385 réponses à ce sujet

[Indylavi]

Arkitekt wrote...

Liara has a good line in the Cerberus ship mission, when she starts to think that she would probably do the same kinds of things that TIM is doing if she spent 30 years in a dark secretive organization trying to come up with a solution against the end of days.

They should have pressed harder in that exact point. Make TIM a character that could be sympathized with. Make Shepard choices of dialogue difficult to make when speaking to the guy, instead of resorting to the ME cliché of Paragon saying the same thing as Renegade "you are out of your mind". Create a difficult connundrum, just like in the Genophage.

For instance, one could reach a point where after being "trolled" by Kai Leng for two missions, one gets to TIM but learns that he is about to do something really important and good. However, the way that he is about to do it will cause suffering for people you care (for instance Miranda / Jacob) and perhaps a million more. What will Shepard do? On one hand, you have your friends and the disgusting solution that TIM comes up with, otoh you have the potential of saving billions of lives, a huge benefit against the reapers.

That kind of conflict would render TIM as a pragmatist evil bastard that was, despite all, on our side. What will you choose to do? If you choose your friends you will have to live with the consequence of billions of lives having been sacrificed. Not only for your friends, but for "Idealism", for the very idea of "humanity", etc.

Because there is no moral drama, TIM becomes a 2D villain and Kai Leng somewhat of a joke.

I also didn't like what they did to Cerberus in ME3. ME2 did a good job of having them seem like a grey option. That isn't to say I agree with Cerberus or their methods. But rather or not to destroy the Collector base was actually something I had to think about.

Now, all ambiguity is gone. They almost usurped The Reapers as the main bad guys in this game. 

[Sbri]

Farbautisonn wrote...

-Really? The introduction of western medicine in africa didnt lead to overpopulation, disease, hunger or anything else. Gotcha.

Please check the National Geographic article regarding the Mountain Tribes of Papua New Guinea  the was published in 2/12.  It interviews people who still follow a traditional way of life, with almost no contact with westerners. These are people who face starvation and disease everyday (in fact the article features three people deathly ill from pnumonia).  The closing words of the article were from the head of the clan asking the author to tell the government "We, the Meakambut people, will give up hunting and always moving and living in the mountain caves if the government will give us a health clinic and a school, and two shovels and two axes, so we can build homes.". This is being said to the people who have come to map their land so that it can preserved forever for from development. There are people in Africa who will walk for days to reach a medical clinic to recieve treatment for malaria, dengue fever, and other complaints.  They don't seem to think that western medicine has brought them misery.  To deny them access to basic care because it "might" cause overpopulation is sickiningly paternalistic.  By that logic, no one on earth deserves care, since it has caused over population world wide, which has lead to war, disease, and strained resources.

Im sorry. Good people have done more harm to africa than most realize.

While "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", are you arguing that nothing should be done to help anyone?  I am very willing to agree that many, heck I'll even grant most relief efforts have either not been helpful, or have had unintended side effects.  But does that mean that those programs that have proven to have done actual good should not opperate?

edited to add links and formatting

Modifié par Sbri, 30 mars 2012 - 11:26 .

[Homebound]

Daforth wrote...

I never thought TIM's goals are evil (at least from human viewpoint), however his methods are.

pretty much this.
And seriously, wtf was he trying to accomplish by feeding my Shepard's squad on akuze?

[Sbri]

Daforth wrote...

I never thought TIM's goals are evil (at least from human viewpoint), however his methods are.

Remember that whole "Road to Hell" argument? 

[Naughty Bear]

Indylavi wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Liara has a good line in the Cerberus ship mission, when she starts to think that she would probably do the same kinds of things that TIM is doing if she spent 30 years in a dark secretive organization trying to come up with a solution against the end of days.

They should have pressed harder in that exact point. Make TIM a character that could be sympathized with. Make Shepard choices of dialogue difficult to make when speaking to the guy, instead of resorting to the ME cliché of Paragon saying the same thing as Renegade "you are out of your mind". Create a difficult connundrum, just like in the Genophage.

For instance, one could reach a point where after being "trolled" by Kai Leng for two missions, one gets to TIM but learns that he is about to do something really important and good. However, the way that he is about to do it will cause suffering for people you care (for instance Miranda / Jacob) and perhaps a million more. What will Shepard do? On one hand, you have your friends and the disgusting solution that TIM comes up with, otoh you have the potential of saving billions of lives, a huge benefit against the reapers.

That kind of conflict would render TIM as a pragmatist evil bastard that was, despite all, on our side. What will you choose to do? If you choose your friends you will have to live with the consequence of billions of lives having been sacrificed. Not only for your friends, but for "Idealism", for the very idea of "humanity", etc.

Because there is no moral drama, TIM becomes a 2D villain and Kai Leng somewhat of a joke.

I also didn't like what they did to Cerberus in ME3. ME2 did a good job of having them seem like a grey option. That isn't to say I agree with Cerberus or their methods. But rather or not to destroy the Collector base was actually something I had to think about.

Now, all ambiguity is gone. They almost usurped The Reapers as the main bad guys in this game. 

I agree.

Arkitect, i would do the same. It's a brutal fact knowing that the end is coming, what wouldn't you do to prevent the galaxy from being wiped out?

