434 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Luc0s wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

We don't need to eat plants either.

Stop discriminating against plants.

Plants are not sentient and even if they are, it's still better to be a vegetarian. What do you think all those animals that we eat, are fed?

Other animals and plants we can't digest.

To raise 1 cow for slaughter, you have to feed the cow tons of food. What do you think that food is?

Parts of other cows. And grass.

Notably, humans can't eat grass. The 'we should eat what our food eats' argument rather fails on the fact that we can't eat what many of our non-sentient animals live on. And we can't survive on what plants feed on.

Now you should realize that even if it turns out that plants are sentient, it still would be better to be vegetarian. It's not discrimination at all.

That's precisely what it is.

(And yes, I completely realize your post was not serious, but I've met plenty of people who do use that argument as a serious argument against vegetarianism.)

Arguing plants are people is indeed a stupid argument against vegetarianism. The applied fallacies of vegetarianism are much more mockable.

[Firesteel]

Luc0s wrote...

Firesteel7 wrote...

To get back on topic:

Paragons are about both the ends AND the means to that end.
Renegades are just about the ends and the means don't matter, as long as the end result is beneficial.

Cerberus is both literally and metaphorically a renegade organization.

Renegades do not necessarily like Cerberus. A lot of the arguments against Cerberus is their rather crappy track record from ME1 and the novels.

I believe that sometimes worring about the means might compromise the ends. That's why I sometimes go Renegade.

Renegade isn't only about the ends, it's about making sure the ends are accomplished above everything else. The mission comes first, ALWAYS. That's the Renegade way.


I do not always agree with the Renegade way, but when I feel that the Paragon decision might compromise the mission, I won't take it. I will take the Renegade decision instead.

My statement was meant mainly as a way to get back on topic. There are plenty of nuances that I did not cover. I will agree that it is not as black and white as I made it in my post.

The equality of the ends and the means can compromise the main objective of the ends, but usually you can accomplish the same ends through varying means.

The way I play paragon, I generally feel that giving people/races second chances has the posssibility of great benefit, as well as danger. I play idealistically because I feel, if you give people the opertunity, people will rise to the occassion. This may compromise the ends, but at least I know that I thought about the possibilities. Also, back to the murder argument quickly. I feel like my job is to carry out the law, so me acting like a vigilanty is not a factor in my paragon playthroughs.

On the subject of the Collector Base, all my Shepards, save my pro-Cerberus Shepard, destroy the base. The paragons and renegades mainly out of their distrust for TIM, his track record is atrocious, as I have stated before. Cerberus is a renegade organization, but that doesn't mean a renegade like and/or trusts them.

[Dean_the_Young]

AlexXIV wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

We don't need to eat plants either.

Stop discriminating against plants.

One step after the other. My sister has a plant and shouts at me everytime run into it (accidently) because it is a bit sickly and I am hurting it ...

And you might be. In that you are damaging its growth, not because it feels pain.

[Ravenmyste]

Luc0s wrote...

Ravenmyste wrote...

i am not saying you are wrong but going by personal watching of my wife who is a vegan, not vegetarian and vegan's tend to be stricter on what they consume and will not eat anything that she cant grow for herself she will anything that not from the ground period! so as i said you want to talk to my wife when want proof of her getting sick its not good thing for immunity system is a lot weaker then normal people...

Well yes, it's true that  constructing a healthy vegan diet is a lot harder than constructing a healthy vegetarian diet. However, it's not impossible.


If your wife wants to be a vegan and you want your wife to be healthy, it's possible. I'm not a vegan myself though, I'm merely a vegetarian. So I can't give you any detailed advice about a healthy vegan diet. I would advice you and your wife to visit a dietician and ask for advice on how to live a healthy vegan life. It's hard, but it's possible, trust me.


I wish you and your wife both good luck! If you want, you can PM me about this for more information.

we'eve  been  and its  hair pulling when one doctor say something along the lines that boils down to  eat some meat. in non doctor sayings..

but she been doing the veegan thing for as long her mother and father been feeding her{ go figure that it gets harder for us to find the  things they she used to eat.

