692 réponses à ce sujet

[Bleachrude]

*LOL*

MassivelyEffective0730 is pretty much looking at it from a RTS standpoint aka..not real people but just numbers to move around...

Now...of course, if this was his family and friends he was willing to experiment on (I mean...it should be easier to simply grab his own kid that try to grab some random kid ), then I would say he truly is willing to do anything.....

[DeinonSlayer]

Steelcan wrote...

Can you prove that Lawson is xenophobic?

Nothing in the games, but there was a bit of wince-worthy dialogue in the "Liara Rescues Shepard's Corpse" comic if I recall.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Dextro Milk wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Dextro Milk wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Dextro Milk wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

The paragon butthurt is strong

One could say the same about some of your renegade pals in this thread... 

Perhaps, but the "it's wrong because it makes me feel icky" argument always gives me a laugh

You know what makes me laugh?

When people say the end justifies the means.

It's laughably pathetic.

How is it pathetic?

Now I'm going to take a page from your own book.

It's my opinion, deal with it. I just hate people that kill innocent people for ****ty reasons.

I'm willing to deal with it.

But what are your reasons for thinking this?

I'm not saying anything against your opinion - it's yours and you're entitled to it.

But I ask that you defend it. Back it up. Explain your position.

I'm extending you a courtesy. I'm respecting your opinion, even though I don't agree with it. I ask that you do the same. The best way you can do this is to make an argument:

Why are my reasons ****ty?

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 09 août 2013 - 02:28 .

[shingara]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

shingara wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

No. They don't.  I'm willing to kill to achieve my results, as long as my results are worth the deaths. Not every result requires death.

 Yes your willing to kill and experiment upon innocent victims, i dont need to make an argument against you as you keep on stating exactly what your standing is.

All you're doing is reiterating my argument boss.

It sounds like you actually support it now. That's how you're arguing.

Do you support it? If you don't, tell me why. Make an argument.

Don't just say it's wrong because it sounds bad. WHY does it sound bad? That's how you make an argument.

 How does it sound wrong, are you for real. I shudder to think what goes on within your mind. the arguments you put forth are truly scary. You honestly see no wrong in the torture and killing of innocent victims. How many is justifiable massive, 10, 20, 100, 1000, 10,000, 1 million.

  At which point in your mind does killing one inocent victim become fine.

 And for am i agree'ing with you, are you having a laugh. Highlighting your ideoligy for methods that are acceptable in no way conclude that i accept them. I am repulsed by them. To my very core i feel how you defend the actions taken as repulsive.

 Im just wondering if the next thing that drips from your mouth is well the people within cerberus were only following orders.

Modifié par shingara, 09 août 2013 - 02:35 .

[Dextro Milk]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I'm willing to deal with it.

But what are your reasons for thinking this?

I'm not saying anything against your opinion - it's yours and you're entitled to it.

But I ask that you defend it. Back it up. Explain your position.

Why are my reasons ****ty?

Anything you could have gained from Sanctuary, you could have got from other means. You didn't need to kill those people. If there is a way to save lives, take it (If it is realistic, I'm not talking about picking Synthesis or Control when those two have major concerns within)

This also follows my belief that controlling the reapers was a stupid decision to begin with, not worth whatever it would have cost.

[HellbirdIV]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

That said, just because he lacks morality does not mean he lacks reason, or logic, or good idea's.

Morality is the sole reason things have value. Logic is mathematics. Mathematics require a value assigned to each component to reach a concrete result.

Without morality, there is no logical decision making.

Even your allegedly "pragmatic" choices are based in morality - a skewed and twisted sense of morality, hence why we disapprove.

You justify Cerberus' actions by saying it is for the greater good. That the value of some lives is lesser than that of many others and this justifies atrocities and murder. But without morality human life has no value - the human species has no value.

Without morality the Reapers might as well eat everyone. Who cares if they do? The universe won't miss humanity. The universe does not care. It can not care.

Modifié par HellbirdIV, 09 août 2013 - 02:51 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

[quote]shingara wrote...

[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

[quote]shingara wrote...

[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

No. They don't.  I'm willing to kill to achieve my results, as long as my results are worth the deaths. Not every result requires death.


[/quote]

 Yes your willing to kill and experiment upon innocent victims, i dont need to make an argument against you as you keep on stating exactly what your standing is.

[/quote]

All you're doing is reiterating my argument boss.

It sounds like you actually support it now. That's how you're arguing.

Do you support it? If you don't, tell me why. Make an argument.

Don't just say it's wrong because it sounds bad. WHY does it sound bad? That's how you make an argument.

[/quote]

 How does it sound wrong, are you for real?
[/quote]

Yes, I am for real. Make an argument against me. Don't just say I'm evil. That isn't an argument. 