I won't be able to accept it at all, the fact that all those movies you see with aliens invading Earth just so happens to be a reality but 100x worse and on a galactic level, what are the possible chances of that even happening? Also knowing that this has happened to countless species before we even existed, each one wiped out and just disappeared.

Modifié par Naughty Bear, 30 mars 2012 - 11:40 .

[Mathias957]

"The end doesn't justify the means, if we loose our humanity in the process". Think Shepard says something similar during the 3rd game

[Sbri]

Naughty Bear wrote...
Arkitect, i would do the same. It's a brutal fact knowing that the end is coming, what wouldn't you do to prevent the galaxy from being wiped out?

I would not torture the very people I'm obstensibly trying to save. I wouldn't murder them in their thousands either.  I wouldn't destory thier free will, and turn them into constructs.  Aren't these the very things we're tring to prevent?

[Farbautisonn]

Sbri wrote...
Please check the National Geographic article regarding the Mountain Tribes of Papua New Guinea  the was published in 2/12.  It interviews people who still follow a traditional way of life, with almost no contact with westerners. These are people who face starvation and disease everyday (in fact the article features three people deathly ill from pnumonia).  The closing words of the article were from the head of the clan asking the author to tell the government "We, the Meakambut people, will give up hunting and always moving and living in the mountain caves if the government will give us a health clinic and a school, and two shovels and two axes, so we can build homes.". This is being said to the people who have come to map their land so that it can preserved forever for from development. There are people in Africa who will walk for days to reach a medical clinic to recieve treatment for malaria, dengue fever, and other complaints.  They don't seem to think that western medicine has brought them misery.  To deny them access to basic care because it "might" cause overpopulation is sickiningly paternalistic.  By that logic, no one on earth deserves care, since it has caused over population world wide, which has lead to war, disease, and strained resources.

-I think you've missed the point of that article. The reason that tribe is in such a condition is because they are nomads and that they cannot be nomads in a nation that has miners and loggers encroching on their land. These people are dying out because "civilization" is comming.

The reason they will give up their homes and their caves is because they cannot survive as they have done for centuries. Not because they want to in favour of medicine and civilization. Not for the "health clinic and school". But because they cant roam the land and feed of it... because the land that they used to roam isnt there anymore.

What I find "sickingly paternalistic" is the cultural imperialism that has destroyed this tribe and so many like it. Like conquistadores from the old world, imposing old world idols and bringing gifts to the poor illiterate natives.

And then we are in New Guinea... NOT Africa. The culture, the family structure and a whole plethora of other things and themes do not compare at all.

Finally, no. Thats not "the logic". The logic is that you have to have an infrastructure, a bureaucracy and an agricultural base for your people to live. If you can ensure that your people live, but cant feed them, cant send them to school, cant provide for them... only ensure that they become continually more numerous and increasingly poor, you are setting your people up for famine, war, and disease.  

While "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", are you arguing that nothing should be done to help anyone?

-Nope. And please do not insinuate that I do. Im saying that if you do help, do it right... or dont do it at all. If your help has unintended consequenses, change it and dont do it the same way again. However that isnt whats happening. We have been making the same mistakes for decades.

  I am very willing to agree that many, heck I'll even grant most relief efforts have either not been helpful, or have had unintended side effects.  But does that mean that those programs that have proven to have done actual good should not opperate?

edited to add links and formatting

-MSF is a very good organisation. Highly idealistic. But even they are NOT saints. How do you think they can operate in DRC? Hmnn? Perhaps the locals just like them so much? So much that the warlords that demand bribes from other NGOs dont demand them from MSF? Or perhaps MSF do not stand under the protection of the UN/ArmouGroup mercs in their Kinshasa compounds? You see, that nugget isnt told to the nice people with the big checquebooks and the moral/ethical higher ground. That MSF and "Save the children" are under the protective mantle of some beastly men in uniform... men that MSF and the UN has repeatedly raged against. Hypocrisy much perhaps? 

But dont trust me. Send a letter or an email and ask them who provides security for their people. Please do. And then be sure you ask them how much of the donated money they spend on security, transport of goods, subcontracting and their efficiancy rate in DRC.

Modifié par Farbautisonn, 31 mars 2012 - 12:50 .

[Sbri]

Farbautisonn wrote...

-Nope.
And please do not insinuate that I do. Im saying that if you do help,
do it right... or dont do it at all. If your help has unintended
consequenses, change it and dont do it the same way again. However that
isnt whats happening. We have been making the same mistakes for decades.

Which, bringing us back to TIM and Cerberus is my whole bloody point.  If you want to claim to be "helping humanity" then make darn sure you are actually helping, not just wrapping your own views and philosophies into a tidy package and imposing them on people.
This makes me realize that we basically switched positions in the course of this discussion:blink:, with you making the above (and for the record I think "correct" statement) and me being about to defend an organization based on it's motives rather then it's record.   Noticing that caused me to pause and really make sure I was prepared to take that stance and all that it implies.  I'm not.  As you said, do it right, or don't do it.  So Cerberus, stop making the same mistakes time after time and try being really helpful.

Now back to the gritty detail bits....(should we take this part to PM?)

-I think you've missed the point of that article. The reason that tribe is in such a condition is because they are nomads and that they cannot be nomads in a nation that has miners and loggers encroching on their land. These people are dying out because "civilization" is comming.

