692 réponses à ce sujet

[shingara]

garrus and ashley squad wrote...

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.

 And would that include a 10 year old boy and his 7 year old sister who are scared of being alone, what if you are on patrol and find them, do you try to help them, strangle them to put them out of there missery or leave them to there fate, there wimpers drifting on the wind following you as you walk away.

[shingara]

StreetMagic wrote...

shingara wrote...
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.

Sadly, that isn't exactly a rare occurance in wars.

http://winstonsmithm...ee541192bc23a5b

edit: I don't know about the blogger of that site. Seems shady.. but the sources quoted seem legit. I've heard this stuff elsewhere.

 Whilst it is the case it is rare, it is far far far more the occassion that in impossible odds, a single soilder will stand against large groups of enemys for days, sometimes weeks to defend none combatants, no fear of there own mortality.

 The only thing that is fogotten here is the human spirit, that a few who can see the masses they would be putting into the tubes to turn into husks as nothing, yet if you were the one putting that mother, whos is crying, begging you for help. Smashing on the glass, as you watch her being altered and changed.  Could you ?

Modifié par shingara, 09 août 2013 - 09:04 .

[garrus and ashley squad]

shingara wrote...

garrus and ashley squad wrote...

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.

 And would that include a 10 year old boy and his 7 year old sister who are scared of being alone, what if you are on patrol and find them, do you try to help them, strangle them to put them out of there missery or leave them to there fate, there wimpers drifting on the wind following you as you walk away.

That honestly depends on the situation. There is no reason at all to strangle so thats a no. I probably help them depending on the situation, but I won't villanize those that don't help them.

[shingara]

StreetMagic wrote...

shingara wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

shingara wrote...
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.

Sadly, that isn't exactly a rare occurance in wars.

http://winstonsmithm...ee541192bc23a5b

edit: I don't know about the blogger of that site. Seems shady.. but the sources quoted seem legit. I've heard this stuff elsewhere.

 Whilst it is the case it is rare, it is far far far more the occassion that in impossible odds, a single soilder will stand against large groups of enemys for days, sometimes weeks to defend none combatants, no fear of there own mortality.

 The only thing that is fogotten here is the human spirit, that a few who can see the masses they would be putting into the tubes to turn into husks as nothing, yet if you were the one putting that mother, whos is crying, begging you for help. Smashing on the glass, as you watch her being altered and changed.  Could you ?

You're just talking about your ideals and mistaking them for reality. I admire your ideals, but that's all they are. People prove time and again they'll do exactly what you disgust.

 I asked if you could do it.

[o Ventus]

shingara wrote...

 And would that include a 10 year old boy and his 7 year old sister who are scared of being alone, what if you are on patrol and find them, do you try to help them, strangle them to put them out of there missery or leave them to there fate, there wimpers drifting on the wind following you as you walk away

You take them in to the best of your abilities. If they become a liability or can be better used to help the war in some way, then so be it.

It isn't like anybody is suggesting we roam the streets, executing civilians because they can't fight.

[shingara]

garrus and ashley squad wrote...

That honestly depends on the situation. There is no reason at all to strangle so thats a no. I probably help them depending on the situation, but I won't villanize those that don't help them.

 That is the situation. And is it probably help them or would help them. Now think on this before answering, Think not about the morals of the issue or the ethics, what could you live with.

[shingara]

o Ventus wrote...

shingara wrote...

 And would that include a 10 year old boy and his 7 year old sister who are scared of being alone, what if you are on patrol and find them, do you try to help them, strangle them to put them out of there missery or leave them to there fate, there wimpers drifting on the wind following you as you walk away

You take them in to the best of your abilities. If they become a liability or can be better used to help the war in some way, then so be it.

It isn't like anybody is suggesting we roam the streets, executing civilians because they can't fight.

 Nah we are suggesting taking them off the streets, scouping them up and killing them on mass. And how could children possibly be used to help in the war somehow ????

[shingara]

StreetMagic wrote...

Do what? Kill a baby? Probably not. I'd have an easier time trying to kill an adult, even if my chances were slim. I might even get pleasure out of the latter, and nothing but heartache from the former.

But that's just me. I'm not buying into this whole universal "human spirit" thing.

 Say what now, im seriously worrying about people on these forums.

[garrus and ashley squad]

shingara wrote...

garrus and ashley squad wrote...

That honestly depends on the situation. There is no reason at all to strangle so thats a no. I probably help them depending on the situation, but I won't villanize those that don't help them.

 That is the situation. And is it probably help them or would help them. Now think on this before answering, Think not about the morals of the issue or the ethics, what could you live with.

If i find them just randomly during this time of war, yes I help them. I hand them over to the alliance or to whoever and let them deal with them. I do take them out of that enviornment. Do I worry about if they are in the best home possible or if the reapers get to them after that. No I don't, after I help them out of that situation then I go back to work. I won't villanize those though that don't do it. I respect where you are coming from and like where the most extreme scenario should be brought up. The most enjoyable and resolute situation should be brought up as well.

[shingara]

StreetMagic wrote...

shingara wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

Do what? Kill a baby? Probably not. I'd have an easier time trying to kill an adult, even if my chances were slim. I might even get pleasure out of the latter, and nothing but heartache from the former.

