166 réponses à ce sujet

[Steelcan]

Xilizhra wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

"Prepared for that tactic," yeah... N7: Javelin Missiles Launched

I'm sure the Alliance will screen every band of Batarian slavers entering their space to make sure Balak isn't among them. What was that about Collector attacks?

Yes... that was in the Terminus Systems, not Alliance space. As were the Collector attacks. The Alliance has no jurisdiction and can't really do much in either case.

. Actually Watson had an Alliance presence at the Spaceport.  It was a terrorist attack against a military installation and civilian target.  And the Alliance has jurisdicdction, they just ignore them and the colonists are ok with it, until they need help, but it is not forthcoming.

[robertthebard]

Genocide.

So that I'm clear here, the Catalyst is not to be trusted. Everything it says is a lie? So how is anyone to believe that the geth and EDI will really die, and it's not just trying to dissuade you from choosing it? Then, if one does choose it, is it really genocide, see above, or actually Collateral Damage As we can see, genocide requires that we deliberately and systematically wipe out these cultures, but the latter is an unintended side effect of our actions. I realize that this is BSN, and that words/meanings are changed to suit the discussion, but I think I'll stick with what the words and concepts really mean, thank you very much.

Modifié par robertthebard, 12 avril 2013 - 06:27 .

[Lieutenant Kurin]

I'd like to be the one to say there is no right choice here. Refusal is to do nothing, to allow the only hope as of yet just disappear. All other choices lead to the total stranding of everyone who tried to save your race, and leaving every colony out there on their own. In addition, with the lack of dextro supplies, one could theorize that most of the quarian people (if you saved them) were decimated through the firing of the Crucible, as their ENTIRE fleet (civilians included) were left stranded above Earth.

Point being, there is no wrong choice here, it technically would be a spur of the moment decision where the only surefire result of all of them would be more deaths. Not to mention it had to be decided by a Commander who was high on adrenaline and bleeding from everything. Again, no right choice.

And personally, I don't see Control as a solution, there is a reason why we retire leaders after a while, they lose touch of humanity because of the stresses of their job. The Catalyst effectively proves that trying to sort this whole organics vs. synthetics thing drives a person bananas.

By the way, anyone noticed that the entire three part solution involves three Cs? Citadel, Crucible, Catalyst? I wonder if that was intentional.

[Xilizhra]

robertthebard wrote...

Genocide.

So that I'm clear here, the Catalyst is not to be trusted. Everything it says is a lie? So how is anyone to believe that the geth and EDI will really die, and it's not just trying to dissuade you from choosing it? Then, if one does choose it, is it really genocide, see above, or actually Collateral Damage As we can see, genocide requires that we deliberately and systematically wipe out these cultures, but the latter is an unintended side effect of our actions. I realize that this is BSN, and that words/meanings are changed to suit the discussion, but I think I'll stick with what the words and concepts really mean, thank you very much.

Why trust that Destroy will even work if you disbelieve the Catalyst?

[robertthebard]

Xilizhra wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Genocide.

So that I'm clear here, the Catalyst is not to be trusted. Everything it says is a lie? So how is anyone to believe that the geth and EDI will really die, and it's not just trying to dissuade you from choosing it? Then, if one does choose it, is it really genocide, see above, or actually Collateral Damage As we can see, genocide requires that we deliberately and systematically wipe out these cultures, but the latter is an unintended side effect of our actions. I realize that this is BSN, and that words/meanings are changed to suit the discussion, but I think I'll stick with what the words and concepts really mean, thank you very much.

Why trust that Destroy will even work if you disbelieve the Catalyst?

My position is, why allow yourself to get that far in the first place.  I think I dubbed it ultimate refusal once, by refusing to believe that I could survive a laser blast, even a near miss, that rips cruisers in half, on foot.  If one is going to accept that DeM, why not accept the Catalyst at face value.  I mean, you have technically opened yourself up to being DeMd by getting there, what's one more?

[Clayless]

robertthebard wrote...

Genocide.