To be perhaps pointlessly nit-picky, they would best be described as semi-nomadic, which for the purposes of this argument is relevant. The whole point of the author's being there is to attempt to prevent "civilization" from encroaching.

What I find "sickingly paternalistic" is the cultural imperialism that has destroyed this tribe and so many like it. Like conquistadores from the old world, imposing old world idols and bringing gifts to the poor illiterate natives.

It is disheatening.  In fact I agree with you that change imposed from the outside, especially with aims to "improve" is wrong.  The point I am making here is that people who have been given the option, with promises of support for their choice to remain, have asked for something else.  Do we tell them "no" you may not make that choice?

And then we are in New Guinea... NOT Africa. The culture, the family structure and a whole plethora of other things and themes do not compare at all.

In anthropology and sociology, it is understood that broad cultural structures are similar.  The is a sociological definition of "nomadic", "tribal" and "monarchy" that apply to how such group function along similer lines.  Dispite surface differences, the underlying patterns allow for accurate comparisons.
Secondly there is no "African" culture.  Africa is a continent with an amazingly varied cultures and ideas.  They range from the ancient hunter gatherers like the San, up to full kingdoms.  So while you are correct in that I can no more compare the Guineans to the Mali, I can very credibly compare then to other semi-nomadic systems that sustain themselve in the same manner.

[DeathScepter]

Naughty Bear wrote...

Indylavi wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Liara has a good line in the Cerberus ship mission, when she starts to think that she would probably do the same kinds of things that TIM is doing if she spent 30 years in a dark secretive organization trying to come up with a solution against the end of days.

They should have pressed harder in that exact point. Make TIM a character that could be sympathized with. Make Shepard choices of dialogue difficult to make when speaking to the guy, instead of resorting to the ME cliché of Paragon saying the same thing as Renegade "you are out of your mind". Create a difficult connundrum, just like in the Genophage.

For instance, one could reach a point where after being "trolled" by Kai Leng for two missions, one gets to TIM but learns that he is about to do something really important and good. However, the way that he is about to do it will cause suffering for people you care (for instance Miranda / Jacob) and perhaps a million more. What will Shepard do? On one hand, you have your friends and the disgusting solution that TIM comes up with, otoh you have the potential of saving billions of lives, a huge benefit against the reapers.

That kind of conflict would render TIM as a pragmatist evil bastard that was, despite all, on our side. What will you choose to do? If you choose your friends you will have to live with the consequence of billions of lives having been sacrificed. Not only for your friends, but for "Idealism", for the very idea of "humanity", etc.

Because there is no moral drama, TIM becomes a 2D villain and Kai Leng somewhat of a joke.

I also didn't like what they did to Cerberus in ME3. ME2 did a good job of having them seem like a grey option. That isn't to say I agree with Cerberus or their methods. But rather or not to destroy the Collector base was actually something I had to think about.

Now, all ambiguity is gone. They almost usurped The Reapers as the main bad guys in this game. 

I agree.

Arkitect, i would do the same. It's a brutal fact knowing that the end is coming, what wouldn't you do to prevent the galaxy from being wiped out?

I won't be able to accept it at all, the fact that all those movies you see with aliens invading Earth just so happens to be a reality but 100x worse and on a galactic level, what are the possible chances of that even happening? Also knowing that this has happened to countless species before we even existed, each one wiped out and just disappeared.

This is why the fans of Cerberus are Fans of Cerberus.

[Volus Warlord]

DeathScepter wrote...


This is why the fans of Cerberus are Fans of Cerberus.

You mean other than Cerberus is the only interesting faction in the ME universe?

What else is there other than the obligatory racial government factions?

[Farbautisonn]

Sbri wrote...

Which, bringing us back to TIM and Cerberus is my whole bloody point.  If you want to claim to be "helping humanity" then make darn sure you are actually helping, not just wrapping your own views and philosophies into a tidy package and imposing them on people.
This makes me realize that we basically switched positions in the course of this discussion:blink:, with you making the above (and for the record I think "correct" statement) and me being about to defend an organization based on it's motives rather then it's record.   Noticing that caused me to pause and really make sure I was prepared to take that stance and all that it implies.  I'm not.  As you said, do it right, or don't do it.  So Cerberus, stop making the same mistakes time after time and try being really helpful.

-I disagree respectully here . Yoiu see, like those people in the aid organisations, in government and NGO's, TIM  is helping humanity. From his point of view. He is imposing his values (which I find undestandable, but somewhat crappily implemented, granted) on the world. But the difference here is that TIM looks at the long term end goal. The end being the survival of the human race, human hegemony as a bonus... a preferred one, but still a bonus. An NGO has a shortsighted goal. It treats the symptoms, not the root cause.

The "mistakes" made by TIM are canon, so  I cannot avoid them. However I find them a result of poor writing rather than proper implementation. TIM and Cerberous has become a major factor in politics, and a powerhouse in research, engineering, etc. That could not have been achieved without considerable successes... Successes never mentioned ingame. We are almost exclusively told of failiures and atrocities. He must have done a plethora of things right´or the resources he command and influence he yields would be completely illogical.

Now back to the gritty detail bits....(should we take this part to PM?)

