely because we do trust people, that we oppose them. That their views and positions are credible enough that we see no mutually acceptable position.

I think you can always apply trust to any merciful action. Be it for religious motivations or some sort of codex/law. Why would anyone be merciful without having a positive expectation as a result?

Modifié par AlexXIV, 21 décembre 2011 - 02:10 .

[BellaStrega]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

So... Is constant linking of articles supposed to impress anyone?
What is their purpose? To try to get some sort of credibility? To make yourself look smarter?

Ya know, some psychologists would say that show deep underlying insecurity..[smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png[/smilie]

No, I'm not here to impress anyone. Least of all you.

Luc0s wrote...

Oh this isn't a surprise to say the least. She's been doing this since the beginning. Throwing around names of researchers that lived more than 200 years ago to make a point, linking to questionable articles thinking she actually knows what she's talking about.  And then she accuses me of pulling an 'argument from authority' on her! Funny isn't it?

Well, the difference is I linked real life professionals with traceable names and places of work[/u][u] and their research can be found on various journals and library sites. You said "any good doctor, scientist, or soldier would totally agree with me." That's like saying "My neighbor says you have no idea what you're talking about." My neighbor and your vague and amorphous blog of doctors, scientists, and soldiers are completely irrelevant here and have no explanatory power for the crimes against logic and rationality that y'all have committed in this forum.

Oh, yes: And I seem to have posted approximately 1% of the personal attacks you've posted against me.

Plus, you think computers and brains work the same way, and I swear to god I don't know when I will come across something more absurd to mock, so I'm going to ride that horse into a gooey paste.

Modifié par BellaStrega, 21 décembre 2011 - 02:08 .

[AlexXIV]

Luc0s wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

So... Is constant linking of articles supposed to impress anyone?
What is their purpose? To try to get some sort of credibility? To make yourself look smarter?

Ya know, some psychologists would say that show deep underlying insecurity..

Oh this isn't a surprise to say the least. She's been doing this since the beginning. Throwing around names of researchers that lived more than 200 years ago to make a point, linking to questionable articles thinking she actually knows what she's talking about.  And then she accuses me of pulling an 'argument from authority' on her! Funny isn't it?

Yeah good thing you people are above personal attacks and insults when argueing. If you start fighting dirty don't be surprised your opponent is doing the same tbh.

If you think my comment was a personal attack than all I have to say is: Grow a backbone kid.

My comment was not an attack and it was nothing personal. I was merely reviewing my experience with said peson so far. Never ever did I judge this person in my comment.

Oh yes, I said "idealistic morons" or something along those lines a couple of times in the past, but that's no reason to be all butt-hurt now is it? I mean it's not like the people at your side are free from petty insults.

This made me laugh sorry. But can you perhaps contradict yourself a bit less? Because this is pure irony.

[Andorfiend]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Yeah, and those ships can survive thousands of years in space, wihtout planets.
And the reapers don't have far superior sensors and FTL.
And they don't hang around for thousands of years.

I am disinclined to believe that you are so stupid/ignorant as to actually need someone to explain that space is big.

Therefore I must conclude you are a troll. Enjoy your bridge.

[Killjoy Cutter]

billy the squid wrote...

My Dinner w Andre wrote...

Sovereign's speech is a pretty standard villain monologue. Doctor Doom gives these regularly.

It's hardly a monologue, he is answering the humsn's questions. Sovereign does a very good job of conveying that air of disdain and superiority when questioned by Shepard.

"Confidance born of ignorance..." he deigns to give some information, but dismisses the protagonist outright.

And yet Sovereign ends up destroyed... 

I found both Sovereign and Harbinger both to be tiresome and trite.

[Lotion Soronarr]

BellaStrega wrote...
No, I'm not here to impress anyone. Least of all you.

Good. Cause you were failing at it.

Well, the difference is I linked real life professionals with traceable names and places of work[/u][u] and their research can be found on various journals and library sites. You said "any good doctor, scientist, or soldier would totally agree with me." That's like saying "My neighbor says you have no idea what you're talking about." My neighbor and your vague and amorphous blog of doctors, scientists, and soldiers are completely irrelevant here and have no explanatory power for the crimes against logic and rationality that y'all have committed in this forum.

It is really irrelevant. You can link all kinds of articles and documents- unless it actualyl has any real baring or provable connection, the it's irrelevant.
Doesn't matter if you link pr. Dr. Super-Science or Bob the Janitor, if what you link has no bearing on the coversation.

And linking some psychological articles and thinking that that somehow proves that me or some other of your opponents in this thread are wrong. Yeah, great, you showed that confirmation bias exists..something pretty much everyone knows already.
That doens't prove that the post you responded you is confirmation bias...nor does it prove you aren't suffering from it yourself.

You could have easily just posted "you ignore arguments! Because I say so". Same effect. At least it's shorter.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Andorfiend wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Yeah, and those ships can survive thousands of years in space, wihtout planets.
And the reapers don't have far superior sensors and FTL.
And they don't hang around for thousands of years.

I am disinclined to believe that you are so stupid/ignorant as to actually need someone to explain that space is big.

Therefore I must conclude you are a troll. Enjoy your bridge.

To be fair, many writers don't seem to understand the basic physical fact that Space is Big, and You are Not.

[Medhia Nox]

You didn't ask - but I'd say: "Cool, I understand why you did it - but I disagree."

I don't have to proclaim myself king of logic and attack the opposing choice to verify my own. ((Not saying you do this - but several others do))

=======

*rousing ovation of Arcian* 

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 21 décembre 2011 - 02:23 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

I'm 60% Paragon, 40% Renegade and I keep the base.

Also Lotion is a Genius.

[AlexXIV]

Luc0s wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

I may do injustice to some renegades, probably you too with my generalisation. But I think it is still motivation for many to keep it. It's almost logical. If you renegaded your way through ME and ME2, will you return to the Alliance with empty hands? Or rather stay with Cerberus? Seems obvious to me.

How about PARAGONS that keep the Collector base because it makes sense? Ever thought about that one?

I'm almost 100% Paragon. Yet I keep the Collector base. Wadda ya say about that huh?

That you screwed up?

[AlexXIV]

Jedi Sentinel Arian wrote...

I'm 60% Paragon, 40% Renegade and I keep the base.

Also Lotion is a Genius.

I bet you made the biotic god Volus charge into the Wasea's room.

[BellaStrega]

Medhia Nox wrote...

You didn't ask - but I'd say: "Cool, I understand why you did it - but I disagree."

I don't have to proclaim myself king of logic and attack the opposing choice to verify my own. ((Not saying you do this - but several others do))

Now this, I can agree with.