385 réponses à ce sujet

[TheMightyG00sh]

Naughty Bear wrote...

TheMightyG00sh wrote...

The Illusive Man suffered the same warped mindset as Hitler. He watched on as the Turians and Humans went to war (just like Hitler during World War I) and took over a part ofthe Aliiance (just like Hitler took over the **** Political Party) and used it to try and further the goals of his people (humanity for TIM, Germans for Hitler) adn he blamed other species for humanities casualties in the First Contact War (just like Hitler blamed other people for the German's loss during World War I). He is a scorned man. His morals shaped by one historical and infamous moment.

Well Turians were responsible for the deaths of many Humans, they attacked us first and took over Shanxi.

Precisely my point. The Illusive Man wasn't always a alien hating extremist, you learn that in the comics.

Another parallel: Before leading the **** Party, Hitler was a poet. So yeah before TIM took over Cerberus and made in a human extremist splinter group like Hitler did with the **** Party BOTH were just every day guys diong what they loved. Then the wars came.

[Naughty Bear]

Sbri wrote...

Naughty Bear wrote...

I was waiting for that. If it was not for TIM, we would not have biotics at all. Sure, those exposed died of cancer but the children started to develope biotics. The benefits of biotics outweighs  the negatives. Personally, i would of set more 'incidents' off.

  I'm sorry, but that was refuted in ME1.  The first exposures were accidental.  Cerberus was not involved in the initial exposures, ergo we would have biotics with out Cerberus.  Also, it was not the parent that was at risk for the tumors, but the children. 
From the Mass Effect Wiki on Biotics: "Eezo exposure is by no means guaranteed to result in biotic ability. On
the contrary, most fetuses that are exposed are not affected at all.
Others will develop brain tumors or other horrific physical
complications. In humans, only about one in ten eezo-exposed infants
will develop biotic talents strong and stable enough to merit training,
and these abilities are not always permanent."

  However to set aside the nitpickyness
over lore, there is a disturbing idea in your statement.  That it doesn't
matter what suffering you cause if there is a potential gain.  I ask that
you please consider a ferw points:

Who decides what's for the best? 
Do we vote? Do we let our usually less the enlightened leaders make the call?
Do we form a committee? Does a dictator decide? What of those who disagree? Do
they get to "opt out"? The potentials for abuse are so profound that
the mere thought is terrifying.  That another person decided that I or my
child must suffer in order to further some "greater good" is what
we've been fighting to prevent for the last century or more. 

And here is the question I would ask you.  Would you sacrifice yourself?
Would you suffer torture in order to further an unknown goal of "bettering
humanity"?  It is easy to say you would inflict horrors on another.
Would you gladly suffer them?
Edit:  Sorry for the formatting crazyness

If i was to get tortured or be the first to be exposed to eezo? Along with the chance that it could advance my entire species if it worked? Of course i will, if it was a success who knows what we could accomplish.

If i could sacrifice my life so we could advance as a species and accquire the technology to explore the stars? Damn straight i will.

We need biotics, how would the other species view us, how can we even compete with them if they can use their minds to move physical objects? How would we even stand agaisnt them if we did enter war with them? We would have no chance, we need every advantage we can get. From what we have seen in the ME universe, no species plays fair.

Modifié par Naughty Bear, 29 mars 2012 - 07:25 .

[Farbautisonn]

Sharn01 wrote...

Yeah, I have no clue how dark the real world is, I am totally clueless.  I never fought in a war and took other people lives, thats not something I have to live with for the rest of my life, I am never socially akward from my past experiances nor am I ever haunted by nightmares.  

Go on believing that you know everything there is about the world and that everyone who doesnt see things the way you do are clueles and cowardly and dont understand how the real world works.  No one knows how the real world works who believes there is a better way to do things, they just have to accept that evil works and that its the only way to ever get things done.

And for the record, I never said I was a paragon of good, I just believe its worth the effort to try.  As for my friend, he is my friend, we get into arguments sometimes and disagree with each other, but he would go out of his way to help me and I would him.  If he tried to truly bad, I would try to stop him, but he doesnt, he doesnt act on what he knows is considered wrong even though he personally doesnt see anything wrong with the action.