-Nah. Lets keep it going. I think the discussion is interesting enough for the Dev/writer/admins here or they would have shut it down allready.

To be perhaps pointlessly nit-picky, they would best be described as semi-nomadic, which for the purposes of this argument is relevant. The whole point of the author's being there is to attempt to prevent "civilization" from encroaching

.
-Sorry. I didnt get that. What I got was that the author was there to take photos and record the tribe and its cave before they were gone. He "hopes" that he can prevent civilization from encroaching by getting a chamberlain-esque piece of paper signed... one that will in all likelyhood be disregarded. These people are at the very least dying as much from civilization as from disease.

 

It is disheatening.  In fact I agree with you that change imposed from the outside, especially with aims to "improve" is wrong.  The point I am making here is that people who have been given the option, with promises of support for their choice to remain, have asked for something else.  Do we tell them "no" you may not make that choice? 

-Nope we do not. But that "promise of support for their choise to remain was never given. Noone has promised to stop encroaching on their lands. Noone has promised them anything. The only promise was given by a couple of NatGeo antropologists to attempt to speak to someone. Thats is as vague a promise as it gets. And as we have learned from the americas, natives given a "reservation" face new, and just as great problems... plus they allways seem to yearn for identity and pride long lost. Maybe those NatGeo antropologists should start closer to home.

In anthropology and sociology, it is understood that broad cultural structures are similar.  The is a sociological definition of "nomadic", "tribal" and "monarchy" that apply to how such group function along similer lines.  Dispite surface differences, the underlying patterns allow for accurate comparisons.

-True... "broad" cultural structures. That does however not allow for accurate comparisons. It just allows for comparisons. Projections. Statistics.  Besides, in both anthropology and sociology, those definitions are fluid at worst, and only academically agreed upon at best. No cookie cutter solutions in life. Not even in academia.

Secondly there is no "African" culture.  Africa is a continent with an amazingly varied cultures and ideas.  They range from the ancient hunter gatherers like the San, up to full kingdoms.  So while you are correct in that I can no more compare the Guineans to the Mali, I can very credibly compare then to other semi-nomadic systems that sustain themselve in the same manner.

-Very true. Africa is very diverse from top to bottom. And it doesnt stop at "full kingdoms". It goes all the way up to more or less "western standard" in places like South Africa. But the vast majority of states in africa are tribal in nature and in powerstructure. Even when the fernis of "civillisation" has been applied there is still more of an identification by lines of tribal identity rather than that of national identity. Something we have seen cause massive problems as power tends to lie with one tribe rather than the other, which again causes friction. Especially when westerners, who are used to a "national identity" rather than an "ethnic or tribal" one arrives to "do good".  The problem is that nomadic tribes are becoming incresingly stationary...their tradtions are dying out as are their tribal identities. And this isnt by choise.


Anyway. We are moving away from topic so lets get back on it.

TIM is simply doing what he percieves to be best. He looks at the end goal, survival of the human race, consequenses and sacrifices be damned. And he must have done something right to get to where he is. That he turns indoctrinated is just the laziest copout in writing and as stated above by another poster, it just makes him a two dimensional flat villain in a nice suit with a cool voiceactor. He doesnt even have the depth of "Darth Vader" and that pond wasnt deep to start with.

[Arkitekt]

Sbri wrote...

Naughty Bear wrote...
Arkitect, i would do the same. It's a brutal fact knowing that the end is coming, what wouldn't you do to prevent the galaxy from being wiped out?

I would not torture the very people I'm obstensibly trying to save. I wouldn't murder them in their thousands either.  I wouldn't destory thier free will, and turn them into constructs.  Aren't these the very things we're tring to prevent?

In the Illusive Man's calculations (you know, the ones Garrus is constantly mentioning in his well written dialogues) these people are already dead. They just have a few more weeks or months left anyway. They will be turned into husks anyway. If you are able to recover important information from them however, information that would enable you to destroy the reapers, then it becomes a moral dillema. Of course, for the naive ones, there's no moral dillemma. They have been brainwashed for decades by Hollywood movies that the Paragonian way of thinking will *always* solve problems and that the Renegadian way is *always* evil. For those who happen to be more realistic they will realise that in this particular point TIM could have had a good point.

It is true however that in the way that TIM is portrayed in ME3 there's little "good points" going for him.

[Ben Shep]

Another thread full of spoilers!

Its lucky Ive finished the game but kinda feel sorry for peoplewho havent because this non-spoiler section is full of spoilers all the time.

Its like the mods dont care anymore.

[Sbri]

Farbautisonn wrote...
-I disagree respectully here . Yoiu see, like those people in the aid organisations, in government and NGO's, TIM  is helping humanity. From his point of view. He is imposing his values (which I find undestandable, but somewhat crappily implemented, granted) on the world. But the difference here is that TIM looks at the long term end goal. The end being the survival of the human race, human hegemony as a bonus... a preferred one, but still a bonus. An NGO has a shortsighted goal. It treats the symptoms, not the root cause.

So, supporting education for women, which has had a demonstratable, statistical effect in redusing birthrates, child poverty and gender based abuse isn't a long term goal?  Ending polio in the same way we ended small pox thereby ensuring that those who manage to survive aren't crippled for life isn't a long term goal?