[Dean_the_Young]

Luc0s wrote...

Guys I'm sorry for going completely off-topic!


I shall try to stay on topic from now on.

This is your punishment. Feel the despair.

[Firesteel]

To try and stay on topic, I will re-post my first response in this thread:

I would generally say Paragons are more about cooperation and equality. This makes them more evenhanded when dealing with others, allowing second chances, due to them assuming people are naturally and generally good. I would also say, as a generality, Paragons follow the idea that the path to the destination is as important as the destination. Paragons also, generally, respect life and do not take violent action unless it is needed.

Renegades are more confrontational and about hierarchy, with humans being the leaders. They do not assume people are generally good, and as a result do not usually give them second chances, unless it furthers their immediate goal. Renegades also believe it is only the destination that matters, and the path to the result barely matters.

The belief that Renegades support Cerberus always is completely misguided. Yes Cerberus itself is a renegade organization, but many renegades see their track record specifically as a reason not to support them. They might agree with Cerberus's goals, but they do not agree with their methods, as they seem to have a high failure rate.

I don't know many paragons who support Cerberus, I'm sure there are some out there, but again, Cerberus's less than stellar track record makes it difficult to support them. Paragons also focus more on the path to the goal, and that makes them dislike Cerberus, as many of their experiments are inhumane.

[Dean_the_Young]

Luc0s wrote...

@Dean_the_Young


The animals we eat are sentient actually.

Depends on the usage of sentience. I'd disagree, but many animal rights activists expand the usage of the term to make false equivalence.

And the animals we eat aren't fed grass. There simply isn't enough grass to feed them all. Only the cows that we use for breeding and  for milk get grass to eat. The cows that we actually eat get soy and grains to eat. All stuff that we as humans could eat ourselves.

Clearly grass was a representation of the various plant products and byproducts that they can eat that we don't. Nor do the soy and grains they eat necessarily provide us with the benefits we get from meat.

Please, don't start an argument with me about this unless you've given this as much research as I did. You clearly didn't, so you certainly aren't in the position to mock us vegetarians.

I certainly can, given the hilarity of your moral posturing.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 11 janvier 2012 - 12:54 .

[Ravenmyste]

okay enough with the argument please me and luc0s are trying to stay on topic..

if we dont then i think it will degrade down to what side is better at dieting. Cerberus or the alliance

[Firesteel]

@Dean and Luc0s
Please try and stay on topic so this thread doesn't get a lockdown by the Volus or the Devil.

[Ravenmyste]

aye please

[Ravenmyste]

Luc0s wrote...

Firesteel7 wrote...

The way I play paragon, I generally feel that giving people/races second chances has the posssibility of great benefit, as well as danger. I play idealistically because I feel, if you give people the opertunity, people will rise to the occassion. This may compromise the ends, but at least I know that I thought about the possibilities. Also, back to the murder argument quickly. I feel like my job is to carry out the law, so me acting like a vigilanty is not a factor in my paragon playthroughs.

On the subject of the Collector Base, all my Shepards, save my pro-Cerberus Shepard, destroy the base. The paragons and renegades mainly out of their distrust for TIM, his track record is atrocious, as I have stated before. Cerberus is a renegade organization, but that doesn't mean a renegade like and/or trusts them.

The way I play paragon is vastly different funny enough.

I'm a paragon at heart, but I'm also very efficient and pragmatic at heart. I'm all about effiency.


The way I play my canon Shepard:

When I'm on a mission, I try to do it quick, quiet and with the least amount of bloodshed. However, I do realize that "the least amount of bloodshed" sometimes means that I have to sacrifice the few to save the many. 

I value life, like most Paragons, but I also take my job as a galactic protector very seriously. I won't put the lifes of millions on a line for some petty morals or ideals. If that means sacrificing 4 colonist lifes to make sure the most dangerous Batarian terrorist is stopped, so be it. If that means sacrificing the Council and a 1000 more people to make absolutely sure Sovereign is taken down, so be it.

Sometimes you have to make the hard decisions. I think a pure Paragon is not capable of doing this. However, I can do this. That's why some people argue I'm not a pure Paragon, but a "Paragade". Whatever the people want to call me, it doesn't matter. I know who I am and I know that I try my very best to create a save environment for as many people as possible.