-Grats? 

I know about the world. Because I have seen both some of the worst and best of it. And quite abit in between. Never fired a shot in anger though. I passed on Yugoslavia when they asked for volunteers. Glad I did.

Cowardly? Lulz? You've been a soldier right? In the US I presume? So how "fair" is it that you have b2 and b-52s, MRLS systems, choppers to fly you in theather and out, nightvision etc ? I know of a great many people who consider that very cowardly. "Fair" in war is when I achieve all goals, with no losses, the lowest amount of civillian casulties, and with my enemy destroyed with zero of his objectives gain. Thats fair. Its also smart fighting. If you want to sacrfice one single life to fight "fair" you are not command material in my nations army.

Well, I am good and I do good. However I know myself very well and when I visit a third world contry I keep an eye out because my watch alone can feed a mans family for a month in some places. And if I had the choise between letting my kids starve and killing a tourist, Id kill the tourist and I wouldnt have a second though about it. I dont blame the guy for wanting to do it, nor do I consider it evil. I consider it the way of the world.

[Sbri]

Naughty Bear wrote...
If i was to get tortured or be the first to be exposed to eezo? Along with the chance that it could advance my entire species if it worked? Of course i will, if it was a success who knows what we could accomplish.

If i could sacrifice my life so we could advance as a species and accquire the technology to explore the stars? Damn straight i will.

We need biotics, how would the other species view us, how can we even compete with them if they can use their minds to move physical objects? How would we even stand agaisnt them if we did enter war with them? We would have no chance, we need every advantage we can get. From what we have seen in the ME universe, no species plays fair.

Vey well.  I commend you stance, as it is one few would take.  But my point is this.  You do not have the benifit of hindsight.  You do not know at the time if your pain will mean anything.  If you still choose to sacrifice yourself at that point, again you have my respect.  But I still hold you have NO RIGHT to decide for me and mine.  If I will make the same choice as you it should be just that. MY CHOICE!  

[TheMightyG00sh]

wow I just noticed that n@zi is censored. Seems a little for conversations where it is indeed relevant...

[Sbri]

Farbautisonn wrote...
-Grats?

Cowardly? Lulz? You've been a soldier right? In the US I presume? So how "fair" is it that you have b2 and b-52s, MRLS systems, choppers to fly you in theather and out, nightvision etc ? I know of a great many people who consider that very cowardly. "Fair" in war is when I achieve all goals, with no losses, the lowest amount of civillian casulties, and with my enemy destroyed with zero of his objectives gain. Thats fair. Its also smart fighting. If you want to sacrfice one single life to fight "fair" you are not command material in my nations army.

Which is why we have different rules that govern during times of war.  Different values apply.  There are times when such choices are the best that can be made, and they are rewarded accordingly.  But to say that all moral choices, in all situations, must stem from the pragmatism of war is ethically very shaky.  This is acknowledged under international law.  Not the law of a single nation or culture, but the laws for many nations and cultures. Actions that are acceptable in war are justly concidered crimes in times of peace.

Farbautisonn wrote...
Well, I am good and I do good. However I know myself very well and when I visit a third world contry I keep an eye out because my watch alone can feed a mans family for a month in some places. And if I had the choise between letting my kids starve and killing a tourist, Id kill the tourist and I wouldnt have a second though about it. I dont blame the guy for wanting to do it, nor do I consider it evil. I consider it the way of the world.

  Again, thankfully there are many examples of those who do not feel that their survival must come before that of, or at the expence of others.  In those same countries, there are also people who will help you escape danger, with no demand nor expectation of reward.  If you're interested, PM me for my refences, as they are many and I've already have a rather long wall of text.

[Naughty Bear]

Sbri wrote...

Naughty Bear wrote...
If i was to get tortured or be the first to be exposed to eezo? Along with the chance that it could advance my entire species if it worked? Of course i will, if it was a success who knows what we could accomplish.

If i could sacrifice my life so we could advance as a species and accquire the technology to explore the stars? Damn straight i will.

We need biotics, how would the other species view us, how can we even compete with them if they can use their minds to move physical objects? How would we even stand agaisnt them if we did enter war with them? We would have no chance, we need every advantage we can get. From what we have seen in the ME universe, no species plays fair.