So that I'm clear here, the Catalyst is not to be trusted. Everything it says is a lie? So how is anyone to believe that the geth and EDI will really die, and it's not just trying to dissuade you from choosing it? Then, if one does choose it, is it really genocide, see above, or actually Collateral Damage As we can see, genocide requires that we deliberately and systematically wipe out these cultures, but the latter is an unintended side effect of our actions. I realize that this is BSN, and that words/meanings are changed to suit the discussion, but I think I'll stick with what the words and concepts really mean, thank you very much.

It's not an unintended side effect of your actions. You went into it knowing full well what would happen.

There might be innocents in the way of the bad guy, and by all means gun them down and rip them in half with your bullets to hit the bad buy behind them, just don't expect any court to agree that what you did wasn't murder.

As such, it is genocide.

[Steelcan]

@Robosexual, it actually is unintended. The Catalyst never says that geth and EDI will die. It just very heavily implies it.

[robertthebard]

Robosexual wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Genocide.

So that I'm clear here, the Catalyst is not to be trusted. Everything it says is a lie? So how is anyone to believe that the geth and EDI will really die, and it's not just trying to dissuade you from choosing it? Then, if one does choose it, is it really genocide, see above, or actually Collateral Damage As we can see, genocide requires that we deliberately and systematically wipe out these cultures, but the latter is an unintended side effect of our actions. I realize that this is BSN, and that words/meanings are changed to suit the discussion, but I think I'll stick with what the words and concepts really mean, thank you very much.

It's not an unintended side effect of your actions. You went into it knowing full well what would happen.

There might be innocents in the way of the bad guy, and by all means gun them down and rip them in half with your bullets to hit the bad buy behind them, just don't expect any court to agree that what you did wasn't murder.

As such, it is genocide.

So we systematically went about killing the geth?  How many ships did we lose doing that?  In fact, can you point to some codex entries to support our

the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

?  This is the definition of genocide.  I provided the link to it in my quoted post.  I'm not interested in rewriting the English language to support "you people are monsters".  I do realize that it's a tendency on BSN, but maybe it's time we "Hold the Line" on preventing the bastardization of our language to try to insinuate that a segment of the population are monsters for choosing one abomination of an ending over another.

[Clayless]

Steelcan wrote...

@Robosexual, it actually is unintended. The Catalyst never says that geth and EDI will die. It just very heavily implies it.

You could heavily imply that all those people will die if you rip them in half to hit the guy behind them.

It really makes no difference in the end how it was portrayed beforehand, you knew what was going to happen, your actions were intentional.

[Clayless]

robertthebard wrote...

the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

?  This is the definition of genocide.  I provided the link to it in my quoted post.  I'm not interested in rewriting the English language to support "you people are monsters".  I do realize that it's a tendency on BSN, but maybe it's time we "Hold the Line" on preventing the bastardization of our language to try to insinuate that a segment of the population are monsters for choosing one abomination of an ending over another.

Sure:

Deliberate - Done consciously and intentionally.

AKA

Picking destroy intentionally and consciously with the distinct knowledge that you will commit genocide.

There's no bastardisation of our language. It's in fact spelled out in clear English.

[Steelcan]

Robosexual wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

@Robosexual, it actually is unintended. The Catalyst never says that geth and EDI will die. It just very heavily implies it.

You could heavily imply that all those people will die if you rip them in half to hit the guy behind them.

It really makes no difference in the end how it was portrayed beforehand, you knew what was going to happen, your actions were intentional.

. My action was not "Il going to kill the geth". The action was "Im going to kill the Reapers". The geth are just an unfortunate side affect.

[PirateMouse]

Steelcan wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

@Robosexual, it actually is unintended. The Catalyst never says that geth and EDI will die. It just very heavily implies it.

You could heavily imply that all those people will die if you rip them in half to hit the guy behind them.

It really makes no difference in the end how it was portrayed beforehand, you knew what was going to happen, your actions were intentional.

. My action was not "Il going to kill the geth". The action was "Im going to kill the Reapers". The geth are just an unfortunate side affect.

My action was not "I'm going to kill that person."  My action was "I'm going to pull the trigger."  Blowing his head off was just an unfortunate side effect.

To put it another way, I could set off a nuke to kill one person and then argue by your logic that my intent was only to kill the one person -- all of the other deaths were unfortunate side effects, so I didn't murder those people.

The moment you know what you're doing and what the consequence will or will likely be, you're fully responsible for the action and are committing it with intent.

