692 réponses à ce sujet

[o Ventus]

shingara wrote...

 It makes everything you say on the subject of saving life worthless, your idea of saving is base mathematics and who you can be bothered to take along the way on the usefulness of what they can do for you without diminishing your resources. Your main thinking breaks all REAL rules/laws against warcrimes.

Trying to account for war crimes in a hypothetical scenario involving apocalyptic total war against a legion of robotic cuttlefish to take our dead and turn them into tech zombies, and mind control our living.

Please stop.

Modifié par o Ventus, 09 août 2013 - 07:37 .

[shingara]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Snip

Do you understand this.


Not all violations of the treaty are treated equally. The most
serious crimes are termed grave breaches, and provide a legal definition
of a war crime.
Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the
following acts if committed against a person protected by the
convention:

• willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment, including biological experiments
• willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
• compelling someone to serve in the forces of a hostile power
• willfully depriving someone of the right to a fair trial if accused of a war crime.

Also considered grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention are the following:

• taking of hostages
• extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly
• unlawful deportation, transfer, or confinement.[20]

[MassivelyEffective0730]

shingara wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

shingara wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

The level of fail in this is discouraging.

Hundreds. In an hour.

Versus hundreds of thousands. In two days. With no warning. No preparation.

It's not happening.

I stopped listening to you a long time ago. You consider life worthless to begin with.

Not listening to me doesn't make what I have to say any less true.

I take it as evidence that you don't have anything to say to counter my argument, for reasons that I won't state here because it will be construed as an insult (and not unjustly) and for which I'd probably be banned for.

 It makes everything you say on the subject of saving life worthless, your idea of saving is base mathematics and who you can be bothered to take along the way on the usefulness of what they can do for you without diminishing your resources. Your main thinking breaks all REAL rules/laws against warcrimes.

Who cares about all the laws about war crimes? I've got bigger fish to fry fighting the Reapers.

Will telling them that they're committing war crimes stop them? Will telling them that they're breaking the law stop them?

Petty morality does nothing in the face of educated bullets.

I have a contradictory goal. I can either fight the Reapers, or I can respect the laws of war (which I think are a farce to begin with given that all war is amoral anyway. If it works, do it).

I choose to fight the Reapers.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

shingara wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Snip

Do you understand this.


Not all violations of the treaty are treated equally. The most
serious crimes are termed grave breaches, and provide a legal definition
of a war crime.
Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the
following acts if committed against a person protected by the
convention:

• willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment, including biological experiments
• willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
• compelling someone to serve in the forces of a hostile power
• willfully depriving someone of the right to a fair trial if accused of a war crime.

Also considered grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention are the following:

• taking of hostages
• extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly
• unlawful deportation, transfer, or confinement.[20]

I understand this perfectly.

I just don't give a damn. 

War is amoral. The purpose of war is to end said war. Doing whatever needs to be done to win it, depending on the circumstances of the war. 

All you're doing is trivializing war, making it a game by adding rules to it. Is it some kind of game to you? Do you think the decision to do this is just going to up and make war pretty for the family to watch on Faux News or CNN on Saturday night?

And yes, I'm speaking as a veteran. I'm speaking as an officer in the National Guard.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 09 août 2013 - 07:42 .

[Jukaga]

ME0730 just covered the relevant points again, so I won't bother.

[shingara]

o Ventus wrote...

shingara wrote...

 It makes everything you say on the subject of saving life worthless, your idea of saving is base mathematics and who you can be bothered to take along the way on the usefulness of what they can do for you without diminishing your resources. Your main thinking breaks all REAL rules/laws against warcrimes.

Trying to account for war crimes in a hypothetical scenario involving apocalyptic total war against a legion of robotic cuttlefish to take our dead and turn them into tech zombies, and mind control our living.

Please stop.

 Trying to justify Sanctuary cos there are a legion of robot legion of cuttlefish.

 please stop.

[shingara]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

shingara wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Snip

Do you understand this.