The "mistakes" made by TIM are canon, so  I cannot avoid them. However I find them a result of poor writing rather than proper implementation. TIM and Cerberous has become a major factor in politics, and a powerhouse in research, engineering, etc. That could not have been achieved without considerable successes... Successes never mentioned ingame. We are almost exclusively told of failiures and atrocities. He must have done a plethora of things right´or the resources he command and influence he yields would be completely illogical.

Man, I wish that were true.  But the millions in resources give to politians, churches and those NGOs show that people will happily give money to support an ideal, regardless of it's implimentation or success rate.
I agree that if Bioware wanted to have Cerberus be a more grey organization, they should have shown them doing something we could percieve as good, or at least decrying and correcting it's own abuses.  The closest they ever come is to Pragia.  It's claimed that the facility went rogue, doing anything to get results for fear of TIM.  It's implied that a cover up was done, and even that the survivors were transported to schools, but we're forced to take Cerberus' word for it.  And this is the word of someone who has demstratably lied and asked Shepard to lie in order to ensure that group cohesivness and loyal remained (Collector Ship mission).
So we are forced to look solely at the evidence presented. Which has shown that they have not learned for their mistakes, and indeed continue to make new ones.  Plus there's the sheer stupidity of some of the things they do.  Why kill you loyal scientist?

-Sorry. I didnt get that. What I got was that the author was there to take photos and record the tribe and its cave before they were gone. He "hopes" that he can prevent civilization from encroaching by getting a chamberlain-esque piece of paper signed... one that will in all likelyhood be disregarded. These people are at the very least dying as much from civilization as from disease.

Perhaps it will be disregarded. But implimentation in other nations, such as Brazil (I'll link to an article after I getting my kids going for the day) has shown that these pieces of paper can have the intended effect, which is to grant people rigths to live on their land, as they see fit.  They may not have a 100% sucess rate, corruption may cause some to fail, but the fact that some have been saved mean they can and do work with proper enforcement of the law.

 

-Nope we do not. But that "promise of support for their choise to remain was never given. Noone has promised to stop encroaching on their lands. Noone has promised them anything. The only promise was given by a couple of NatGeo antropologists to attempt to speak to someone. Thats is as vague a promise as it gets. And as we have learned from the americas, natives given a "reservation" face new, and just as great problems... plus they allways seem to yearn for identity and pride long lost. Maybe those NatGeo antropologists should start closer to home.

But the implication is that the anthropologists were there to make maps in order to impliment a real plan to keep their land free for them, thereby allowing them to keep their identity and culture intact.  There is no implication that this is a "reservation" such as were done in the US, which were basicly taking people from their land, keeping them in affective ghettos, and trying to wipe out their culture through forced assimilation.
The abuses visited upon Ntive American were horrific and have not ended, which is a disgrace. Something should be done to correct it.  But should attention and resources be pulled away from saving the few people left following their tradtions in order to correct a problem "closer to home"? Passed failures have been learned from, and people today should be allowed to benifit from them.

-True... "broad" cultural structures. That does however not allow for accurate comparisons. It just allows for comparisons. Projections. Statistics.  Besides, in both anthropology and sociology, those definitions are fluid at worst, and only academically agreed upon at best. No cookie cutter solutions in life. Not even in academia.

I would argue that while scientific termanology can be fluid, nay even slippery (Ask where the lines between bacteria and archea is the the right circles and watch the fur fly), to say that you can't make any comparisons due to fluid definitions is to throw the baby out with the bath water.  Broad structers are what we are comparing here when we say that native people are being thretened by encroaching west ideas.  The fact that those people, living is simular way in different parts of the world speak different languages and eat in a different manner while thanking different gods for the purpose of this argument is irrelevent.

-Very true. Africa is very diverse from top to bottom. And it doesnt stop at "full kingdoms". It goes all the way up to more or less "western standard" in places like South Africa. But the vast majority of states in africa are tribal in nature and in powerstructure. Even when the fernis of "civillisation" has been applied there is still more of an identification by lines of tribal identity rather than that of national identity. Something we have seen cause massive problems as power tends to lie with one tribe rather than the other, which again causes friction. Especially when westerners, who are used to a "national identity" rather than an "ethnic or tribal" one arrives to "do good".  The problem is that nomadic tribes are becoming incresingly stationary...their tradtions are dying out as are their tribal identities. And this isnt by choise.

It can be argued that "ethnic/tribal" identity exists within every culture on earth, or we wouldn't have the hispanic population here in the US being scapgoated for everything. 
And if you want to look at the San people in Africa, it was other people native to the region that began their persucution long before we ever got there.  That is not to argue the westerners have'nt played a distubing role (witness what Belgium did in Ruwanda), but to claim that it is soley the fault of western ideals is a false as saying it was only westerners who practiced the slave trade.

TIM is simply doing what he percieves to be best. He looks at the end goal, survival of the human race, consequenses and sacrifices be damned. And he must have done something right to get to where he is. That he turns indoctrinated is just the laziest copout in writing and as stated above by another poster, it just makes him a two dimensional flat villain in a nice suit with a cool voiceactor. He doesnt even have the depth of "Darth Vader" and that pond wasnt deep to start with.

