933 réponses à ce sujet

[Taboo]

alienatedflea wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

None of the choices are in any way moral. At all.

All violate some staunch ingrained societal taboo (ha ha).

You get to pick which one you get to violate.

not really...was nuking Nagasaki and Hiroshima moral or immoral? (this event seems to be the one of the best related to destroy)

The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was immoral, but it saved lives.

I personally find it repuganant, as I do Destroy, but it saved potentially thousands of more lives.

This is what makes war so awful.

I don't like Destroy, and would never justify it, but my Shepard will be there to assume responsibility. I have no plans on bull****ting people in my head canon.

"Yes, I am responsible for the destruction of the Geth."

[Father_Jerusalem]

alienatedflea wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

None of the choices are in any way moral. At all.

All violate some staunch ingrained societal taboo (ha ha).

You get to pick which one you get to violate.

not really...was nuking Nagasaki and Hiroshima moral or immoral? (this event seems to be the one of the best related to destroy)

The fact that we targeted population centes instead of military targets with Fat Man and Little Boy, I think, is what pushes it over the edge to undeniably immoral... I understand WHY that decision was made, but I think if we had gone after military targets with the bombs you could still argue morality... 

In the end, they did what they were supposed to and ended the war, but I wouldn't call it "moral" at all.

[alienatedflea]

Taboo-XX wrote...

alienatedflea wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

None of the choices are in any way moral. At all.

All violate some staunch ingrained societal taboo (ha ha).

You get to pick which one you get to violate.

not really...was nuking Nagasaki and Hiroshima moral or immoral? (this event seems to be the one of the best related to destroy)

The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was immoral, but it saved lives.

I personally find it repuganant, as I do Destroy, but it saved potentially thousands of more lives.

This is what makes war so awful.

I don't like Destroy, and would never justify it, but my Shepard will be there to assume responsibility. I have no plans on bull****ting people in my head canon.

"Yes, I am responsible for the destruction of the Geth."

if the act of dropping the a-bombs saved untold lives...then its morally praiseworthy...what you dont understand that in control and synthesis...makes the world/galaxy a better place with the least amount of lives lost...just shepards' live

refusal and destroy does not

Destroy actually forces all organics to become just as heartless and cold as the reapers...something that to most would make them shutter

[Taboo]

Nothing is "moral" in war. It is not praiseworthy. The act was monstrous.

But, if I might play Devil's Advocate for a moment.

What if we had to invade Japan on the ground?

How many more lives would have been lost?

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 01 juillet 2012 - 11:42 .

[Stump01]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Nothing is "moral" in war. It is not praiseworthy. The act was monstrous.

But, if I might play Devil's Advocate for a moment.

What if we had to invade Japan on the ground?

How many more lives would have been lost?

Um, four?

[alienatedflea]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

alienatedflea wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

None of the choices are in any way moral. At all.

All violate some staunch ingrained societal taboo (ha ha).

You get to pick which one you get to violate.

not really...was nuking Nagasaki and Hiroshima moral or immoral? (this event seems to be the one of the best related to destroy)

The fact that we targeted population centes instead of military targets with Fat Man and Little Boy, I think, is what pushes it over the edge to undeniably immoral... I understand WHY that decision was made, but I think if we had gone after military targets with the bombs you could still argue morality... 

In the end, they did what they were supposed to and ended the war, but I wouldn't call it "moral" at all.

utilirianistic...its praiseworthy..just two bombs caused the war to end...(just like in ME3,,,two or three bullets caused the death of reapers, edi, and the geth....is also praiseworthy but the cost of it was greater than control or synthesis therefore less praiseworthy....refusal is just god awful...morally speaking...

[wantedman dan]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Nothing is "moral" in war. It is not praiseworthy. The act was monstrous.

But, if I might play Devil's Advocate for a moment.

What if we had to invade Japan on the ground.

How many more lives would have been lost?

The better question, in my opinion, is why are we forced into this situation in a video game?

[Father_Jerusalem]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Nothing is "moral" in war. It is not praiseworthy. The act was monstrous.

But, if I might play Devil's Advocate for a moment.

What if we had to invade Japan on the ground?

How many more lives would have been lost?

And that's why I, and a lot of other people, can justify Destruction over Refusal every day of the week and twice on Sunday. If we Refuse Starchild, even if we win (and that's impossible) how many MORE lives will it cost than ending the war right here, right now?

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Nothing is "moral" in war. It is not praiseworthy. The act was monstrous.

But, if I might play Devil's Advocate for a moment.

What if we had to invade Japan on the ground?

How many more lives would have been lost?

If i could give my own personal opinion, I don't think we should have dropped the bombs on towns killing innocent civilians.

[Taboo]

I've never tried to justify my choice. I don't see a reason too because I cannot.

I refuse to make it brighter.

I actually plan on keeping the Geth alive the next time around to make it worse for myself.

Heart of Darkness, and all that.

[Father_Jerusalem]

alienatedflea wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

alienatedflea wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

None of the choices are in any way moral. At all.

All violate some staunch ingrained societal taboo (ha ha).

You get to pick which one you get to violate.

not really...was nuking Nagasaki and Hiroshima moral or immoral? (this event seems to be the one of the best related to destroy)

The fact that we targeted population centes instead of military targets with Fat Man and Little Boy, I think, is what pushes it over the edge to undeniably immoral... I understand WHY that decision was made, but I think if we had gone after military targets with the bombs you could still argue morality... 

In the end, they did what they were supposed to and ended the war, but I wouldn't call it "moral" at all.

utilirianistic...its praiseworthy..just two bombs caused the war to end...(just like in ME3,,,two or three bullets caused the death of reapers, edi, and the geth....is also praiseworthy but the cost of it was greater than control or synthesis therefore less praiseworthy....refusal is just god awful...morally speaking...