Vey well.  I commend you stance, as it is one few would take.  But my point is this.  You do not have the benifit of hindsight.  You do not know at the time if your pain will mean anything.  If you still choose to sacrifice yourself at that point, again you have my respect.  But I still hold you have NO RIGHT to decide for me and mine.  If I will make the same choice as you it should be just that. MY CHOICE!  

Maybe my pain won't mean anything but results will still be developed. Results that can then be used for further testing and develope new ways to grant everyone biotics.

You may say that it isn't your chance but i am willing to bet that if you could achieve biotics without pain, then you would. The advantages outweigh the disadvantages, you would be a mad man or woman to not accept it.

The biotics is a talent that can be used in many situations, it is a flexible tool as well as a weapon.

People with disabilities would benefit hugely from these, it would benefit us all. Just imagine the tasks we could accomplish without having to use machinery!

Modifié par Naughty Bear, 29 mars 2012 - 08:15 .

[AxisEvolve]

He was too weak to fight off indoctrination. He would have been 10x less evil without their influence. His curiosity seemed to get the better of him..

But at the end of the day he was still an extremist and a jerk. Just how Saren can appear to be a "misunderstood" villian in ME1, he's actually torturing and murdering people in the prequel book, Revelation.

[Shadow Quickpaw]

One. Simple. Fact: The ONLY one who believes TIM has ANY right to determine humanity's fate is TIM himself. He has proven time and again (even before the whole Indoc/implants) that he is willing to look at a situation and make decisions as a machine would. Logic, profit, survival at ANY cost. Including free will. What he called "being improved" I call "loss of self." Like the Reapers, he believes that advancement has to be the goal. "This is the way humanity MUST evolve."

Okay then, what gives you the right to make that judgement? What gives you the right to determine the fate of your species when you have proven time and again BY YOUR ACTIONS that you don't care about your own people?

I don't care what justification you use: killing innocent people is WRONG. NO MATTER WHAT IS GAINED BY IT. If the safety and continued existance of the entire galaxy depended on the death of one innocent child, I would defend that child TO MY LAST BREATH. Not because I think ANYONE will gain anything by it. BECAUSE IT IS RIGHT.

TIM was not given the authority to govern by the people: he took it by force. He is NOT humanity. He does not have the right to choose our fate for us. You may ask "does Shepard?" Depending on how you play him. The paragon Shep is the one guy who has a line he will never cross. He believes it is better to die free than to live a slave. He cares about what happens to the human race, not just its survival but its SOUL. What makes us who we are.

TIM? He has basically said: "The Reapers are right." The reason we fight them is because we know THEY ARE WRONG.

[Olueq]

Modifié par Olueq, 29 mars 2012 - 08:07 .

[Farbautisonn]

Sbri wrote...
Which is why we have different rules that govern during times of war.  Different values apply.  There are times when such choices are the best that can be made, and they are rewarded accordingly.  But to say that all moral choices, in all situations, must stem from the pragmatism of war is ethically very shaky.  This is acknowledged under international law.  Not the law of a single nation or culture, but the laws for many nations and cultures. Actions that are acceptable in war are justly concidered crimes in times of peace.

-When the law of war, trancends into the law of peace (if you will forgive such a term), we are on shaky ground. The world becomes significantly more gray. The west has been "at war" for more than a decade with implementations of law in most nations that would have been forsworn even during the cold war. I dont belive I ever stated that "all moral choises, in all situations, must stem from pragmatism of war", Especially not the "must" bit.

Ethics is a funny thing though. First of all I am a great proponent of "applied ethics". A "pragmatic" approach to ethics that does take context into view. Because its very easy to sit in an ivory tower and decree rules that have no bearing (and even those in the ivory towers bend the rules when they must). Second, ethics and morals are highly dependent on socio-economics, culture, time and alot of other factors that shall remain unnamed. 

