529 réponses à ce sujet

[Sebbe1337o]

It's just logical to do something if the end really justifies the means. I have no problems with that.

[someone else]

...what a novel idea for a topic! OP, why do you care, really? Do you love this much-repeated debate so much or is this just bait? You MUST know this is an endless merry-go-round of subjective values, yeah-but-what-it scenarios, conflicting ethics, personal biases and opinion, and ultimately, circular reasoning. Don't you have last minute shopping or something else to do?

But i surrender - Would I do the unthinkable to achieve the unimaginable? Sure! Everyday and twice Sundays.

[King Minos]

Cerberus is who I believe in. They are willing to do questionable acts to stop the reapers and help us push forward. Humanity needs their own bully. Cerberus is our bully. I have not read the spoilers but I like to think Tim suspects Shepard is indoctrinated.

[Swampthing500]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Swampthing500 wrote...

But there are a multitude of forces operating within the Citadel, meaning that saving the council can be done at the same time as killing NAzara.

Now you are denying the events of the game.

If you save the Council you are decreasing your chances of destroying the Sovereign. It is essentially the same choice as chosing to try and save the batarians.

Stop Sovereign or the Reapers pour through.

Destroy the Alpha Relay or the Reapers pour through.

If you were willing to risk eveyrone's lives to save the Council why won't you do the same for those colonists?

Again, there were multiple forces at work at the Battle of the Citadel: The Citadel Fleet, the Human Fleet and Shepard.

[Dean_the_Young]

Swampthing500 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Swampthing500 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Swampthing500 wrote...

Dreadwing 67 wrote...

SykoWolf wrote...

In real life I would never justify my actions by the resulting outcome, its like saying "hey you murdered 70 people" " oh, but I did it to get rid of a serial killer who had the potential to kill more then 70 people"

That is counter productive......<_<

If someone say like Osama Bin Laden gave you a choice to save 70 people, or bring him down and save countless more people what would you do. I would hopefully stop him and save many more lives, but once more a complicated subject as how would I know he was going to do anything else after these 70 people that he put in mortal danger.

Save 70 now. Nothing to stop people from tracking down and killing Osama later!

A lack of any sure opportunity to do so.

In my scenario, I have a back-up team with GPS and exclusive access to spy satellites. Osama will be followed.

What about OBL's scenario?

The enemy gets a vote too, you know.

Hence my opinion that future outcomes are not fixed. Autonomous individuals and groups are constantly struggling against one another and altering the dynamics.

Which works against your prior argument that you could simply hunt down and catch OBL at your leisure later.

[vvDRUCILLAvv]

someone else wrote...

...what a novel idea for a topic! OP, why do you care, really? Do you love this much-repeated debate so much or is this just bait? You MUST know this is an endless merry-go-round of subjective values, yeah-but-what-it scenarios, conflicting ethics, personal biases and opinion, and ultimately, circular reasoning. Don't you have last minute shopping or something else to do?

But i surrender - Would I do the unthinkable to achieve the unimaginable? Sure! Everyday and twice Sundays.

I have already done my shopping thank you......you will be getting an old fruitcake for Christmas. 

[Dean_the_Young]

Swampthing500 wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Swampthing500 wrote...

But there are a multitude of forces operating within the Citadel, meaning that saving the council can be done at the same time as killing NAzara.

Now you are denying the events of the game.

If you save the Council you are decreasing your chances of destroying the Sovereign. It is essentially the same choice as chosing to try and save the batarians.

Stop Sovereign or the Reapers pour through.

Destroy the Alpha Relay or the Reapers pour through.

If you were willing to risk eveyrone's lives to save the Council why won't you do the same for those colonists?

Again, there were multiple forces at work at the Battle of the Citadel: The Citadel Fleet, the Human Fleet and Shepard.

The Citadel Fleet is not in a position to attack Sovereign. Shepard can not hurt Sovereign directly. Only the Human fleet is in position to move on Sovereign.

[Shepard-Is-God]

The statement is to casual. If by sacrificing more people then you save then no. If by killing civilians unnecessarily then no. This statement needs narrowing down for minimal arguments to be created.

[Swampthing500]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Swampthing500 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Swampthing500 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Swampthing500 wrote...

Dreadwing 67 wrote...

SykoWolf wrote...

In real life I would never justify my actions by the resulting outcome, its like saying "hey you murdered 70 people" " oh, but I did it to get rid of a serial killer who had the potential to kill more then 70 people"

That is counter productive......<_<

If someone say like Osama Bin Laden gave you a choice to save 70 people, or bring him down and save countless more people what would you do. I would hopefully stop him and save many more lives, but once more a complicated subject as how would I know he was going to do anything else after these 70 people that he put in mortal danger.

Save 70 now. Nothing to stop people from tracking down and killing Osama later!

A lack of any sure opportunity to do so.

In my scenario, I have a back-up team with GPS and exclusive access to spy satellites. Osama will be followed.

What about OBL's scenario?

The enemy gets a vote too, you know.

Hence my opinion that future outcomes are not fixed. Autonomous individuals and groups are constantly struggling against one another and altering the dynamics.

Which works against your prior argument that you could simply hunt down and catch OBL at your leisure later.

