692 réponses à ce sujet

[jtav]

And what happened to the batarians? Economic collapse. No one can afford to leave the Council system. And if you're using relays in a way they don't like, well see the First Contact War, where the Council stepped in only when it threatened to turn messy.

[Bleachrude]

StreetMagic wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...



The idea that humans might not be the "best" automatically means that the universe is out to get them....

That isn't it at all.

I think TIM started thinking like that.. that the only way humanity will really survive is by dominance.

All I advocate is a chance for survival. Not dominance. Less batarian slavers sticking their ____ in random human colonists. That'd be a start. The games aren't explicit about all of this, but it still happens. They just can't show rape scenes.

That...actually I son't think will ever disappear (pirate raids).

I think that's more a staple of space opera than anything (both Trek and Wars have space pirates that prey on their citizens and this includes the era of the Galactic Empire at its strongest in Wars)

There's also the fact that we're underselling the Terminus states....the council tolerates the pirate raids long before humanity reached the scene because of the fear that the Terminus systems would react.

I think people imagine the Terminus systems as more akin to small warlord states as in a failed african state and citadel space being the UN. I would argue that it is the reverse...the citadel is a smal area while the terminus space is a rough and tumble area that if they ever combined would STEAMROLL the citadel races.

The games mention this in ME1 but I don't think a lot of gamers GET this...True, other than the council stating this in ME1, you have to go to ME3 to get an indication of how strong the terminus states are  but I do believe that's the actual reality.

Think about it...if the area is a small area that the citadel could easily roll, why would both the salarians and the turians actually tolerate it? Sure, one could argue that the asari are taking the long view but the asari aren't the only race on the council and it's unliely the other 2 would automatically have the same long view ESPECIALLY the salarians...l

[Bleachrude]

jtav wrote...

And what happened to the batarians? Economic collapse. No one can afford to leave the Council system. And if you're using relays in a way they don't like, well see the First Contact War, where the Council stepped in only when it threatened to turn messy.

Actually, that's more due to the sanctions from their annexing of asari and salarian planets etc. I don't think the codex says the batarians suffer economic disadvantages from leaving the council...it mentions that the batarians have evonomic sanctions against them because of the pirate raiding...

Two entirely different things.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

shingara wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

And you can only make an argument when you don't fall back on fallacies.

Really man, do you know how to put up an argument?

You're making a terrible genetic fallacy right now, and all it's doing is discrediting your own argument against me.

Saying that I don't have morals isn't an argument.

 The fact of how you justify your morals is how your morals are judged. The only falacy is that you feel that your balance of morals that any price is acceptable to enable the means you require are justified by the results and not by the actions taken.

 I dont have to say anything about your morals as you have clearly stated exactly what they are.

Have you ever taken a College-level Logic and Persuasion course? Debate? Argument?

Here's the definition of a fallacy: http://www.thefreedi...ary.com/fallacy

You're making these fallacies:

Mind Projection Fallcy

Moral High Ground Fallacy

Moralistic Fallacy

Naturalistic Fallacy

The Red Herring Fallacy Category of Fallacies - A red herring fallacy is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. In the general case any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion.

There are many RHF's, and you're making several:

Poisoning the Well. You're trying to do this with me now.

Argumentum ad populem. Your 'moral' argument.

Association Fallacy. Anything to do with Cerberus is 'bad'!

Argumentum ad consequentiam Arguement against negative consequences of actions (blowback, externalites, etc.) as wrongly discrediting the action and intent of the action.

Argumentum ad passiones. Several of them:

Appeal to fear.

Appeal to ridicule.

Appeal to spite.

Bulverism (or the Psychogenetic Fallacy)

Genetic Fallacy

Judgmental Language

And last, but certainly not least,

Reductio ad Hitlerum (aka the N4ZI card). Godwin's Law.

You have no argument.

Make an argument before discrediting me and saying I'm wrong.

Calling me immoral does not discredit me or my argument. 

[shingara]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Snip

 Your attempt to defuse your lack of morals by attack is laughable.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Baelrahn wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
I judge that we have different opinions on who the bad guys are. I think it's the Reapers.