That "international law" you refer to, I frankly see as a gold calf, created in a babylonic tower by pharisees. Because most of the people who have subscribed to it, bend it, twist it, turn it and even outright break it, with impunity. It has limited applications in the places where it is needed the most. I dont think I need to make any examples. The last 60 years have been ripe with them. There are things that are not even allowed in war, that are legal today, if applied against certain groups and individuals... as well as things that are bended every single day on the battlefields of the world.

  Again, thankfully there are many examples of those who do not feel that their survival must come before that of, or at the expence of others.  In those same countries, there are also people who will help you escape danger, with no demand nor expectation of reward.  If you're interested, PM me for my refences, as they are many and I've already have a rather long wall of text.

-Sure. But there are allso many, and I think many more examples of those that would do anything for their survival but never have the chance. And then there are the plethora of examples of people who do "evil" out of spite, hate, prejudice or any number of things. I too can present lots of sources to veryfy my claim.  Plus... I dont mind walls of text. I love to see my own words in "print". I do it for a living.

[Sbri]

Naughty Bear wrote...

Maybe my pain won't mean anything but results will still be developed. Results that can then be used for further testing and develope new ways to grant everyone biotics.

You may say that it isn't your chance but i am willing to bet that if you could achieve biotics without pain, then you would. The advantages outweigh the disadvantages, you would be a mad man or woman to not accept it.

The biotics is a talent that can be used in many situations, it is a flexible tools as well as a weapon.

People with disabilities would benefit hugely from these, it would benefit us all. Just imagine the tasks we could accomplish without having to use machinery!

Recall that I removed your ability to know the outcome.  When the experiments into biotics were done, they had no real idea of the results.   When you sign up for a medical trial, you do not know in advance what the results, if any will be.  Many people do still sign up, and we owe them our thanks, for they are putting themselves on the line for the betterment of many.  But the point is that they choose to sign up.  And when peple are used without their knowledge, when they do not get to choose to participate, it is rightly concidered a crime.  And that is the entire point with what Cerberus did.  They treated people like lab rats, removed their right to choose, and inflicted possible pain and suffering on them.  That is ethically wrong. 
And for the record, while I may have choosen to undergo a trial (adpet is by far my favorite class), even knowing it will cause me great pain, I would rather forgo then force another person to under go the same, even if there is a guarentee that they would have no pain, and nothing but benifits.  Because I firmly beleive that the alternitive is insanity.

[suprhomre]

You are wrong OP TIM would sacrifice whole worlds to save humanity while Shepard even as a Renegade has his limits. Although there are some incident in Cerberus history which did enhance humanity's strength I'm thinking about the Biotic accident.

[Dave of Canada]

"Evil" is a concept which ignorant people use to make themselves feel better, the world has no white and no black. It's all shades of grey.

[Naughty Bear]

Sbri wrote...

Naughty Bear wrote...

Maybe my pain won't mean anything but results will still be developed. Results that can then be used for further testing and develope new ways to grant everyone biotics.

You may say that it isn't your chance but i am willing to bet that if you could achieve biotics without pain, then you would. The advantages outweigh the disadvantages, you would be a mad man or woman to not accept it.

The biotics is a talent that can be used in many situations, it is a flexible tools as well as a weapon.

People with disabilities would benefit hugely from these, it would benefit us all. Just imagine the tasks we could accomplish without having to use machinery!

Recall that I removed your ability to know the outcome.  When the experiments into biotics were done, they had no real idea of the results.   When you sign up for a medical trial, you do not know in advance what the results, if any will be.  Many people do still sign up, and we owe them our thanks, for they are putting themselves on the line for the betterment of many.  But the point is that they choose to sign up.  And when peple are used without their knowledge, when they do not get to choose to participate, it is rightly concidered a crime.  And that is the entire point with what Cerberus did.  They treated people like lab rats, removed their right to choose, and inflicted possible pain and suffering on them.  That is ethically wrong. 
And for the record, while I may have choosen to undergo a trial (adpet is by far my favorite class), even knowing it will cause me great pain, I would rather forgo then force another person to under go the same, even if there is a guarentee that they would have no pain, and nothing but benifits.  Because I firmly beleive that the alternitive is insanity.

And that is why sacrifices have to be made, if a certain amount of people suffer so that the many can benefit can live with this great ability, so be it. Their lives helped advanced Humanity and in the process, everyone gets to reap the rewards.