Not all violations of the treaty are treated equally. The most
serious crimes are termed grave breaches, and provide a legal definition
of a war crime.
Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the
following acts if committed against a person protected by the
convention:

• willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment, including biological experiments
• willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
• compelling someone to serve in the forces of a hostile power
• willfully depriving someone of the right to a fair trial if accused of a war crime.

Also considered grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention are the following:

• taking of hostages
• extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly
• unlawful deportation, transfer, or confinement.[20]

I understand this perfectly.

I just don't give a damn. 

War is amoral. The purpose of war is to end said war. Doing whatever needs to be done to win it, depending on the circumstances of the war.

 And which is explained because your a sociopath who has no moral compass. Thus not someone who im going to let lecture me on the moral virtues when discussing cerberus and there actions or how possible to help other beings.

Modifié par shingara, 09 août 2013 - 07:55 .

[DecCylonus]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Congrats. You caught me. I'm exposed.

Now if I may retort:

You're making an equivocation fallacy on me. By 'prejudice', I mean that my reasoning is being dismissed as bad simply because others who can't or won't argue against it won't like it. 

There was no challenge to me. I didn't even specifically say that there was. What I was implying was that my opinion, which is backed up by logic and reasoning, is being disgarded simply because 'it's evil'.

Anyway, that's some pretty odd logic; universal morality and prejudice (pre-judging) are two concepts that don't really correlate with each other. I don't believe that morality is universal. I believe it is relative. What does that have to do with my opinion being disgarded because people think I'm a "meany poopyhead pants-on-fire"? That's an unfair assertion against me don't you think?

Fairness is a moral concept. If there is no absolute standard of morality, as you claim, then nobody is required to treat you fairly or give your views a fair hearing. You can't dismiss the concept of an common standard of morality and then demand that we treat you according to one of its principles. Either there is a standard that we must all abide by, or there isn't. You can't claim protection under the thing you dismiss.

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
It's a better investment of my resources to invest in ways to look for weaknesses and flaws against the Reapers using them as guinea pigs than it is to feed all of them while they sit in some empty lot on a planet.

It's cheaper still to leave them to fend for themselves. If the Reapers get more ground troops, so what? We can shoot them down with our weapons. Reaper capital ships are the problems, and nukes are one of the few known killers. Why waste them killing civillians who might never become a threat to you?

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Read my idea on economic equilibrium. Not everyone can be made to be useful.

Equilibrium does not work like that.

Economics dpes not work like that.

If it did, we wouldn't have such a terrible situation in the global economy now would we?

Not everyone has to be useful to make them worth not killing. There is no gaurantee the Reapers will harvest them before they bring your military to its knees. You want to spend weapons, fuel, supplies, logistics, and man hours to slaughter people who might become a threat. You only have so much time before the galaxy collapses. You only have limited resources to fight the Reapers themselves. Why waste time and resources killing innocents when you could spend them killing the real threat?

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Who says all my soldiers are going to do it? Nukes don't have opinions. That's what's so great about them.

That said, what alternative do they have? Death? That's all they're going to face.

Reason and logic only go so far though.

This is a legitmate problem, I won't lie. I don't have a solution for it (yet), but saving all the civilians isn't the answer.

Saving civilians isn't going to help because now, I have to feed them. And guard them. And give them medical assistance. And entertain them. And all sorts of other problems that I don't have the resources or time to deal with or care about. Not with the Reapers coming to kill us all.

I can't train all of them, and I can't put them all to work. I have to find a solution that benefits the most amount of people. 

Unfortunately for many of these civilians, there will be no benefit. It sucks, but there's nothing I can do about it without screwing them even further.

That's just naive. Nukes don't have opinions, but they don't deploy themselves either. Somebody has to do it. Those people have opinions. Even if you can find willing people, the news of what you are doing will leak out and the rest of your forces will start to rebel.

What you seem to be missing is that unharvested civillians aren't much of a threat to you. You seem to be more scared of them than the Reapers themselves. Killing them has little strategic value when there are Sovereign class Reapers out there. Our ground troops can kill theirs very effectively. Why waste time and valuable nukes on them? Every resource you spend on that is one less you have to try to take out the Reaper capital ships, which are the real threat.