I agree that the indoctrination idea is weak, as it takes his flawed ideals and doesn't allow him to be responsible for them.  And I still think that he need not have been very successful at anything other then selling his false dream of superiority to get the funds he needs.  But yeah, from complex villan to cookie cutter was annoying.

[Farbautisonn]

[quote]Sbri wrote...
So, supporting education for women, which has had a demonstratable, statistical effect in redusing birthrates, child poverty and gender based abuse isn't a long term goal?  Ending polio in the same way we ended small pox thereby ensuring that those who manage to survive aren't crippled for life isn't a long term goal?[/quote]
-Where? In the west? Sure? In africa? Really? Where? 

[quote]Man, I wish that were true.[/quote]
-It is.
[quote]But the millions in resources give to politians, churches and those NGOs show that people will happily give money to support an ideal, regardless of it's implimentation or success rate.[/quote]
-Very true. But if those people do not see or feel any kind of good comming from them, then the contributions die out. Regardless. People dont keep buying the same crap if its broken or doesnt deliver. They dont support the same cases either. Thank god. Or Eugenics would still be the providence of the US and Germany and the earth would still be flat per papal decree. .

[quote]I agree that if Bioware wanted to have Cerberus be a more grey organization, they should have shown them doing something we could percieve as good, or at least decrying and correcting it's own abuses.[/quote]
-Well. They get you from charcoal to living, they provide the ship that is essential in saving the galaxy (and build it in secret... no mean feat). He prevents the collectors getting your corpse is not really a bad thing either. Even Overlord can be percieved as good. Because like Pragia its not TIM, but his cells that decide to go over the line. Add to that the fact that the only person seeming interested in or able to protect the colonies and take the fight to the collectors is TIM.

Aside from that He is able to infiltrate anything anywhere and his people are loyal to the point of fanaticism (which is why I dont get miranda... her shift in loyalty seems... odd). He can raise billions in direct and indirect support and financing. He raises an army and has resources and manpower to conduct research on a scale reserved only for nation states, high end intelligence services, and major business conglomerates/keiretsu. And yet according to what we are lead to believe in the game (and apparently in other media) he botches around 90% of what he does. No business, politician or intelligence service would ever exist with that result.

[quote] The closest they ever come is to Pragia.  It's claimed that the facility went rogue, doing anything to get results for fear of TIM.  It's implied that a cover up was done, and even that the survivors were transported to schools, but we're forced to take Cerberus' word for it.[/quote]
-Sure. Just as we are forced to take the Alliance word that Cerberus is an intelligence service gone "rogue", a "terrorist organisation" (yet hacket maintains ties close enough to get to debrief you onboard SR2 and most alliance pings seem to be able to reach you at will by mail), youre not arrested on the spot in the citadel,  etc. Now if I was back in my old job and I was presented with a goverment that denied involvement with a group like that (a sterling example would be the taliban/pakistani intelligence service) , I would call bull****e, and so would any halfarsed person reading  a newspaper.

[quote] And this is the word of someone who has demstratably lied and asked Shepard to lie in order to ensure that group cohesivness and loyal remained (Collector Ship mission).
[/quote]
-See above. If you think for a second that the alliance is an iota better than TIM you are sadly mistaken. The alliance is far worse because they have you sitting on your arse for months in the brig, waiting to give some halfbaked testemony to a defense committee, chaired by officers that act like civillians gangpressed into service from a latte shop... and not seasoned officers put in charge of the defense of earth. The only plausible explenation for that is that the committee is inept (thusly reflecting very poorly on the entire officer corps of the planet) and that you are held on earth for some not disclosed reason. Those reasons could very well be to give TIM time to do his thing and to avoid a mass panic on earth.

[quote]So we are forced to look solely at the evidence presented. Which has shown that they have not learned for their mistakes, and indeed continue to make new ones.  Plus there's the sheer stupidity of some of the things they do.  Why kill you loyal scientist?[/quote]
-Im sorry. Thats not what I get. They have learned from mistakes or they would not have prospered to the point of being able to do what they do in ME3. TIM is even aknowledged by "space hitler" to have been right in the ability to command the reapers. Killing loyal scientists can have any number of reasons as they have had in real life. Watch "Three days for condor" . You kill people loyal to you if they are in any way a hinderence or a liability. Or if they are inept or just too much of a hassle. You kill scientists to prevent them from spreading news, or building something. There is plainly a plethora of reasons why you would kill or sacrifice people loyal to you.


[quote]
Perhaps it will be disregarded. But implimentation in other nations, such as Brazil (I'll link to an article after I getting my kids going for the day) has shown that these pieces of paper can have the intended effect, which is to grant people rigths to live on their land, as they see fit.  They may not have a 100% sucess rate, corruption may cause some to fail, but the fact that some have been saved mean they can and do work with proper enforcement of the law.[/quote]
-Youll forgive me for saying so, but brasil is hardly a very good example of paperwork having an effect. Quite on the contrary, Brasil is very much an example of "might makes right" plus "Money talks, bull****e walks" and that example goes from the Favellas to the very highest levels of government. I know. Ive stayed there for a while. So... you are wrong.