I think it's the ones who slaughter my kind, claiming their sacrifice will ultimately be beneficial for everybody.

It is beneficial. It's more than those people would ever do on their own. They're useless against the Reapers. They have no purpose against the Reapers.

[Barquiel]

jtav wrote...

And what happened to the batarians? Economic collapse. No one can afford to leave the Council system. And if you're using relays in a way they don't like, well see the First Contact War, where the Council stepped in only when it threatened to turn messy.

The batarian goverment caused the economic collapse, not the council. The Batarians chose to isolate themselves from the rest of the galaxy and become an inward-looking rogue state (to quote the codex..."It is not known what the average batarian thinks about their enforced isolation, as the Department of Information Control ensures that only government-approved news enters or leaves batarian space"). Nobody forced the Hegemony to severe its economic relationship with other economies.

The First Contact War happened because some turian commander turned trigger happy. I doubt council forces usually patrol batarian/terminus systems to ensure nobody activates any relays.

Modifié par Barquiel, 09 août 2013 - 02:02 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

shingara wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Snip

 Your attempt to defuse your lack of morals by attack is laughable.

Your attempt to discredit me by saying I don't have morals is illogical: "You don't like what I have to say. Therefor I am wrong."

Read the post.

You've done nothing but look unreasonable and biased. 

If you have something against my argument, my morals, and my philosophy, by all means, make an argument.

Until you make an argument, your points are irrelevant and have been reported as spam. 

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 09 août 2013 - 02:01 .

[shingara]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

shingara wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Snip

 Your attempt to defuse your lack of morals by attack is laughable.

Your attempt to discredit me by saying I don't have morals is illogical.

Read the post.

You've done nothing but look unreasonable and biased. 

If you have something against my argument, my morals, and my philosophy, by all means, make an argument.

Until you make an argument, your points are irrelevant and have been reported as spam. 

 Your morals state that you will kill as many humans and none humans as required to get the results required. Thats equals no morals. Your Ethics state that anyone who cannot help your cause and would be an economic drain upon you are an element that can be sacrificed and discarded at will with no thought to the consiqences or feelings of those people that are being sacrificed for you ideals. So you have no ethics either.


  You have no argument to justify the experiments and sacrifices made by cerberus, the majority of which done upon innocent and defensless victims.

[Steelcan]

@Barquiel, the batarians were left to rot by the Council so they left. And the council responded with sanctions that crippled them.

[shingara]

Wernt the high ranking leaders of the hegemy are they called ? indoctrinated by the leviathan of Dis ?

[Dextro Milk]

Steelcan wrote...

The paragon butthurt is strong

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

[Steelcan]

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

[Dextro Milk]

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.

[HellbirdIV]

shingara wrote...

You have no argument to justify the experiments and sacrifices made by cerberus, the majority of which done upon innocent and defensless victims.

It is our morality that determines what is and is not valuable.

Someone who argues against morality thus lacks any value himself.

You can now safely ignore everything Massively posts.

[AresKeith]

HellbirdIV wrote...

shingara wrote...

You have no argument to justify the experiments and sacrifices made by cerberus, the majority of which done upon innocent and defensless victims.

It is our morality that determines what is and is not valuable.

Someone who argues against morality thus lacks any value himself.

You can now safely ignore everything Massively posts.

The same can definitely be said about you

[rohanks]

"Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision" - Ayn Rand

When I think about this quote, I think about TIM. I also think, IMO, that Ayn Rand and her theory of Objectivism found their way into the Cerberus manifesto...or at least into the mind of one or more BW writers when creating Cerberus as a 'going concern'.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

shingara wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

shingara wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Snip

 Your attempt to defuse your lack of morals by attack is laughable.

Your attempt to discredit me by saying I don't have morals is illogical.

Read the post.

You've done nothing but look unreasonable and biased. 

If you have something against my argument, my morals, and my philosophy, by all means, make an argument.

Until you make an argument, your points are irrelevant and have been reported as spam. 

Your morals state that you will kill as many humans and none humans as required to get the results required.

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.

Thats equals no morals.