In a nutshell, you don't have to save them, because you can't. That's essentially the decision that Shepard, Garrus, and the galactic governments come to. But you don't have to kill them just because you can't save them.

And please, spare me the fallacy that you are offering them a way out. Most of them would rather fight the Reapers or hide in the hills than be nuked by you. If they want to commit suicide instead of being harvested that's their decision to make, not yours.

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
It'll be hard to hide.

But I'll pose one question: what alternative do they have. The Reapers? As bad as I am, I'm at least doing it to ensure that there is a tomorrow after the Reapers. If they don't join me, what are they going to do? Sit and twiddle their thumbs as the Reapers kill them? Because that's what will happen.

I won't lie, I'm putting them in a position of being in a rock and a hard place.

I have no problem dealing with criminals. As Aria says, they're willing to fight dirty and mean. Reason enough to bring to the fight.

Ever see the the Star Trek episode 'The Conscious of the King'? It's going to be a bit like that. 

You aren't even offering them a chance to join you. You are deciding who is useful and who isn't. The only alternative you are offering them is that you kill them instead of the Reapers. Most of them won't kindly let you nuke them so that their race can have a future. They would rather do their part and maybe have their own future, which means they will do everything they can to thwart you.

The criminals will charge you more and likely provide you shoddy merchandise to increase their take. So you pay more and get less. You can't really afford that if you plan to fight the Reapers. It isn't a viable solution to keep your military supplied.

Modifié par DecCylonus, 09 août 2013 - 07:49 .

[garrus and ashley squad]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

shingara wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

shingara wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

The level of fail in this is discouraging.

Hundreds. In an hour.

Versus hundreds of thousands. In two days. With no warning. No preparation.

It's not happening.

I stopped listening to you a long time ago. You consider life worthless to begin with.

Not listening to me doesn't make what I have to say any less true.

I take it as evidence that you don't have anything to say to counter my argument, for reasons that I won't state here because it will be construed as an insult (and not unjustly) and for which I'd probably be banned for.

 It makes everything you say on the subject of saving life worthless, your idea of saving is base mathematics and who you can be bothered to take along the way on the usefulness of what they can do for you without diminishing your resources. Your main thinking breaks all REAL rules/laws against warcrimes.

Who cares about all the laws about war crimes? I've got bigger fish to fry fighting the Reapers.

Will telling them that they're committing war crimes stop them? Will telling them that they're breaking the law stop them?

Petty morality does nothing in the face of educated bullets.

I have a contradictory goal. I can either fight the Reapers, or I can respect the laws of war (which I think are a farce to begin with given that all war is amoral anyway. If it works, do it).

I choose to fight the Reapers.

I can agree to some extent but I think some of them are just to extreme. 

[o Ventus]

shingara wrote...

 Trying to justify Sanctuary cos there are a legion of robot legion of cuttlefish.

 please stop.

Funny. I don't recall ever saying anything about Sanctuary to you.

You must have missed what I said about Sancuary earlier.

[shingara]

o Ventus wrote...

shingara wrote...

 Trying to justify Sanctuary cos there are a legion of robot legion of cuttlefish.

 please stop.

Funny. I don't recall ever saying anything about Sanctuary to you.

You must have missed what I said about Sancuary earlier.

 No but you quoted me when i was talking to massive on there justifacations for sanctuary. So whats your point ?

[garrus and ashley squad]

StreetMagic wrote...

This isn't even war as anyone knows it. This is akin to the kind of clusterf*ck survival mentality that kicks in during zombie movies. I don't see any actual relation to war. There's nothing like this.

I can see why you think that but the biggest difference is that we have a lot of military forces to command, with military training. The reapers didn't attack everyone and left some places alone, as for if this was similar to zoombies everyone is scattered, not a lot of military forces and they are trying to wipe everyone out, but can see where the idea would come from.

[Barquiel]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
I think the 'human dominance' claim is false personally. I think the truth to it, if there is any, is that it is a perversion of Cerberus goals that was twisted by the Reapers as they came under control.It makes sense. The Reapers, once in control of Cerberus, twist their idea's into something that creates conflict in the galaxy.It's how the Reapers operate. Divide and conquer. I think we can chalk it down to interpretation here. I just wish some people weren's so objective with it.