I firmly believe in the ends justify the means. Ethics hold us back, you need to look at the big picture, stop making choices that benefit the minority and make choices that benefit the majority. It is logical.

It is people like you, who hold us back from achieving technological advancements. Cloning or genetic modification and cybernetic implants. People scream moral ethics are breached and they fail to see the bigger picture. If we can clone animals, we have a infinte source of food, if we genetically modify Humans then lifespans can be increased and genetic abnomalies can be removed, if we used cybernetic implants we would overcome our limits!

Look at Overlord, sure that guy suffered immensely and will never recover, it would be humane to kill him. But look what was achieved, the Geth can be controlled. If Humanity used the Geth as a weapon, many many lives can be saved and not a single solider will die.

[Alien1099]

Captian Cornhole wrote...

MrGuse wrote...

Goebbels just wanted Germany best interests put forward. That doesn't make his actions any less evil.

Really your going to play the N-a-z-i card? In that case you might as well be comparing the Jews, and gypsys and homosexuals to the pure evil of the Reapers. I hope your not that would be very bigoted of you.

I'll cut directly to the point, sure TIM has done bad stuff (no concentration camps mind you) but it was all to counter act the serious threat of the Reapers. The N-a-z-i-s did horrible stuff only to solidify their power base, and because they belived the racist lies.

You mean the pure evil of the unwitting people Cerberus experimented on ? Sorta like the ****s did with the Jews? 

Your comparisons are off. The Reapers don't really have an roughly similar comparison. Maybe the USSR, but even then it's not really the same.

[Alien1099]

AxisEvolve wrote...

He was too weak to fight off indoctrination. He would have been 10x less evil without their influence. His curiosity seemed to get the better of him..

But at the end of the day he was still an extremist and a jerk. Just how Saren can appear to be a "misunderstood" villian in ME1, he's actually torturing and murdering people in the prequel book, Revelation.

Indoctrination of him doesn't make sense unless you are talking about the end of ME3. Other than hampering alliance efforts, everything he did was counter productive to the reapers' plans.

[Sbri]

[quteo]Farbautisonn wrote...

-When the law of war, trancends into the law of peace (if you will forgive such a term), we are on shaky ground. The world becomes significantly more gray. The west has been "at war" for more than a decade with implementations of law in most nations that would have been forsworn even during the cold war.[/quote]
And I have been outraged at the tactics we have at times employeed.  We have dared to shake our fingers at other nations for atrocities while commitig them ourselves.  It's rather crazy, and I havn't blamed other a bit for calling us out on it.  They are correct, it's hypocricy.

[quote]
I dont belive I ever stated that "all moral choises, in all situations, must stem from pragmatism of war", Especially not the "must" bit. [/quote]
My bad then.  I took you statement futher then you meant and I apologise.  When I saw the agrument raised that there are some stituations that correctly call for sacrifice, I thought it was being used to say that all situations can call for that ideal, which I dispute. If that's not what you meant then again, my bad.

[quote]
Ethics is a funny thing though. First of all I am a great proponent of "applied ethics". A "pragmatic" approach to ethics that does take context into view. Because its very easy to sit in an ivory tower and decree rules that have no bearing (and even those in the ivory towers bend the rules when they must). Second, ethics and morals are highly dependent on socio-economics, culture, time and alot of other factors that shall remain unnamed. [/quote]
I agree that context is very important.  No decission can or should be made in a vacuum.  In fact, it is those times that ethical calls were made from the "ivory tower" or, I would add, any place of privilage (government offices, think tanks, science labs) that crimes against people have occured.  Tukeegee and Gutalmala and Eugenics arose from just that sort of removed "it's for the greater good" thinking. I believe that if those same intellectuals had to put their own lives, or the lives of their families on the line, their choices would have been very different.
As to someone in a diffent time or place, or socio-economic background making a different call, that is a point I can not address.  I can only make my call from where I sit, and I'll grant you that. Which is why I think that if there is any doubt then either let the people involved make the choice for themselves, or do not go there. I do not feel that I have right to dictate to you what you do so long as you cause no harm to other while doing so. But your "rights" are no more sacred then those of the person next to you. Stomp on you own foot, and I'll back you to the hilt.  Stomp on the foot on someone without their consent and I'll oppose you just as strongly.