That said, I also haven't forgotten about my species. I'm a Paragon, but I carry out the will of my species. Everything I do is for the good of my species first, and for the good of the other species second. This might not sound very Paragon, but I realize that if I don't look out for humanities best interests, no one will. It's my duty as a HUMAN spectre.

Saren put the interests of the turians before everything else. Vasir puts the interests of the asari before everything else. And I, Shepard, put the interests of humanity before everything else.

However, that does not mean I don't believe in diplomacy. Again, I value life and I would not intentionally harm aliens for the heck of it. I try to avoid violence and I try to push humanities interest forward without bullying the other species. I do believe in co-operation.


On the subject of the Collector base: All my Shepards, except for my idealistic pure Paragon Shepard, saved/kept the Collector base and gave it to TIM. None of my Shepards trusts TIM, but all of them (except the pure Paraogon idealist Shepard) realize that they have no choice. If there is any chance that something valuable against the reapers can be found on that base, it's a risk we have to take, een if that means giving the base to TIM. Blowing up our only lead on the reapers doesn't seem like a particularly good idea.

what way did you go with the arrival dlc thats was very hard to not go paragon much as i wanted to every part of my shepard who is female wanted to put a bullet between doc's eyes for doing  what she made my shep do

Modifié par Ravenmyste, 11 janvier 2012 - 01:15 .

[Flashflame58]

I agree with the OP, but it's more reversed. Cerberus support is mostly given by renegade players.

[Firesteel]

Luc0s wrote...

Firesteel7 wrote...

The way I play paragon, I generally feel that giving people/races second chances has the posssibility of great benefit, as well as danger. I play idealistically because I feel, if you give people the opertunity, people will rise to the occassion. This may compromise the ends, but at least I know that I thought about the possibilities. Also, back to the murder argument quickly. I feel like my job is to carry out the law, so me acting like a vigilanty is not a factor in my paragon playthroughs.

On the subject of the Collector Base, all my Shepards, save my pro-Cerberus Shepard, destroy the base. The paragons and renegades mainly out of their distrust for TIM, his track record is atrocious, as I have stated before. Cerberus is a renegade organization, but that doesn't mean a renegade like and/or trusts them.

The way I play paragon is vastly different funny enough.

I'm a paragon at heart, but I'm also very efficient and pragmatic at heart. I'm all about effiency.


The way I play my canon Shepard:

When I'm on a mission, I try to do it quick, quiet and with the least amount of bloodshed. However, I do realize that "the least amount of bloodshed" sometimes means that I have to sacrifice the few to save the many. 

I value life, like most Paragons, but I also take my job as a galactic protector very seriously. I won't put the lifes of millions on a line for some petty morals or ideals. If that means sacrificing 4 colonist lifes to make sure the most dangerous Batarian terrorist is stopped, so be it. If that means sacrificing the Council and a 1000 more people to make absolutely sure Sovereign is taken down, so be it.

Sometimes you have to make the hard decisions. I think a pure Paragon is not capable of doing this. However, I can do this. That's why some people argue I'm not a pure Paragon, but a "Paragade". Whatever the people want to call me, it doesn't matter. I know who I am and I know that I try my very best to create a save environment for as many people as possible.

That said, I also haven't forgotten about my species. I'm a Paragon, but I carry out the will of my species. Everything I do is for the good of my species first, and for the good of the other species second. This might not sound very Paragon, but I realize that if I don't look out for humanities best interests, no one will. It's my duty as a HUMAN spectre.

Saren put the interests of the turians before everything else. Vasir puts the interests of the asari before everything else. And I, Shepard, put the interests of humanity before everything else.

However, that does not mean I don't believe in diplomacy. Again, I value life and I would not intentionally harm aliens for the heck of it. I try to avoid violence and I try to push humanities interest forward without bullying the other species. I do believe in co-operation.