I agree that Refusal is god awful morally speaking, and that ending the war is praiseworthy... I just don't know that I would praise Destroy as much as I would Control. Synthesis, to me, is the worst of the "Win" options, but Destroy isn't THAT much better.

[Taboo]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Nothing is "moral" in war. It is not praiseworthy. The act was monstrous.

But, if I might play Devil's Advocate for a moment.

What if we had to invade Japan on the ground?

How many more lives would have been lost?

If i could give my own personal opinion, I don't think we should have dropped the bombs on towns killing innocent civilians.

I agree. It would have been better used on a fleet of ships or a military base.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Nothing is "moral" in war. It is not praiseworthy. The act was monstrous.

But, if I might play Devil's Advocate for a moment.

What if we had to invade Japan on the ground?

How many more lives would have been lost?

And that's why I, and a lot of other people, can justify Destruction over Refusal every day of the week and twice on Sunday. If we Refuse Starchild, even if we win (and that's impossible) how many MORE lives will it cost than ending the war right here, right now?

I don't feel like arguing again, but please don't compare WW2 to ME, they are two completely different situations with different circumstances.

[alienatedflea]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Nothing is "moral" in war. It is not praiseworthy. The act was monstrous.

But, if I might play Devil's Advocate for a moment.

What if we had to invade Japan on the ground?

How many more lives would have been lost?

if thats true...then why the heck are you people saying that some options are "better" than others...are you saying this argument in many many threads are pointless...just trolls getting people pissed off?

[mauro2222]

wantedman dan wrote...

The better question, in my opinion, is why are we forced into this situation in a video game?

Nice question...

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Nothing is "moral" in war. It is not praiseworthy. The act was monstrous.

But, if I might play Devil's Advocate for a moment.

What if we had to invade Japan on the ground?

How many more lives would have been lost?

If i could give my own personal opinion, I don't think we should have dropped the bombs on towns killing innocent civilians.

I agree. It would have been better used on a fleet of ships or a military base.

Thats when I believe the US took it to far, killing soldiers is one thing, but killing children, civilians, wiping everything out is just wrong.

[Reorte]

wantedman dan wrote...

The better question, in my opinion, is why are we forced into this situation in a video game?

At last, something I think that we can agree on.

[Taboo]

alienatedflea wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Nothing is "moral" in war. It is not praiseworthy. The act was monstrous.

But, if I might play Devil's Advocate for a moment.

What if we had to invade Japan on the ground?

How many more lives would have been lost?

if thats true...then why the heck are you people saying that some options are "better" than others...are you saying this argument in many many threads are pointless...just trolls getting people pissed off?

One ends with the destruction of the opposing force. The other two interfere afterwards. I cannot interfere past said point, as it is no longer war.

I'm not trying to justify what I did, to do so would be against whatever moral code my Shepard has left.

There will be no interference past stopping the Reapers. The consequences of my actions are on my shoulders.

[Mavqt]

Kaica wrote...

^ my reason for destroy.

It was what I was dedicated to do since the first game.

I loved Legion (though he died earlier, not in the end) and EDI, too. I liked all the geth after I learned the truth about the quarian-geth-situation.

They needed to be sacrificed to destroy the reapers. Simple as that.

I didn't do it to survive myself or because I'm a heartless murderer. It needed to be done.

Ditto to this and OP.

[agu123]

alienatedflea wrote...

Destroy actually forces all organics to become just as heartless and cold as the reapers...something that to most would make them shutter

You can clearly see the Organics turning all Synthetics into Organic lifeforms or indoctrinating them in the destroy ending.

[alienatedflea]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

I agree that Refusal is god awful morally speaking, and that ending the war is praiseworthy... I just don't know that I would praise Destroy as much as I would Control. Synthesis, to me, is the worst of the "Win" options, but Destroy isn't THAT much better.

well according to taboo...nothing in war is moral...so war is hell...right?  Destroy is not better because you become just as cold hearted and uncaring as the reapers...just the fact that we, organics, can rationalize it away so we sleep better at night...machines see in facts...not emotions

[alienatedflea]

agu123 wrote...

alienatedflea wrote...

Destroy actually forces all organics to become just as heartless and cold as the reapers...something that to most would make them shutter

You can clearly see the Organics turning all Synthetics into Organic lifeforms or indoctrinating them in the destroy ending.

i dont know what the **** you are talking about...

[Taboo]

alienatedflea wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

I agree that Refusal is god awful morally speaking, and that ending the war is praiseworthy... I just don't know that I would praise Destroy as much as I would Control. Synthesis, to me, is the worst of the "Win" options, but Destroy isn't THAT much better.

well according to taboo...nothing in war is moral...so war is hell...right?  Destroy is not better because you become just as cold hearted and uncaring as the reapers...just the fact that we, organics, can rationalize it away so we sleep better at night...machines see in facts...not emotions

Which is entirely my point. If you'd been paying attention to all the literary references I've been throwing out you have gotten this by now.

To Destroy the enemy, I have to become the enemy.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

agu123 wrote...

alienatedflea wrote...

Destroy actually forces all organics to become just as heartless and cold as the reapers...something that to most would make them shutter

You can clearly see the Organics turning all Synthetics into Organic lifeforms or indoctrinating them in the destroy ending.

what?

[alienatedflea]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Nothing is "moral" in war. It is not praiseworthy. The act was monstrous.

But, if I might play Devil's Advocate for a moment.

What if we had to invade Japan on the ground?

How many more lives would have been lost?

too many...on both sides and even more on the Japanese side since the civilians believed in Bushido....Death before dishonor.