Adapting the technology of the Collector base could be the biggest advancement for human kind since the discovery of the relays. It will secure our dominance in the galaxy against the Reapers and beyond.

He doesn't exactly bother to hide his agenda (it's possible, of course, that he was indoctrinated during the events of Mass Effect: Evolution, when he indirectly contacted a Reaper's indoctrination device). You're probably right about the Kai Leng thing. It's been a while since I read the book, so I might have forgotten some details (I only remembered that quote). If that's the case then I stand corrected.

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Well, Cerberus, at least prior to being twisted and perverted by the Reapers, never wanted the humans to rule the galaxy. In Evolutions, TIM even tells Saren to get the Turians ready for the Reapers.That said, your headcanon is your headcanon. In mine, the Asari suffer a tremendous fall from grace and lose a lot of respect as the information on their hiding of the Prothean Beacon is leaked and the knowledge that the Asari witheld their forces from the war until the Reapers directly threatened Asari worlds becomes known.

The Asari commit their fleets to the cause before Thessia falls, without demanding the commitment of major resources to their defence...or the resolution of unrelated matters. They also join the war effort at virtually the same time as the Turians or Krogan, and contribute more war assets than the other two council races.

And no goverment is unselfish. The humans are all in this to take back Earth (what did the Alliance during the war?). The turians wanted assurance for Palaven. The Krogan wanted their cure. The quarians started their little war with the geth before anything else. And the salarian dalatrass doesn't seem worried about the Reapers at all. I think it's highly unlikely that they blame the asari for not sending their fleets on a suicide mission at the beginning of the war. As for the beacon (assuming it becomes public knowledge), I like to imagine that the people in the ME universe know how the asari goverment works. Because otherwise you could also say that everyone hates Humans now (Udina's and Cerberus' crimes).

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
And IMO, the status quo breeds stagnation and keeps the powerful on top. The Council is a powers club in my opinion. I'm against that. I want to open it up for all the races, not just humanity, but everyone. I remember I mentioned something about the Galactic Republic a few pages back. That's what the galaxy needs to become. To often the associate races, including humanity, were told to go eff themselves because the Council didn't want to actually take time and govern. And I'm not saying it was different with the humans on the Council either. They did the same as well.

I'm not opposed to the idea. But representation on the council/Galactic Republic (in any form) needs to reflect the reality of power (and population figures ofc). Major powers like the Turians or the Asari aren't going to let themselves be outvoted by the Elcor and the Quarians. And without Turian and Asari backing, the council/republic is pretty much meaningless (they police council space). I'd probably keep the current council and add 1-2 rotating seats. As much as I would like to give many races as much power as possible, I doubt it's possible to give power to someone who lacks the military, economical and political power to keep it. Take, for example, the Volus. Giving them a council seat would likely just double turian voting power.

Modifié par Barquiel, 09 août 2013 - 08:08 .

[dreamgazer]

StreetMagic wrote...

This isn't even war as anyone knows it. This is akin to the kind of clusterf*ck survival mentality that kicks in during zombie movies. I don't see any actual relation to war. There's nothing like this.

"This isn't about strategy or tactics!" 

[garrus and ashley squad]

StreetMagic wrote...

garrus and ashley squad wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

This isn't even war as anyone knows it. This is akin to the kind of clusterf*ck survival mentality that kicks in during zombie movies. I don't see any actual relation to war. There's nothing like this.

I can see why you think that but the biggest difference is that we have a lot of military forces to command, with military training. The reapers didn't attack everyone and left some places alone, as for if this was similar to zoombies everyone is scattered, not a lot of military forces and they are trying to wipe everyone out, but can see where the idea would come from.

Forces are in tact, sure, but civilization isn't exactly. All the very anchors and morality we rely on to carry society just don't even apply when something like Reapers (or zombies) are involved. No amount of morals or philosophy will help anyone here. The only ideal left is to prevent extinction.

That said I still think good values and society is worth upholding for their own sake, but I can understand why someone wouldn't, and would do anything for the sake of survival. But the only thing that will decide who is right between the two is strength - if you can kick their asses and remove them from the equation, then you can decide whatever you want is the "right" path. In the end, morality doesn't even win here. But strength.