[quote]But the implication is that the anthropologists were there to make maps in order to impliment a real plan to keep their land free for them, thereby allowing them to keep their identity and culture intact.  There is no implication that this is a "reservation" such as were done in the US, which were basicly taking people from their land, keeping them in affective ghettos, and trying to wipe out their culture through forced assimilation.[/quote]
-As I showed above, paper is worth ziltch. Especially in the thrid world. And no implication of a reservation? Really what then? Oh... so they were to build the schools and clinics in the caves? Really? 

[quote]The abuses visited upon Ntive American were horrific and have not ended, which is a disgrace. Something should be done to correct it.  But should attention and resources be pulled away from saving the few people left following their tradtions in order to correct a problem "closer to home"? Passed failures have been learned from, and people today should be allowed to benifit from them.[/quote]
-Yep. They should. Because if you do not take take of your own, and then bollock others for not doing it, your words are hollow and empty. Its hypocrisy. Passed failiures have been learned from.. really? What has been learned? The indignious americans still live in squalor trying to carve out a living and an existance and given handouts from their colonists in their own land. And then someone comes along and tries to give others good advice on how to handle their own? Thats not arrogant, presumptuous or hypocritical? Sorry. But it is to me.


[quote]I would argue that while scientific termanology can be fluid, nay even slippery (Ask where the lines between bacteria and archea is the the right circles and watch the fur fly), to say that you can't make any comparisons due to fluid definitions is to throw the baby out with the bath water.[/quote]
-Again you come dangeously close to toeing the line of what I wrote and what I did not write. I am not saying that you cant make any comparisons. Im say that those comparisons are not an objective and empirical truth, but rather a "working hypothisis" from which you can try to deduct some theories and methodology. But thats about it. 

[quote] Broad structers are what we are comparing here when we say that native people are being thretened by encroaching west ideas.  The fact that those people, living is simular way in different parts of the world speak different languages and eat in a different manner while thanking different gods for the purpose of this argument is irrelevent.
[/quote]
-I dont believe Ive ever made the point that language, dietary habits or religion has any relevance to this discussion but feel free to quote me back? 


[quote]It can be argued that "ethnic/tribal" identity exists within every culture on earth, or we wouldn't have the hispanic population here in the US being scapgoated for everything.  [/quote]
-That is somewhat true. But the US is unique. Because despite the fact that many americans pride themselves in being ½ this and 1/10th that, you are all... at the end of the day... Americans with a big friggen US of "A" and you define yourself and judge others from that framework. The scapegoating happens in every nation. In europe we have our scapegoats, in the mid east they have theirs, and in the far east theirs. "Us an them" is as old as humanity itself.

[quote]And if you want to look at the San people in Africa, it was other people native to the region that began their persucution long before we ever got there.  That is not to argue the westerners have'nt played a distubing role (witness what Belgium did in Ruwanda), but to claim that it is soley the fault of western ideals is a false as saying it was only westerners who practiced the slave trade.[/quote]
-I agree.


[quote]
I agree that the indoctrination idea is weak, as it takes his flawed ideals and doesn't allow him to be responsible for them.  And I still think that he need not have been very successful at anything other then selling his false dream of superiority to get the funds he needs.  But yeah, from complex villan to cookie cutter was annoying.
[/quote]
I agree. It would have been interesting to hold him responsiblefor them. But I disagree that he isnt succesfull. Multi-billion doller organisations have to have some sort of successrate or they wouldnt be multi-billion doller organisations for very long.

Modifié par Farbautisonn, 31 mars 2012 - 06:28 .

[RiouHotaru]

I was wondering why Saphira or Kaizer Shepard haven't popped up to defend TIM or Cerberus and OH YEAH.

Because their actions aren't defensible anymore.

[SparkyRich]

He's a tragic villain - he means well but has already lost the fight long before we meet him and doesn't know it until the end.

And he obviously didn't botch 90% of what he did - just when he went up against Shepard.... lol

Modifié par SparkyRich, 31 mars 2012 - 06:42 .

[SparkyRich]

Volus Warlord wrote...

DeathScepter wrote...


This is why the fans of Cerberus are Fans of Cerberus.

You mean other than Cerberus is the only interesting faction in the ME universe?

What else is there other than the obligatory racial government factions?

I'm a big fan of the pirates in the Terminus Systems myself.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Hunter of Legends wrote...
Throwing around words like "crazy", "misguided" and "religious" does you no favors with me. Only idiots and fools follow blindly relgious fervor and into attrocities such as the Crusades.

You might want to read up on Crusades. They were in every way defensive wars.
But as in any war, s*** happens.

[Darth Wolfenbarg]

 He wasn't really all that evil in the second game, but now all he's missing is a monocle and a mustache.

[Naughty Bear]

Sbri wrote...

Naughty Bear wrote...
Arkitect, i would do the same. It's a brutal fact knowing that the end is coming, what wouldn't you do to prevent the galaxy from being wiped out?

I would not torture the very people I'm obstensibly trying to save. I wouldn't murder them in their thousands either.  I wouldn't destory thier free will, and turn them into constructs.  Aren't these the very things we're tring to prevent?

Minus that of course, i won't be stupid enough to place a Reapers head right next to my room and almost willingly allow myself to become indoctrinated, but i will be willing to sacrifice a lot of it mean't to save the galaxy or the future from Reapers.

I would sacrifice my entire current cycle just so future species have a chance, i am willing to pay any price to stop them.