Modifié par PirateMouse, 12 avril 2013 - 06:53 .

[Steelcan]

PirateMouse wrote...

My action was not "I'm going to kill that person."  My action was "I'm going to pull the trigger."  Blowing his head off was just an unfortunate side effect.

The moment you know what you're doing and what the consequence will or will likely be, you're fully responsible for the action and are committing it with intent.

. Your example would be valid only if there was a third person behind the person you shot who also got shot, and you were not told that he will die as well.

[PirateMouse]

Steelcan wrote...

PirateMouse wrote...

My action was not "I'm going to kill that person."  My action was "I'm going to pull the trigger."  Blowing his head off was just an unfortunate side effect.

The moment you know what you're doing and what the consequence will or will likely be, you're fully responsible for the action and are committing it with intent.

. Your example would be valid only if there was a third person behind the person you shot who also got shot, and you were not told that he will die as well.

But you were told, and you did it anyway.

[Reorte]

Robosexual wrote...

It's not an unintended side effect of your actions. You went into it knowing full well what would happen.

There might be innocents in the way of the bad guy, and by all means gun them down and rip them in half with your bullets to hit the bad buy behind them, just don't expect any court to agree that what you did wasn't murder.

As such, it is genocide.

No, because it is not deliberate or your target. That's why people don't get sent to prison for war crimes when they know an attack will cause collateral civilian casualties - if it's still seen to be a justified attack. Deliberately bombing civilians on the other hand is a war crime. In your example the court may well agree that it wasn't murder, depending upon the circumstances. If it always was murder the use of human shields would be far more widespread.

Knowing something will happen as a side effect and going ahead with that action does not mean that you intend the side effects to happen. For intent you have to want them to happen and they have to be at least part of the reason you're carrying out the action.

Modifié par Reorte, 12 avril 2013 - 06:57 .

[PirateMouse]

Reorte wrote...

No, because it is not deliberate or your target.

Okay, so set off a nuke to kill one bad guy and then argue you were only killing the bad guy, and none of the other people were your targets (so therefore killing them wasn't deliberate).

It's exactly the same thing.

[Clayless]

Reorte wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

It's not an unintended side effect of your actions. You went into it knowing full well what would happen.

There might be innocents in the way of the bad guy, and by all means gun them down and rip them in half with your bullets to hit the bad buy behind them, just don't expect any court to agree that what you did wasn't murder.

As such, it is genocide.

No, because it is not deliberate or your target. That's why people don't get sent to prison for war crimes when they know an attack will cause collateral civilian casualties - if it's still seen to be a justified attack. Deliberately bombing civilians on the other hand is a war crime. In your example the court may well agree that it wasn't murder, depending upon the circumstances. If it always was murder the use of human shields would be far more widespread.

Knowing something will happen as a side effect and going ahead with that action does not mean that you intend the side effects to happen. For intent you have to want them to happen and they have to be at least part of the reason you're carrying out the action.

That's not the case. You don't launch a missile on one guy and then try to pretend it wasn't a war crime because you also knew the guy happened to be standing in the middle of a crowd. You don't unload a clip full of bullets into a dangerous criminal and then try to pretend you didn't murder the people who were standing in front of him.

You wanted to kill the guys. You wanted to kill the Reapers. You knew it would kill innocents and you knew it would commit genocide. Whether or not you wanted that to happen doesn't change the fact that you knew it would and intentionally chose to do it anyway.

[Reorte]

PirateMouse wrote...

Reorte wrote...

No, because it is not deliberate or your target.

Okay, so set off a nuke to kill one bad guy and then argue you were only killing the bad guy, and none of the other people were your targets (so therefore killing them wasn't deliberate).

It's exactly the same thing.

In that case it would generally be regarded as completely unproportional (even assuming that you didn't have any less destructive methods) and you'd get locked up (if you don't nuke everyone coming to lock you up too). If it was all you had and the bad guy was seconds away from activating some Wipe Out The Earth Doomsday device then it would be justified and you'd be free to go.

[PirateMouse]

Reorte wrote...

PirateMouse wrote...

Reorte wrote...

No, because it is not deliberate or your target.