No morals is not an argument. You're side-stepping the point and attacking me directly. Argue at the point. Not at me.

Your Ethics state that anyone who cannot help your cause and would be an economic drain upon you are an element that can be sacrificed and discarded at will with no thought to the consiqences or feelings of those people that are being sacrificed for you ideals.

Let's analyze. Yes, to a degree I do advocate that. The survival of the galaxy and the defeat of the Reapers are higher goals than the survival of innocent civilians who have no purpose on the galaxy. Yes, they are an economic drain. But they can be made into a resource of their own. 

Once I reach equilibrium with my population (where I can save the maximum ammount of people for use with the maximum ammount of efficiency in all war-related industries), I take the excess population, and use them as resources for research, or, in a more practical case, as bait against the Reapers. 

I would put them on colonies where the Reapers are targeting. I put them in cities with no means of escape. The Reapers attack these cities. Nuclear devices hidden in the city destroy the civilians and the Reapers. It will destroy several Reapers (furthering my goals) and will quickly, efficiently, and painlessly (aka humanely) kill my excess population.

The policy of detente applies to the civilians - they are too useless to me to make use of, but I can't allow them to fall into the hands of the Reapers. 

So what do I do? 

I kill them. We can't use them, but the Reapers can't have them. It's an efficient solution. The only one? No. But it is the most practical considering the war.

What Cerberus did was practical as well. The only problem is that it was inherently flawed due to the indoctrination of Cerberus. The entire operation was doomed to failure. Otherwise, killing civilians for research to possibly exploit a weakness against the Reapers (one that Cerberus did indeed find) and that gives me an advantage over them is worth the sacrifice I make of the innocent civilians.

So you have no ethics either.

And here I thought you actually were going to say something of substance against me. Something I can truly use.

It appears that I'm bad because I don't share your idea's of ethics... Oh well. I'm going to go back to killing civilians now.

 You have no argument to justify the experiments and sacrifices made by cerberus, the majority of which done upon innocent and defensless victims.

Oh contrare! I just gave you an argument justifying Cerberus and my own actions. You're dismissing it because it's 'immoral'. 

The flaw is yours. Not mine. Make a real argument.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

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?

[Bleachrude]

Steelcan wrote...

@Barquiel, the batarians were left to rot by the Council so they left. And the council responded with sanctions that crippled them.

AGAIN...that's not true AT ALL.

1. The council said the area in question was a free for all area...now, one can take issue with the council not siding with the batarians in their belief that the area was a batarian zone of interest (and I actually agree with the batarians here), but "left to rot"?

NOT even close.

2. The sanctions were NEVER because of leaving the citadel. Hell, it isn't even because of trying to blow the council up...it's because of the batarians annexing other citadel species colonies

"Despite being welcomed into the galactic community, batarian aggression
provoked several crises in galactic relations over the years. Sometime
around 1785 CE, a batarian fleet bombarded the salarian colony world of Mannovai; in 1913, the Batarian Hegemony annexed the independent asari colony of Esan; and in 2115, Citadel forces skirmished with batarian forces on the planet Enael.
"

" Little is known about the batarian military. Citadel
sanctions have left the Batarian Hegemony a paper tiger of an empire,
one that fights rivals through deniable terrorist actions rather than
the wars of its heyday centuries ago. By 2160, when colonisation of the
Skyllian Verge began, batarian military capacity had apparently weakened
to the point that they were unable to prevent human expansion"

[shingara]

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.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

HellbirdIV wrote...

shingara wrote...

You have no argument to justify the experiments and sacrifices made by cerberus, the majority of which done upon innocent and defensless victims.

It is our morality that determines what is and is not valuable.

Prove it. Objectively prove it. You can't. Morality, whether you want to believe it or not, is relative.

Someone who argues against morality thus lacks any value himself.

Not true.

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

You can now safely ignore everything Massively posts.

Because you don't like what I'm saying and instead of looking at its intrinsic value, you decided to say that I'm a "meany-butt pants-on-fire" because I don't have the same outlook or perspective as you. 

Classy.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

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.

[Dextro Milk]

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.