On the subject of the Collector base: All my Shepards, except for my idealistic pure Paragon Shepard, saved/kept the Collector base and gave it to TIM. None of my Shepards trusts TIM, but all of them (except the pure Paraogon idealist Shepard) realize that they have no choice. If there is any chance that something valuable against the reapers can be found on that base, it's a risk we have to take, een if that means giving the base to TIM. Blowing up our only lead on the reapers doesn't seem like a particularly good idea.

I don't think I stated it quite right.

I make idealistic decisions, in that I allow people to live based on the theory people are essentially good or at least don't want to get my attention again, as I will kill them if they show me they have learned nothing. I believe that if I cooperate with allies, this will make Citadel space more unified, and therefore overall more powerful. I generally see that in the long run, killing random people leads to very nasty surprises and generally less possibility for cooperation against the Reapers. I would argue that Cerberus's track record is reason enough to not give them the base. Most of their experiments have failed miserably, getting more people killed, despite their goals of saving lives.

Efficiency in this discussion is relative. In the extreme long run, I see that cooperation is the absolute best outcome. Theoretically if everyone on the council is equal, the amount of combined power will be greater than having an unequal group where one or two members are powerful, with everyone else basically being figureheads.

In terms of decisions in mission, if violence is imminent, I will fire first, no questions asked. If violence is not imminent, I will let people go, as yes, it could come back to bite me, but so can killing people, so I might as well allow for the possibility of an ally later and gaining an enemny, instead of gaining an enemy immediately without the possibility of an ally.

[AlexXIV]

Luc0s wrote...

Ravenmyste wrote...

what way did you go with the arrival dlc thats was very hard to not go paragon much as i wanted to every part of my shepard who is female wanted to put a bullet between doc's eyes for doing  what she made my shep do

Can't remember exactly. What decision are we talking about here?


I do remember that when I was at the radio-panel, I radio-ed The Normandy (Renegade, whatever), not the Batarians (which would be the Paragon decision).

Oh, and I also shot the indoctrinated doctor. Not out of vengence or any of those petty emotions, I shot (and killed) her because she was about to press the button and I wanted to prevent her from doing that. Besides, she was indoctrinated. There was no way I could reason with her any longer.

The problem with this is always that you can go through trial and error process. I always choose the idealistic choice because I'd notice if it goes wrong. Maybe Shepard dies, maybe the crew dies, maybe the Reapers invade and wipe out the galaxy. But you can always pick paragon and at least be sure that if it fails you can go back to a save game. Just like when you die in combat for using the wrong tactic or whatever.

Would I radio the Normandy rather than the Batatrians? Probably because dying sucks and expecially if you are the only one who is in the position to make a change. But curiousity alone makes me at least try the idealistic choice to see what happens. Even if I thought it was stupid. And then turns out nothing bad happens. So why go back and pick renegade? I think they need to present choices differently to actually make people think about them more.

[Firesteel]

Luc0s wrote...

Firesteel7 wrote...

I don't think I stated it quite right.

I make idealistic decisions, in that I allow people to live based on the theory people are essentially good or at least don't want to get my attention again, as I will kill them if they show me they have learned nothing. I believe that if I cooperate with allies, this will make Citadel space more unified, and therefore overall more powerful. I generally see that in the long run, killing random people leads to very nasty surprises and generally less possibility for cooperation against the Reapers. I would argue that Cerberus's track record is reason enough to not give them the base. Most of their experiments have failed miserably, getting more people killed, despite their goals of saving lives.

Efficiency in this discussion is relative. In the extreme long run, I see that cooperation is the absolute best outcome. Theoretically if everyone on the council is equal, the amount of combined power will be greater than having an unequal group where one or two members are powerful, with everyone else basically being figureheads.

In terms of decisions in mission, if violence is imminent, I will fire first, no questions asked. If violence is not imminent, I will let people go, as yes, it could come back to bite me, but so can killing people, so I might as well allow for the possibility of an ally later and gaining an enemny, instead of gaining an enemy immediately without the possibility of an ally.

You made yourself perfectly clear the first time. No need to explain it all once more.


I still disagree with you at some points. Well, I don't really disagree, I simply use different reasoning and other methods, as I tried to explain in my previous post. However, I'm still Paragon, I'm just a different kind of Paragon than you are, savvy?