[quote]
That "international law" you refer to, I frankly see as a gold calf, created in a babylonic tower by pharisees. Because most of the people who have subscribed to it, bend it, twist it, turn it and even outright break it, with impunity. It has limited applications in the places where it is needed the most. I dont think I need to make any examples. The last 60 years have been ripe with them. There are things that are not even allowed in war, that are legal today, if applied against certain groups and individuals... as well as things that are bended every single day on the battlefields of the world. [/quote]
And I wish we had a better system of enforcement, which is the real issue here.  The laws are not broken.  Their application and enforcement are.  That's what we need to fight for.  No one should be above the laws of their own makeing or those laws have no meaning.

[quote]
-Sure. But there are allso many, and I think many more examples of those that would do anything for their survival but never have the chance. And then there are the plethora of examples of people who do "evil" out of spite, hate, prejudice or any number of things. [/quote]
But does the fact that it can happen, does it mean it should?  I can cheat, lie, steal and murder. I can be evil and kick kittens and drown puppies.  But I don't have to.  People can choose to do harm.  But they can also choose to do good.  I just happen to think those who make the choices to not harm other to better themselves are making, for lack of a better term, the "correct" choice.

[quote]Plus... I dont mind walls of text. I love to see my own words in "print". I do it for a living.
[/quote]
Ok, time to go rummaging throught my library......I'll be back!

[AxisEvolve]

Alien1099 wrote...

AxisEvolve wrote...

He was too weak to fight off indoctrination. He would have been 10x less evil without their influence. His curiosity seemed to get the better of him..

But at the end of the day he was still an extremist and a jerk. Just how Saren can appear to be a "misunderstood" villian in ME1, he's actually torturing and murdering people in the prequel book, Revelation.

Indoctrination of him doesn't make sense unless you are talking about the end of ME3. Other than hampering alliance efforts, everything he did was counter productive to the reapers' plans.

Yeah I was talking about the end. He was still an extremist before that. "You've sacrificed to much". I agree with that statement. 

[Sbri]

Naughty Bear wrote...

And that is why sacrifices have to be made, if a certain amount of people suffer so that the many can benefit can live with this great ability, so be it. Their lives helped advanced Humanity and in the process, everyone gets to reap the rewards.

I firmly believe in the ends justify the means. Ethics hold us back, you need to look at the big picture, stop making choices that benefit the minority and make choices that benefit the majority. It is logical.

I hold that ethics is what keeps us from sacrificing too much.  It is what keeps us from sliding back into an age of barbarism. 

It is people like you, who hold us back from achieving technological advancements. Cloning or genetic modification and cybernetic implants. People scream moral ethics are breached and they fail to see the bigger picture. If we can clone animals, we have a infinte source of food, if we genetically modify Humans then lifespans can be increased and genetic abnomalies can be removed, if we used cybernetic implants we would overcome our limits!

NOW JUST ONE SECOND! Do not assume that I am against technology.  I never said any such thing.  In fact I said I would sanction any attempts that can be done with the consent of those involved.  I make use daily of things that many find abhorant.  I have made choices that have gotten me treated like a nut case by people "ethically" opposed to them.  That I hold that people should have a choice as to whether or not they are the subject of an experement  doesn't mean I don't think the experiment should be done.  But find some true volenteers! We need to make those scientific advances. But I think that we need to make them while not sacrificing what makes us human in the process.

Oh man, did I just bring up the "what makes us human debate"? Rolls up sleeves.

[dstrollo360]

Just because you fight for JUST humanity makes you good. There are tons of species. He was a human supremist. He might as well have said aliens equal slaves. I always hated him and was glad to kill that jerk.

[Farbautisonn]

Sbri wrote...
And I have been outraged at the tactics we have at times employeed.  We have dared to shake our fingers at other nations for atrocities while commitig them ourselves.  It's rather crazy, and I havn't blamed other a bit for calling us out on it.  They are correct, it's hypocricy.

-I agree.