I think you're evil for not doing everything necessary to fight the Reapers.

What are you going to do now?

[quote]

I shudder to think what goes on within your mind. the arguments you put forth are truly scary.

[/quote]

Genetic fallacies and bulverism will get you no-where. I think it's scary how you're not willing to do what's necessary to fight the Reapers.

My arguments make sense. They may be cruel. They may be brutal. But they make sense.

Can you honestly say that the Reapers aren't worse? That's how I see it. That's my justification. If I'm preventing a greater evil like the Reapers from wiping out all of the galaxy, then I'll gladly do the scary and cruel and brutal things to stop them.

[quote]
You honestly see no wrong in the torture and killing of innocent victims.
[/quote]

If it's for the right reasons, no I don't.

Steel your compassion.

Detach yourself.

Let go of your emotions.

Be dispassionate.

[quote]
How many is justifiable massive, 10, 20, 100, 1000, 10,000, 1 million.[/quote]

The lowest amount of necessary deaths is my justifiable limit. It depends on what I have to do. I'm afraid I'll need much more than a million innocent deaths. 

It brings me no pleasure, but when it comes to survival.... Do what you gotta do.

[quote]
  At which point in your mind does killing one inocent victim become fine.
[/quote]

When the consequences of not killing that innocent victim are greater than the benefits of not killing that innocent victim.

[quote]
 And for am i agree'ing with you, are you having a laugh?
[/quote]

No. 

But you keep restating my point and saying that it speaks for itself.

You must really like my point if you keep pointing it out.

[quote]
Highlighting your ideoligy for methods that are acceptable in no way conclude that i accept them. I am repulsed by them. To my very core i feel how you defend the actions taken as repulsive.
[/quote]

Then be repulsed by them. But don't discount them as invalid because they're 'immoral'. If they stop the Reapers (which are far, far worse than anything I could ever do), they're valid to me.

Maybe if the alliance and the Council didn't have a stick up their ass and actually saw the threat of the Reapers early, then Cerberus and I wouldn't have to resort to such terrible methods to stop them.

The evil of ignorant pride is by far the worst evil that man can wreak. In my opinion, that is what the alliance and the Council have done in regards to the Reapers.

[quote]
 Im just wondering if the next thing that drips from your mouth is well they people within cerberus were only following orders.
[/quote]

No. In fact, I think it was lack of suitable leadership on TIM's part that caused so much crap to happen. He seriously mismanaged Cerberus from an administrative standpoint.

[shingara]

HellbirdIV wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

That said, just because he lacks morality does not mean he lacks reason, or logic, or good idea's.

Morality is the sole reason things have value. Logic is mathematics. Mathematics require a value assigned to each component to reach a concrete result.

Without morality, there is no logical decision making.

Even your allegedly "pragmatic" choices are based in morality - a skewed and twisted sense of morality, hence why we disapprove.

You justify Cerberus' actions by saying it is for the greater good. That the value of some lives is lesser than that of many others and this justifies atrocities and murder. But without morality human life has no value - the human species has no value.

Without morality the Reapers might as well eat everyone. Who cares if they do? The universe won't miss humanity. The universe does not care. It can not care.

 Yup they seem to justify in there mind all the evil actions are for the greater good. They honestly see no wrong for what they do or the morality of the action. There is a word for those types of people, Psychopaths.

Modifié par shingara, 09 août 2013 - 02:58 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

HellbirdIV wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

That said, just because he lacks morality does not mean he lacks reason, or logic, or good idea's.

Morality is the sole reason things have value. Logic is mathematics. Mathematics require a value assigned to each component to reach a concrete result.

No, it's not. Not at all. Morality is not the reason things have value. Not for me. And one exception to that argument proves you false. 

Mathematics is a facet of logic. Mathematics is the science of logic and problem solving, but it is not the only means to express logic.

Logic is the art of using reason in any activity, including the study of reasoning. Don't use an equivocation fallacy by limiting logic's definition.

Without morality, there is no logical decision making.

I disagree completely. In some instances, I believe logical decision making is hampered by morality.

Even your allegedly "pragmatic" choices are based in morality - a skewed and twisted sense of morality, hence why we disapprove.

I don't care if you disapprove. It's not a skewed and twisted sense of morality. That said, define morality. Then give me the objective meaning to it. 

You can't, because there is no objectve meaning to reality. 

All I ask is that you give me a real argument on why my opinion is bad. Don't say it's immoral. Don't say it's evil. That's not telling me it's wrong.

Tell me the benefits of keeping civilians alive over killing them.

You justify Cerberus' actions by saying it is for the greater good. That the value of some lives is lesser than that of many others and this justifies atrocities and murder.