Crystal, I just wanted to give a little more insight to my decision making process, as it is trying to predict the long term, though it is clouded by idealsim. I definitely agree with almost everything you said, though I almost entirely despise Cerberus for their miserable record and insistance on not changing anything.

[Firesteel]

Luc0s wrote...

Firesteel7 wrote...

Crystal, I just wanted to give a little more insight to my decision making process, as it is trying to predict the long term, though it is clouded by idealsim. I definitely agree with almost everything you said, though I almost entirely despise Cerberus for their miserable record and insistance on not changing anything.

I think you and I are not so different. The only difference is that you lean towards being an idealist, while I'm more a pragmatic, maybe sometimes pessimistic Paragon, who tries to be a realist.

I'm not very good with trust. I don't truth others quickly. I mistrust TIM and Cerberus, but I share the same mistrust for the rachni, the krogan, the batarians and the turians.

But in the end we have to make gambles. We have to make risky decisions. Sometimes I'm willing to take that risk, sometimes I'm not. Sometimes taking a risk pays off, sometimes taking a risk bites you in the ass. I believe it's different for every single situation. Sometimes letting a person escape will come back to bite you in the ass, while sometimes killing a person will come back to bite you in the ass. And sometimes it doesn't make a difference.


I'm almost always willing to make the gamble. But not when I think the risks are too high, or when I think the odds are against me.

- Letting the rachni-queen go is a gamble. I do not trust her. But I value her life. So I let her go. Hopefully she will keep her word and stay true to her promise.

- Saving the DA and Council is a gamble. The DA, at that point, is a liability and saving it is a risk. I didn't want to take that risk. Taking down Sovereign was my top priority. I sacrificed the Council. Maybe in vain, but at that point I believed it was the right thing to do.

- Letting Balak go is a gamble. He has proven to be a real dangerous terrorist who is capable of destroying an entire colony. Letting him go would mean I could save the lifes of the 4 colonists. However, it would give Balak the chance to strike again in the future. It's a risk I did not want to take. So I went after Balak and turned him in. The 4 colonists were sacrificed, but not in vain... I hope...

- Keeping the Collector base is a gamble. I do not trust TIM. He might screw it up and the Collector base might turn out to be a liability instead of an asset. However, right now, we're completely clueless on how to defeat the reapers. In order to gain a clue, we have to cain intel on the reapers. The Collector base might give us this intel. It's a risk, but a risk I'm willing to take. So kept the base....

For your points:
- I let the rachni-queen go mainly because of the little piece of information she gives, saying there was some other force behind the rachni-wars. I also value life, so she goes free, unless it's a mainly renegade playthrough.

- I save the DA as a long term cooperation goal, as well as the fact that destroying the heretic geth is a viable military strategy at that point, why would I let them destroy the DA so they can then turn and attack the Alliance fleet while they focus on Sovereign? (I know this isn't in game, and neither is failing due to saving the DA)

- I let Balak go partially because I want to try and save everyone, and also, because he seems like a reasonable guy who wouldn't want to catch my attention again, so fear should, hopefully keep him in line. I also see it as a tiny little leaf of an olive branch to the batarians, showing that I don't kill all of them for the hell of it.

- The Collector Base, the god damn Collector Base. I don't keep it only because none of TIM's plans seem to work, and I don't want to give him an upperhand for his poorly handled projects. This is the only time I don't play the idealist card because of what I have seen with Cerberus, and I can make a somewhat educated prediction on what could happen. Yes I sacrifice a resource, but weaken an enemy and threat to cooperation. If Cerberus didn't immediately get the base, I would always keep it, but something about TIM getting it instantly disturbs me a little too much, even moreso than the risk of the rachni.

I don't disagree or think you're wrong, I just want to have an interesting risk-assesment discussion at this point.

[Medhia Nox]

@LuC0s: Do all the research you want... as a horticulturalist I would completely disagree with you about the "complete" lack of sentience of plants.

I'm not interested in that conversation - I've never met a reasonable vegetarian that bases their decision off "the morality of animals vs. planets".