No, I was merely offering a possible outcome. Nothing is fixed, so there is not guarantee that he will set off the virus-bombs. Other factors always come into play.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

In war, It does.

[xentar]

Saphra Deden wrote...
So tell me then, why aren't you willng to save the batarians and just fight the war now? 

Because the game doesn't allow it.

[SykoWolf]

Man this "debate" is getting heated. A choice between the many and the few isn't a choice, its a one way trip to the guillotine for the few. So how about a choice that doesn't needlessly sacrifice people. There's no such thing as a no win scenario

[Arkitekt]

Swampthing500 wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Swampthing500 wrote...

But there are a multitude of forces operating within the Citadel, meaning that saving the council can be done at the same time as killing NAzara.

Now you are denying the events of the game.

If you save the Council you are decreasing your chances of destroying the Sovereign. It is essentially the same choice as chosing to try and save the batarians.

Stop Sovereign or the Reapers pour through.

Destroy the Alpha Relay or the Reapers pour through.

If you were willing to risk eveyrone's lives to save the Council why won't you do the same for those colonists?

Again, there were multiple forces at work at the Battle of the Citadel: The Citadel Fleet, the Human Fleet and Shepard.

Unless you engage in metagaming, Sephra has a good point.

[Swampthing500]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Swampthing500 wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Swampthing500 wrote...

But there are a multitude of forces operating within the Citadel, meaning that saving the council can be done at the same time as killing NAzara.

Now you are denying the events of the game.

If you save the Council you are decreasing your chances of destroying the Sovereign. It is essentially the same choice as chosing to try and save the batarians.

Stop Sovereign or the Reapers pour through.

Destroy the Alpha Relay or the Reapers pour through.

If you were willing to risk eveyrone's lives to save the Council why won't you do the same for those colonists?

Again, there were multiple forces at work at the Battle of the Citadel: The Citadel Fleet, the Human Fleet and Shepard.

The Citadel Fleet is not in a position to attack Sovereign. Shepard can not hurt Sovereign directly. Only the Human fleet is in position to move on Sovereign.

Soverign needed Saren to start the process of bringing in the Reapers.. Without Saren, Soverign could do nothing. Shephard cannot hurt Soverign, but he sure as hell can stop his plans.

And the Citadel fleet was in fact attacking Soverign. It was the Destiny Ascension which had to retreat.

[ODST 5723]

It depends on the ends and means

[Swampthing500]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Swampthing500 wrote...

And the Citadel fleet was in fact attacking Soverign. It was the Destiny Ascension which had to retreat.

For one, you're assuming a lot about Saren and Sovereign. Just another example of you wante to gamble the galaxy to satisfy your ego.

For all you know Saren finished what he was doing as you arrived. 

Secondly, the Citadel fleet was not attacking Sovereign. It was busy fighting the geth all over the nebula. Only the human fleet was a position to decisively attack it.

You keep proving my point for me though. You are all just disgusting hypocrites.

Actually, the game explicitly said that Saren was needed because the Keepers were no longer responding to Sovereigns signals.

Likewise when you arrive Saren has not yet begun the process of summoning the other Reapers. This is also made clear.

[Dean_the_Young]

Swampthing500 wrote...\\

Soverign needed Saren to start the process of bringing in the Reapers.. Without Saren, Soverign could do nothing. Shephard cannot hurt Soverign, but he sure as hell can stop his plans.

Incorrect. As Vigil tells you, the data file is a temporary delay

And the Citadel fleet was in fact attacking Soverign. It was the Destiny Ascension which had to retreat.

No, it wasn't. The force that moves inside the arms after they open is the Alliance fleet. The Citadel fleet is doing what it does regardless, fighting the Geth, as well as protecting the Destiny Ascension which at that point can't retreat.

[Dean_the_Young]

Swampthing500 wrote...

No, I was merely offering a possible outcome. Nothing is fixed, so there is not guarantee that he will set off the virus-bombs. Other factors always come into play.

There are infinite possible outcomes. By the nature of reality, not all things can happen.

But not all possibilities are equal, nor should they be treated as such. It's possible, for example, that a time-traveling fleet from the far future will show up to beat the Reapers if the Citadel Relay gets opened. There could be other factors in play. But to argue on the basis of that when there's so little support for it is silly.

Responsibility never requires an absolute knowledge of future events. It does require understanding probabilities, probable consequences in light of success or failure, and not ignorring potential costs simply because they might not occur.

Responsible powers keep and gain the power to continue being responsible. Irresponsible powers gamble theirs away and fall much sooner.

[Nerevar-as]

Citadel battle is a gamble, hoping that saving the DA won´t cripple the human forces enough to destroying Sovereign, and that a living Council will be an actual asset for the future.

Alpha relay however is a certainty. There´s no gamble there, the Reapers are arriving for sure, and are going to get full access to the galaxy and wipe out everything on their way. So these 2 situations are not comparable.

[SykoWolf]

Seriously guys (Dean_the_young and swampthing) it is so much fun listening to you guys. everything is possible, but most aren"t probable leading us to stick to assumptions of the most likely thing to occur. However all that is thrown out the door when u have an ancient race of machines leading a genocidal rampage through our back door.