I certainly don't believe that the value of any life is lesser or greater than any other. 

It's because I believe that the value of all intelligent life (philosophically) is equal that I do what I do. The value of all the lives of those who will die by my actions to stop the Reapers (and justify Cerberus' actions) is ultimately less - far less - than the value of all lives who will benefit. All lives who will never have to live under the fear of annihilation by the Reapers.

But without morality human life has no value - the human species has no value.

We *have* no intrinsic value. What are we? A bunch of small bugs on an insignificant blue speck of dust orbiting an unremarkable yellow dwarf in the mid-rim of a mid-sized spiral galaxy on the edge of a small group of galaxies that make up a rather small supercluster of galaxies in this region of the Universe?

We make our own value. Our own meaning. We aren't born with it. We make it ourselves.

Without morality the Reapers might as well eat everyone. Who cares if they do? The universe won't miss humanity. The universe does not care. It can not care.

No it doesn't. But you don't need morality to care. You really don't. That's why we stand up and fight them. 

You're arguments are verging on the point of invoking a deity or divine being.

[shingara]

Hey massive, induldge me. What is the definition of a psychopath ?

[rekn2]

HellbirdIV wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

That said, just because he lacks morality does not mean he lacks reason, or logic, or good idea's.

Morality is the sole reason things have value. Logic is mathematics. Mathematics require a value assigned to each component to reach a concrete result.

Without morality, there is no logical decision making.

Even your allegedly "pragmatic" choices are based in morality - a skewed and twisted sense of morality, hence why we disapprove.

You justify Cerberus' actions by saying it is for the greater good. That the value of some lives is lesser than that of many others and this justifies atrocities and murder. But without morality human life has no value - the human species has no value.

Without morality the Reapers might as well eat everyone. Who cares if they do? The universe won't miss humanity. The universe does not care. It can not care.

hellbird...

talks down to you about morality...using a computer whos parts are manufactured by slaves in sweatshops in countries with no individual rights, wearing clothes that were made the same way.

wonder how many kids were beaten to make your shoes.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Dextro Milk wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I'm willing to deal with it.

But what are your reasons for thinking this?

I'm not saying anything against your opinion - it's yours and you're entitled to it.

But I ask that you defend it. Back it up. Explain your position.

Why are my reasons ****ty?

Anything you could have gained from Sanctuary, you could have got from other means. You didn't need to kill those people. If there is a way to save lives, take it (If it is realistic, I'm not talking about picking Synthesis or Control when those two have major concerns within)

This also follows my belief that controlling the reapers was a stupid decision to begin with, not worth whatever it would have cost.

Finally, a real argument (sort of):

See, the thing is, I don't think there is a way to realistically save those lives in a way that benefits the war effort.

When it comes down to it, I'd rather beat the Reapers than save lives.

Saving lives does nothing to stop the Reapers. It just gives them more targets to kill. It just prolongs the inevitable for people who will likely die by the Reapers (or in fear of annihilation by them), and it does nothing to help us prevent that.

Instead, beating the Reapers at the cost of civilians means that we can defeat the Reapers, and prevent all other civilians who will ever live from having to worry about being annihilated or harvested by Reapers. 

That seems like a reasonable trade-off to me.

I will agree that contextually, Sanctuary was egregious in its death toll. The reason is because as you make in your second point: You didn't need to kill all those people because of indoctrination and studying it. It's all rather needless death. Especially on how to control the Reapers, something that is likely asinine to approach given the nature of Cerberus right now as the Reapers' agents. 

I think Sanctuary should have been dedicated to studying indoctrination in order to find an exploitable weakness that could tactically be used against the Reapers with the purpose of Destroying them.

The case of Saren and Sovereign comes to mind. If we could find a way to replicate that.... There would be a lot more dead Reapers prior to the final battle.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

shingara wrote...

Hey massive, induldge me. What is the definition of a psychopath ?

What's the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath?

Do you watch Sherlock?

I am a high functioning socipath.

I know this.

That does not mean my points have no merit. I have carefully and logically thought out my points. And kept emotion to a minimum.

To say that they have no merit is prejudice against me. Same with a psychopath.

If you exclude morality and emotion from your arguments and instead focus on reason and logic, my arguments will make a lot more sense.

I'm also an INTJ type personality. Look that up. It will make sense.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 09 août 2013 - 03:27 .

[shingara]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

shingara wrote...

Hey massive, induldge me. What is the definition of a psychopath ?

What's the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath?

Do you watch Sherlock?

 psychopaths are erratic whilst sociopaths are controlled, thanks, now whats the definition.

Modifié par shingara, 09 août 2013 - 03:27 .