Okay, so set off a nuke to kill one bad guy and then argue you were only killing the bad guy, and none of the other people were your targets (so therefore killing them wasn't deliberate).

It's exactly the same thing.

In that case it would generally be regarded as completely unproportional (even assuming that you didn't have any less destructive methods) and you'd get locked up (if you don't nuke everyone coming to lock you up too). If it was all you had and the bad guy was seconds away from activating some Wipe Out The Earth Doomsday device then it would be justified and you'd be free to go.

And then it comes out that you had another option that would have involved mind-controlling the bad guy to stop him but chose to set off the nuke anyway, killing countless innocents.  And then you're back on death row where you belong.

[Reorte]

Robosexual wrote...

That's not the case. You don't launch a missile on one guy and then try to pretend it wasn't a war crime because you also knew the guy happened to be standing in the middle of a crowd. You don't unload a clip full of bullets into a dangerous criminal and then try to pretend you didn't murder the people who were standing in front of him.

You wanted to kill the guys. You wanted to kill the Reapers. You knew it would kill innocents and you knew it would commit genocide. Whether or not you wanted that to happen doesn't change the fact that you knew it would and intentionally chose to do it anyway.

As I said, it's about proportion. If someone attacks you and kidnaps civilians and stuffs them in all its military facilities, and ties children to the top of its tanks, so it's impossible to fight back without innocents dying then there's no crime in fighting back even knowing innocents will die - it's not your intention that they will, there's just no realistic alternative.

And saying "knowing it will commit genocide" is a circular argument - intent is required for genocide, i.e. it has to be the reason for your attack. Even knowing the deaths will happen does not make it genocide if you did not want them to happen although, depending upon the exact circumstances, it could well be a different crime.

[Clayless]

Reorte wrote...

PirateMouse wrote...

Reorte wrote...

No, because it is not deliberate or your target.

Okay, so set off a nuke to kill one bad guy and then argue you were only killing the bad guy, and none of the other people were your targets (so therefore killing them wasn't deliberate).

It's exactly the same thing.

In that case it would generally be regarded as completely unproportional (even assuming that you didn't have any less destructive methods) and you'd get locked up (if you don't nuke everyone coming to lock you up too). If it was all you had and the bad guy was seconds away from activating some Wipe Out The Earth Doomsday device then it would be justified and you'd be free to go.

Unless there were two other ways to stop the bad guy that didn't require killing anyone.

[Reorte]

PirateMouse wrote...

And then it comes out that you had another option that would have involved mind-controlling the bad guy to stop him but chose to set off the nuke anyway, killing countless innocents.  And then you're back on death row where you belong.

Only if a court believes such a ridiculous idea would actually work and wouldn't go wrong in the future, causing even worse damage.

[Reorte]

Robosexual wrote...

Unless there were two other ways to stop the bad guy that didn't require killing anyone.

One of which is an even worse crime and the other has absolutely no reason for anyone with any common sense to have any faith in it whatsoever.

[AlanC9]

While I do enjoy fights over language, everyone realizes how little is at stake here, right? However the word "genocide" is defined is irrelevant. It would matter in a court of law, but nobody's going to put Shepard on trial anyway.

[robertthebard]

Robosexual wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

?  This is the definition of genocide.  I provided the link to it in my quoted post.  I'm not interested in rewriting the English language to support "you people are monsters".  I do realize that it's a tendency on BSN, but maybe it's time we "Hold the Line" on preventing the bastardization of our language to try to insinuate that a segment of the population are monsters for choosing one abomination of an ending over another.

Sure:

Deliberate - Done consciously and intentionally.

AKA

Picking destroy intentionally and consciously with the distinct knowledge that you will commit genocide.

There's no bastardisation of our language. It's in fact spelled out in clear English.

Again, give me something that shows we committed genocide, not just "I said so", because quite frankly, that's not going to cut it.  You're right, it is spelled out in plain English, deliberate and systematic.  Nothing in what you said shows anything deliberate, since we can't even believe shooting the tube will destroy the Reapers, because everything the Catalyst says is a lie...Until you want to justify "you people are monsters".  Then it's Gospel Truth.  But I digress, there is nothing systematic about it either.  So yes, you are choosing to bastardize the English language to support "you people are monsters".  It's old, it's tired, and it's a lie.