I agree that most people's everyday morals do not apply here. That said, the most extreme approach is not neccessary. I agree if you are right then it might be worth it, but you have to think on the other hand what if you are wrong. What if you did the wrong thing and that backfired. Sure if you're right it's easy to say this worked but you have to take into the fact that what if you're wrong. Anyways though, that is just in the most extremem cases. I' am a big person in doing what you have to do. I will always choose to save 100 lives instead of 10. That doesn't mean though I willingly sacrifice the 10 or treat them any less. It's just if push comes to shove and I have to make a choice, then I will choose the 100 people. 

[Ravensword]

Seboist wrote...

Feel free to use Derpcible(Crucible) as well.

I lol'd.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

[quote]DecCylonus wrote...

[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Congrats. You caught me. I'm exposed.

Now if I may retort:

You're making an equivocation fallacy on me. By 'prejudice', I mean that my reasoning is being dismissed as bad simply because others who can't or won't argue against it won't like it. 

There was no challenge to me. I didn't even specifically say that there was. What I was implying was that my opinion, which is backed up by logic and reasoning, is being disgarded simply because 'it's evil'.

Anyway, that's some pretty odd logic; universal morality and prejudice (pre-judging) are two concepts that don't really correlate with each other. I don't believe that morality is universal. I believe it is relative. What does that have to do with my opinion being disgarded because people think I'm a "meany poopyhead pants-on-fire"? That's an unfair assertion against me don't you think?
[/quote]

Fairness is a moral concept. If there is no absolute standard of morality, as you claim, then nobody is required to treat you fairly or give your views a fair hearing. You can't dismiss the concept of an common standard of morality and then demand that we treat you according to one of its principles. Either there is a standard that we must all abide by, or there isn't. You can't claim protection under the thing you dismiss.[/quote]

Fairness is a moral concept that is based on the idea of everyone getting a look at one's opinions. No concept of morality requires a universal overarching standard to apply. 

That said, dismiss it if you want. It's my solution. It's what happens in my universe. It's what I'd do.

[quote]
[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
It's a better investment of my resources to invest in ways to look for weaknesses and flaws against the Reapers using them as guinea pigs than it is to feed all of them while they sit in some empty lot on a planet.
[/quote]

It's cheaper still to leave them to fend for themselves. If the Reapers get more ground troops, so what? We can shoot them down with our weapons. Reaper capital ships are the problems, and nukes are one of the few known killers. Why waste them killing civillians who might never become a threat to you?[/quote]

If the Reapers get more ground troops, that's a bigger problem. That's more enemies that might swarm me. More enemies that might overrun me. More enemies that will kill my men. and with the civilians abandoned to the Reapers, I have no one to replace them with as more and more husks attack me. Did you see what was happening on Menae? On Earth? The Turians were getting overrun pretty badly. The Reapers were really pressing them. Same on Earth. That sounded pretty bad. Pretty desperate. My ground troops were getting overwhelmed.

And I'm not wasting my nukes on civilians alone. I'm baiting the Reapers to said civilians. Once the Reapers arrive at said civilians, I'm pushing the button. In atmosphere-nuclear detonations work a lot better than in vacuum. I'm killing a two birds with one stone.

[quote]
[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Read my idea on economic equilibrium. Not everyone can be made to be useful.

Equilibrium does not work like that.

Economics does not work like that.

If it did, we wouldn't have such a terrible situation in the global economy now would we?
[/quote]
Not everyone has to be useful to make them worth not killing. There is no gaurantee the Reapers will harvest them before they bring your military to its knees. You want to spend weapons, fuel, supplies, logistics, and man hours to slaughter people who might become a threat. You only have so much time before the galaxy collapses. You only have limited resources to fight the Reapers themselves. Why waste time and resources killing innocents when you could spend them killing the real threat?
[/quote]

In this war? They absolutely have to be useful. The Reapers aren't allowing me to view civilians as anything but a resource to be exploited. Sounds simple enough right? Well you also happen to need resources to exploit resources. You have to be able to give, to invest, to receive, or get a return.