But that's just me. I'm not buying into this whole universal "human spirit" thing.

 Say what now, im seriously worrying about people on these forums.

I'd get pleasure out of the latter (if I managed to kill the adult combatant creeping up on everyone), and nothing but heartache from killing a baby.

Don't worry about me. I'm just saying I enjoy a good fight, with an enemy I can hate. I'd find it hard to live with myself taking the other route (smothering an infant).

 Non combatants, just sayin.

[shingara]

garrus and ashley squad wrote...

shingara wrote...

garrus and ashley squad wrote...

That honestly depends on the situation. There is no reason at all to strangle so thats a no. I probably help them depending on the situation, but I won't villanize those that don't help them.

 That is the situation. And is it probably help them or would help them. Now think on this before answering, Think not about the morals of the issue or the ethics, what could you live with.

If i find them just randomly during this time of war, yes I help them. I hand them over to the alliance or to whoever and let them deal with them. I do take them out of that enviornment. Do I worry about if they are in the best home possible or if the reapers get to them after that. No I don't, after I help them out of that situation then I go back to work. I won't villanize those though that don't do it. I respect where you are coming from and like where the most extreme scenario should be brought up. The most enjoyable and resolute situation should be brought up as well.

 Then why is it that when the single becomes a mass it is justifiable. That on a single level, where its personal morals work but when its mulitples morals has no place ?

[Steelcan]

"Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls and ask the ghosts if honor matters, there silence is your answer"

[garrus and ashley squad]

shingara wrote...

garrus and ashley squad wrote...

shingara wrote...

garrus and ashley squad wrote...

That honestly depends on the situation. There is no reason at all to strangle so thats a no. I probably help them depending on the situation, but I won't villanize those that don't help them.

 That is the situation. And is it probably help them or would help them. Now think on this before answering, Think not about the morals of the issue or the ethics, what could you live with.

If i find them just randomly during this time of war, yes I help them. I hand them over to the alliance or to whoever and let them deal with them. I do take them out of that enviornment. Do I worry about if they are in the best home possible or if the reapers get to them after that. No I don't, after I help them out of that situation then I go back to work. I won't villanize those though that don't do it. I respect where you are coming from and like where the most extreme scenario should be brought up. The most enjoyable and resolute situation should be brought up as well.

 Then why is it that when the single becomes a mass it is justifiable. That on a single level, where its personal morals work but when its mulitples morals has no place ?

I'm not saying you're morals have no place. I'm saying in a war on this scale you have to look at a lot of options. You may not like someone elses morals or you may view them as wrong, but in the end, if his morals work within reason, then we need to go the best route. That's not saying you're wrong for thinking this, it's just about doing the best possible solution. 

[shingara]

StreetMagic wrote...

shingara wrote...


 Non combatants, just sayin.

Just saying what? We've completely lost all communication, if you don't understand me by now.

Let me spell it out for you, if I was hiding in a room when combatants were closing in on me and a bunch of civilians, and someone's infant was in danger of alerting them, I'd rather take my chances at distracting the soldiers instead of smothering the infant. And if I (implausibly) managed to win, I'd jump for joy if I walked away from it. I'd take pleasure in it. I mean, it'd be awesome if I pulled it off.

Im saying i said 30 non combatants, never said you were to be found or they were near you, i said that the baby starts crying and you maybe found.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

And I'm back from my run.

*checks out thread*.

Steelcan said it best:

"Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls, and ask them if honor matters. Their silence is your answer."

[garrus and ashley squad]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

And I'm back from my run.

*checks out thread*.

Steelcan said it best:

"Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls, and ask them if honor matters. Their silence is your answer."

I would agree to some extent but I also don't think those trillions that died would want you sacrificing thier loved ones to win the war, and that is if you would win doing it that way.

[Jukaga]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

And I'm back from my run.

*checks out thread*.

Steelcan said it best:

"Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls, and ask them if honor matters. Their silence is your answer."

I think some people just can't wrap their head around what a Big Deal the whole reaper invasion is. Nothing is off the table when it comes to finding a solution to the mass of genocidal megaskyscraper-sized robots that are wiping out all advanced civilization in the galaxy. Morality becomes irrelevant in a survival situation.

[Jukaga]

garrus and ashley squad wrote...

I would agree to some extent but I also don't think those trillions that died would want you sacrificing thier loved ones to win the war, and that is if you would win doing it that way.

If it saves who is left standing at the end, what does it matter? The alternative is extinction, oblivion. If Shepard or whoever has trouble sleeping after Doing What Needs To Be Done, then that is a small price to pay.

[garrus and ashley squad]

Jukaga wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

And I'm back from my run.

*checks out thread*.

Steelcan said it best:

"Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls, and ask them if honor matters. Their silence is your answer."

I think some people just can't wrap their head around what a Big Deal the whole reaper invasion is. Nothing is off the table when it comes to finding a solution to the mass of genocidal megaskyscraper-sized robots that are wiping out all advanced civilization in the galaxy. Morality becomes irrelevant in a survival situation.

I agree that everything should be up for discussion. The most extreme and the most peaceful way. I just think that to extreme or to peaceful is not the way to go about this. You sometimes have to use both to win a war.