[jtav]

We can't do evil so that good may come of it. Better to let the Reapers win in that case.. And we have an obligation to ensure as little harm as possible when we do engage in warfare. The problem is the game has a very odd moral system in places.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

shingara wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

shingara wrote...

Hey massive, induldge me. What is the definition of a psychopath ?

What's the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath?

Do you watch Sherlock?

 psychopaths are erratic whilst sociopaths are controlled, thanks, now whats the definition.

Why do I have to do what you can do yourself? It's a rhetorical question.

[shingara]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

shingara wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

shingara wrote...

Hey massive, induldge me. What is the definition of a psychopath ?

What's the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath?

Do you watch Sherlock?

 psychopaths are erratic whilst sociopaths are controlled, thanks, now whats the definition.

Why do I have to do what you can do yourself? It's a rhetorical question.

 If its beyond you to state what defines a psychopath then i am willing to get the definition.

[ATiBotka]

shingara wrote...

What is the definition of a psychopath ?

Did I ever tell you the definition of insanity?

[shingara]

ATiBotka wrote...

shingara wrote...

What is the definition of a psychopath ?

Did I ever tell you the definition of insanity?

 Does it involve licking windows ?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

jtav wrote...

We can't do evil so that good may come of it. Better to let the Reapers win in that case.. And we have an obligation to ensure as little harm as possible when we do engage in warfare. The problem is the game has a very odd moral system in places.

It is true. An entire philosophy based on pragmatism is not something that will be condusive to society or civiliation in the long-term.

But I think we disagree on our definition of evil. I know this stems from a difference in our perspectives, as we have discussed this before in the Miranda-group. I define evil as an abstract, subjective, earthly based concept. You base it on a more spiritual, objective manner. I think it's best to not get into this argument. We'll agree to disagree on the Reapers.

Same with warfare. It depends on the war. Wreckless and callous abandon is never necessary, but sometimes, hard-war, as William Tecumseh Sherman called it, is absolutely necessary.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

shingara wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

shingara wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

shingara wrote...

Hey massive, induldge me. What is the definition of a psychopath ?

What's the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath?

Do you watch Sherlock?

 psychopaths are erratic whilst sociopaths are controlled, thanks, now whats the definition.

Why do I have to do what you can do yourself? It's a rhetorical question.

 If its beyond you to state what defines a psychopath then i am willing to get the definition.

It's not beyond me. But why should I answer a question that you will use against me for the sake of spite and ridicule?

I plead to the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. You're asking me to self-incriminate on your behalf.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 09 août 2013 - 03:41 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

ATiBotka wrote...

shingara wrote...

What is the definition of a psychopath ?

Did I ever tell you the definition of insanity?

Psychopathy =/= Insanity.

Ditto for Sociopathy.

[RatThing]

Morals aren´t even the biggest issue I have with cerberus. This organisation is simply dangerous (also for humanity). Because if the end justifies the means it justifies the risks as well. And this thinking sooner or later always leads to such a mess like with project overlord . In fact almost every questionable cerberus project got out of hand. So why even debating neccesary sacrifices for the greater good when cerberus caused nothing but sacrifices. For me Cerberus is just like some little kid playing with fire, constantly getting burned but still not learning. (Plus I don´t share their goal of human dominance.)

Modifié par RatThing, 09 août 2013 - 03:45 .

[shingara]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

shingara wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

shingara wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

shingara wrote...

Hey massive, induldge me. What is the definition of a psychopath ?

What's the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath?

Do you watch Sherlock?

 psychopaths are erratic whilst sociopaths are controlled, thanks, now whats the definition.

Why do I have to do what you can do yourself? It's a rhetorical question.

 If its beyond you to state what defines a psychopath then i am willing to get the definition.

It's not beyond me. But why should I answer a question that you will use against me for the sake of spite and ridicule?

I plead to the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

 ow i see you edited above,

 

noun
person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

 Now INJT or not which of the definitions are you following, INJT or Sociopath ?


 Edit ow and its not an attack on you, its an explanation for your reasoning.

Modifié par shingara, 09 août 2013 - 03:47 .

[jtav]

RatThing wrote...

Morals aren´t even the biggest issue I have with cerberus. This organisation is simply dangerous (also for humanity). Because if the end justifies the means it justifies the risks as well. And this thinking sooner or later always leads to such a mess like with project overlord . In fact almost every questionable cerberus project got out of hand. So why even debating neccesary sacrifices for the greater good when cerberus caused nothing but sacrifices. For me Cerberus is just like some little kid playing with fire, constantly getting burned but still not learning.

Because the game doesn't give us a respobsible version, those of us who agree with the ideology and see something very wring with the status quo are forced to salvage what we can from Cerberus.