Though the manner in which you worded this intrigues me, I'm going to have to return to my last point add to it that these civilians are also taking up my resources. Keeping them alive expends just as much, if not more resources as keeping them alive, either as refugee's or abandoning them. I can't let the Reapers have them, because they are a potential threat.

Indoctrination is a threat. Husks are a threat. Not every husk is the little human one. Marauders are bad. Banshee's are bad. Brutes are bad. I'm sure whatever other husk forms that we don't see are bad as well. That's not something I'm willing to take a chance on.

[quote]
[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Who says all my soldiers are going to do it? Nukes don't have opinions. That's what's so great about them.

That said, what alternative do they have? Death? That's all they're going to face.

Reason and logic only go so far though.

This is a legitmate problem, I won't lie. I don't have a solution for it (yet), but saving all the civilians isn't the answer.

Saving civilians isn't going to help because now, I have to feed them. And guard them. And give them medical assistance. And entertain them. And all sorts of other problems that I don't have the resources or time to deal with or care about. Not with the Reapers coming to kill us all.

I can't train all of them, and I can't put them all to work. I have to find a solution that benefits the most amount of people. 

Unfortunately for many of these civilians, there will be no benefit. It sucks, but there's nothing I can do about it without screwing them even further.
[/quote]

That's just naive. Nukes don't have opinions, but they don't deploy themselves either. Somebody has to do it. Those people have opinions. Even if you can find willing people, the news of what you are doing will leak out and the rest of your forces will start to rebel.

What you seem to be missing is that unharvested civillians aren't much of a threat to you. You seem to be more scared of them than the Reapers themselves. Killing them has little strategic value when there are Sovereign class Reapers out there. Our ground troops can kill theirs very effectively. Why waste time and valuable nukes on them? Every resource you spend on that is one less you have to try to take out the Reaper capital ships, which are the real threat.[/quote]

So simply abandoning them to the Reapers (where they will be huskified, harvested, indoctrinated, or outright killed) is a better fate? I can't save them. My soldier know I can't save them. They know it's stupid to try. What am I to do? Let them live? As I said, I'd be shooting myself in the foot. 

The most efficient solution is to simply remove that variable entirely. It's far too destabilizing.

They are a threat. A grave threat. The Reapers can make them a threat. I'm not going to let the Reapers make them into a grave threat.

[quote]
In a nutshell, you don't have to save them, because you can't. That's essentially the decision that Shepard, Garrus, and the galactic governments come to. But you don't have to kill them just because you can't save them.
[/quote]

No I can't save them. But I can spare them from a fate that will happen to them if I don't spare them.

I consider more humane (and in the case of the experimentee's, more useful) to simply kill them myself.

The only alternative is letting the Reapers get them. That's it. If I don't kill them, then the Reapers will. One way or the other. That's it. Simple as that.

As I said, I'm removing them from the equation.

[quote]
And please, spare me the fallacy that you are offering them a way out. Most of them would rather fight the Reapers or hide in the hills than be nuked by you. If they want to commit suicide instead of being harvested that's their decision to make, not yours.[/quote]

Well, I'm not offering. They'll do more harm than good in the long run, and I'm not going to let them ruin our chance to save galactic society. 

How are they going to fight the Reapers anyway? There's nothing they can really do.

[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
It'll be hard to hide.

But I'll pose one question: what alternative do they have. The Reapers? As bad as I am, I'm at least doing it to ensure that there is a tomorrow after the Reapers. If they don't join me, what are they going to do? Sit and twiddle their thumbs as the Reapers kill them? Because that's what will happen.

I won't lie, I'm putting them in a position of being in a rock and a hard place.

I have no problem dealing with criminals. As Aria says, they're willing to fight dirty and mean. Reason enough to bring to the fight.

Ever see the the Star Trek episode 'The Conscious of the King'? It's going to be a bit like that. 

[/quote]
You aren't even offering them a chance to join you. You are deciding who is useful and who isn't. The only alternative you are offering them is that you kill them instead of the Reapers. Most of them won't kindly let you nuke them so that their race can have a future. They would rather do their part and maybe have their own future, which means they will do everything they can to thwart you.[/quote]

No. I'd consider an option to make them join, but it'd have no resources from us, and they would have a nuke on them to prevent their capture and use against me. They'd have to know that they are nothing but fodder for us. That's all they'd be. That's all I can use them for.