My cycle my hate me but atleast those in the future will not have to experience that nightmare that many have witnessed before.

Modifié par Naughty Bear, 31 mars 2012 - 08:56 .

[justin_sayne1]

Captian Cornhole wrote...

I think alot of us here are too quick to judge the Illusive Man's character and portray him as one of those "black and white" villains that are evil for the sake of being evil.

(SNIP) ... I would say so. After all  don't ends justify the means, do they not?

I know that this thread has gone around a bit, but looking at the original point, your logic is flawed.  Where are you basing your original assumption that the ends would ever justify the means?  I assume that you are using Niccolo Machiavelli's "The Prince" as the basis, yet Machiavelli poses the concept to show its rediculousness.  It was satyrical irony.

What is the loss of a few million people if you can save the galaxy from the Reapers? Yeah, it's tragic. But it would have worked, TIM would have controlled the Reapers if he wouldn't have gotten himself indoctrinated first. He was right all along, even Shepard has the option to control the Reapers.

Returning to an ME3 context, from the books and comics, we know that TIM's indoctrination began from before his involvement with Cerberus.  We also know (thanks to bringing Javik to Thessia) that the Crucible failed the Protheans due to the betrayal of Protheans who wanted to control the Reapers for Prothean advancement, yet they later turned out to be indoctrinated tools of the Reapers.  This tells us that TIM's efforts to "put humanity first" has been a long standing Reaper subterfuge as a fail-safe against the Crucible, just as it was during the Prothean cycle.  The idea didn't fail because he got indoctrinated, he was given the idea via his indoctrination.

Besides, if you don't care about slaughtering a few million people, you may stil be genetically human, but you have lost your humanity.

[Arkitekt]

justin_sayne1 wrote...

Captian Cornhole wrote...

I think alot of us here are too quick to judge the Illusive Man's character and portray him as one of those "black and white" villains that are evil for the sake of being evil.

(SNIP) ... I would say so. After all  don't ends justify the means, do they not?

I know that this thread has gone around a bit, but looking at the original point, your logic is flawed.  Where are you basing your original assumption that the ends would ever justify the means?  I assume that you are using Niccolo Machiavelli's "The Prince" as the basis, yet Machiavelli poses the concept to show its rediculousness.  It was satyrical irony.

Come on this is pure sophistry. You know what people mean when they say "the ends justify the means". They are rationalizing an action that may make you vomit today, but which could save millions tomorrow. This has nothing in common with "ridiculous". It's a very big dillemma that time and time again humans are confronted with.

Returning to an ME3 context, from the books and comics, we know that TIM's indoctrination began from before his involvement with Cerberus.  We also know (thanks to bringing Javik to Thessia) that the Crucible failed the Protheans due to the betrayal of Protheans who wanted to control the Reapers for Prothean advancement, yet they later turned out to be indoctrinated tools of the Reapers.  This tells us that TIM's efforts to "put humanity first" has been a long standing Reaper subterfuge as a fail-safe against the Crucible, just as it was during the Prothean cycle.  The idea didn't fail because he got indoctrinated, he was given the idea via his indoctrination.

That's overreaching. Of course, the idea that TIM was already indoctrinated in Mass Effect 2 is, yes, ridiculous, since his main goal in that game is precisely to counter Harbingers' plans with the Collectors. This fact alone disproves that assumption. However, what happens to him is pretty straightforward (so much so in fact that it is quite boring), that he is so obsessed with finding a solution to control the immense power of the reapers that he gets "infected" along the way with indoctrination.

Besides, if you don't care about slaughtering a few million people, you may stil be genetically human, but you have lost your humanity.

Tell that to president Truman who decided to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or to the generals who decided to bomb Dresden to smithereen.

[Naughty Bear]

justin_sayne1 wrote...

Captian Cornhole wrote...

I think alot of us here are too quick to judge the Illusive Man's character and portray him as one of those "black and white" villains that are evil for the sake of being evil.

(SNIP) ... I would say so. After all  don't ends justify the means, do they not?

I know that this thread has gone around a bit, but looking at the original point, your logic is flawed.  Where are you basing your original assumption that the ends would ever justify the means?  I assume that you are using Niccolo Machiavelli's "The Prince" as the basis, yet Machiavelli poses the concept to show its rediculousness.  It was satyrical irony.

What is the loss of a few million people if you can save the galaxy from the Reapers? Yeah, it's tragic. But it would have worked, TIM would have controlled the Reapers if he wouldn't have gotten himself indoctrinated first. He was right all along, even Shepard has the option to control the Reapers.

Returning to an ME3 context, from the books and comics, we know that TIM's indoctrination began from before his involvement with Cerberus.  We also know (thanks to bringing Javik to Thessia) that the Crucible failed the Protheans due to the betrayal of Protheans who wanted to control the Reapers for Prothean advancement, yet they later turned out to be indoctrinated tools of the Reapers.  This tells us that TIM's efforts to "put humanity first" has been a long standing Reaper subterfuge as a fail-safe against the Crucible, just as it was during the Prothean cycle.  The idea didn't fail because he got indoctrinated, he was given the idea via his indoctrination.

Besides, if you don't care about slaughtering a few million people, you may stil be genetically human, but you have lost your humanity.

So if i sacrificed a million Humans to save billions of Humans, i am not Human?