My bad then.  I took you statement futher then you meant and I apologise.  When I saw the agrument raised that there are some stituations that correctly call for sacrifice, I thought it was being used to say that all situations can call for that ideal, which I dispute. If that's not what you meant then again, my bad.

-Np. I do it myself.

I agree that context is very important.  No decission can or should be made in a vacuum.  In fact, it is those times that ethical calls were made from the "ivory tower" or, I would add, any place of privilage (government offices, think tanks, science labs) that crimes against people have occured.  Tukeegee and Gutalmala and Eugenics arose from just that sort of removed "it's for the greater good" thinking. I believe that if those same intellectuals had to put their own lives, or the lives of their families on the line, their choices would have been very different.
As to someone in a diffent time or place, or socio-economic background making a different call, that is a point I can not address.  I can only make my call from where I sit, and I'll grant you that. Which is why I think that if there is any doubt then either let the people involved make the choice for themselves, or do not go there. I do not feel that I have right to dictate to you what you do so long as you cause no harm to other while doing so. But your "rights" are no more sacred then those of the person next to you. Stomp on you own foot, and I'll back you to the hilt.  Stomp on the foot on someone without their consent and I'll oppose you just as strongly.

-Well those Ivory towers exist today. One of my favorite "horses" on other fora is the contemporary letter of absolution called "charities" or "NGO's". Most of them oppse very strongly the use of force in places like africa. They very strongly oppose PMCs(private military companies) or private security. However they do make use of them extensively in places of the word where the safety of their staff is at risk.

And when they do not, they engage in an even riskier and more (to me) morally and ethically apprehensable modus operandi. They employ local subcontractors to provide safety or to undertake jobs that their own people were to have done. Those contracts are then watered out as subcontractor resells to subcontractor untill the money is either gone or the effort useless. The funds are then channeled to very wealthy individuals or warlords.  But at least they get the photo-op pics for the doners at home. And thats if they dont directly buy free passage to troubled regions by bribing warlords and despots directly... for the photo ops... funds that... are channeld into illicit arms and narcotics sale to terrorize the very people they were there to help and by rasing child soldiers. And yet. Nobody seems to care. The pink elephant in the room just stands there with everyone politely avoiding stepping in something. 

And I wish we had a better system of enforcement, which is the real issue here.  The laws are not broken.  Their application and enforcement are.  That's what we need to fight for.  No one should be above the laws of their own makeing or those laws have no meaning.

-If you cannot enforce a law, it has no meaning. Then the law is just another chamberlain-esque document.

But does the fact that it can happen, does it mean it should?  I can cheat, lie, steal and murder. I can be evil and kick kittens and drown puppies.  But I don't have to.  People can choose to do harm.  But they can also choose to do good.  I just happen to think those who make the choices to not harm other to better themselves are making, for lack of a better term, the "correct" choice.

-Not at all. But "should", "could" and "would" happen are very different things. If you are forced by circumstance, great or small, to do atrocious acts, big or small, then you are significantly more in the "gray" than in the black. And history has shown us ad nauseam that if the choise comes between the "correct" choise, and the survival of your own... or even prosperity of your own, then human nature usually kicks in and we do what is "not correct".

Ok, time to go rummaging throught my library......I'll be back!

-I would prefer it if you used online sources. Makes it easier for me to check them. I am not going to visit a library to have a discussion.

Modifié par Farbautisonn, 29 mars 2012 - 09:07 .

[Wrex4Life]

Daforth wrote...

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

QFT

[Esoretal]

Well, first of all, comparisons between TIM and Shepard vary depending on how your Shep operates. A fully Paragon Shep is not cruel or ruthless, and is not willing to sacrifice millions of people for the good of the galaxy without a second thought.

Secondly, no, I don't believe TIM is evil. There are multiple sides to every story. The fact that TIM is convinced he is taking the right course of action by doing morally questionable things is also likely influenced by his indoctrination, which adds another layer of complication.

[Sbri]

-I would prefer it if you used online sources. Makes it easier for me to check them. I am not going to visit a library to have a discussion.

Fair enough, but I have some errands to run or we won't be eating dinner tonight.  Get back to you in a bit?