I know what they want to do. But there too weak to do anything on their own. They'd do nothing but hurt those of us that have a chance of survival, of a future. I'm not going to throw away the future of the galaxy so that they can build a false fantasy for the Reapers to demolish after we're dead.

You also speak as if I'd inform them of what's going on.

There is no future for these people.

[quote]
The criminals will charge you more and likely provide you shoddy merchandise to increase their take. So you pay more and get less. You can't really afford that if you plan to fight the Reapers. It isn't a viable solution to keep your military supplied.
[/quote]

That's kind of BS. I'd like to think criminals, as practical and survivalist as they are, would recognize that not helping me with their best and stiffing me would be pretty bad against the Reapers. Even Aria realizes this and admits it.

[garrus and ashley squad]

StreetMagic wrote...

garrus and ashley squad wrote...



I agree that most people's everyday morals do not apply here. That said, the most extreme approach is not neccessary.

I agree, but I'm just saying.. No amount of arguing is going to convince someone with MassivelyEffective's approach. Appealing to his sense of morality is pointless. You're not going to "guilt" them into thinking your way. The only way to solve that dispute is a fight. Like we get in the game with Shepard and Cerberus (technically, that might not be true. I suppose Shepard eventually does convince TIM he took the wrong path. Generally speaking though, a fight is the typical approach to solve something like this).

Agreed as well. Which is why I didn't go toward the morality approach. I just felt that some of those points were extreme and unneccessary. I don't disagree with everything just some things. To be honest in a war you need someone to think like that. To have that guy that will do everything it takes, but that doesn't mean we go that route, but those ideas should be brought to the table.

[o Ventus]

shingara wrote...

 No but you quoted me when i was talking to massive on there justifacations for sanctuary. So whats your point ?

My point is that morals and war ethics don't apply in the middle of an apocalyptic total war.

Did you miss that, or can you not read?

Modifié par o Ventus, 09 août 2013 - 08:41 .

[shingara]

o Ventus wrote...

shingara wrote...

 No but you quoted me when i was talking to massive on there justifacations for sanctuary. So whats your point ?

My point is that morals and war ethics don't apply in the middle of an apocalyptic total war.

Did you miss that, or can you not read?

 What a load of tosh, to detach morals because war seems apocolyptic is exactly the reason things like the geneva convension were created. For evil to triumph all that is required is for good men todo nothing. There have been plenty of real wars that are apoclypitic wars, were everything hanged in the balance.

 Where injustices were commited. The only thing you suggest within this scope is that to beat the enemy you have tobe as ruthless as the enemy no matter the cost. or are you somehow suggesting that if you for example were really within the war set here that if you were within a building with 30 none combatants, that if a baby started crying you would chop her head off so the enemy couldnt find you.

[garrus and ashley squad]

shingara wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

shingara wrote...

 No but you quoted me when i was talking to massive on there justifacations for sanctuary. So whats your point ?

My point is that morals and war ethics don't apply in the middle of an apocalyptic total war.

Did you miss that, or can you not read?

 What a load of tosh, to detach morals because war seems apocolyptic is exactly the reason things like the geneva convension were created. For evil to triumph all that is required is for good men todo nothing. There have been plenty of real wars that are apoclypitic wars, were everything hanged in the balance.

 Where injustices were commited. The only thing you suggest within this scope is that to beat the enemy you have tobe as ruthless as the enemy no matter the cost. or are you somehow suggesting that if you for example were really within the war set here that if you were within a building with 30 none combatants, that if a baby started crying you would chop her head off so the enemy couldnt find you.

I agree to some extent and felt that what he suggested was to extreme. That said, I don't think your everyday morals would be used in this situation. 

Was the stakes high in this war, yes.

Do we sacrifice everyone because they are not useful, no.


I still believe in any situation that you don't have to harm others that would not do harm to you. If  someone stands in your way however and gets in your way then you do what is neccessary.