And with an actual trial, I can only imagine how many people would pick apart how right or wrong (likely wrong) BioWare got its own brand of legalese where applicable. It all seems like a recipe for a dreary, railroaded mess. Another person in this thread did point out something fairly obvious though. This is all kind of a front to save face with the Batarians, so there's no actual point in a trial anyway.
Commander Shepard, we find you guilty of saving us from the reapers. Oh...well....throw away the imaginary key and hope the four-eyes don't go all Balak on us.
There should've been a Trial at the beginning..
Débuté par
Guest_StreetMagic_*
, sept. 21 2013 12:54
Retour en haut
#228
Posté 25 septembre 2013 - 09:26
Grand Admiral Cheesecake
-
- Members
- 5 704 messages
I used to think David was a shining beacon of heroism.
I was wrong, he's something much stronger.
A mere hero could not unite the Social Justice Warriors like Plaintiff and their bitter opponents like the great Mole, the romance fanatics and the Godwood, even the bronies and their arch-foe the great Inquisitor.
Never before in BSN history has one possessed the power to unite the entire forum, never before have the various disparate tribes inhabiting the ruins of Old Biowardom had a common enemy such as he.
All hail David! The antagonist who united the forum! The crucible against which all other annoyances will be judged!
I was wrong, he's something much stronger.
A mere hero could not unite the Social Justice Warriors like Plaintiff and their bitter opponents like the great Mole, the romance fanatics and the Godwood, even the bronies and their arch-foe the great Inquisitor.
Never before in BSN history has one possessed the power to unite the entire forum, never before have the various disparate tribes inhabiting the ruins of Old Biowardom had a common enemy such as he.
All hail David! The antagonist who united the forum! The crucible against which all other annoyances will be judged!
#229
Posté 25 septembre 2013 - 09:30
Ravensword
-
- Members
- 6 185 messages
Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...
I used to think David was a shining beacon of heroism.
I was wrong, he's something much stronger.
A mere hero could not unite the Social Justice Warriors like Plaintiff and their bitter opponents like the great Mole, the romance fanatics and the Godwood, even the bronies and their arch-foe the great Inquisitor.
Never before in BSN history has one possessed the power to unite the entire forum, never before have the various disparate tribes inhabiting the ruins of Old Biowardom had a common enemy such as he.
All hail David! The antagonist who united the forum! The crucible against which all other annoyances will be judged!
David is something. He managed to unite the forum. Unfortunately, he united them against him.
All this time David thought he was the hero of the BSN, but in the end he was actually the villain.
Modifié par Ravensword, 25 septembre 2013 - 10:51 .
#230
Posté 25 septembre 2013 - 09:32
Grand Admiral Cheesecake
-
- Members
- 5 704 messages
Ravensword wrote...
David is something. He managed to unite the forum. Und=fortunately, he united them against him.
All this time David thought he was the hero of the BSN, but in the end he was actually the villain.
Not the villain we deserved, but the one we needed.
#231
Posté 25 septembre 2013 - 09:48
CynicalShep
-
- Members
- 2 381 messages
Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...
Ravensword wrote...
David is something. He managed to unite the forum. Und=fortunately, he united them against him.
All this time David thought he was the hero of the BSN, but in the end he was actually the villain.
Not the villain we deserved, but the one we needed.
And how shall we summon him?
#232
Posté 25 septembre 2013 - 10:21
andy6915
-
- Members
- 6 590 messages
Villains always see themselves as the hero. Look at Copy X from the Megaman Zero series, he also has a hero complex while also being the big bad of the first game.
#233
Posté 25 septembre 2013 - 01:52
MassivelyEffective0730
-
- Members
- 9 230 messages
andy69156915 wrote...
Villains always see themselves as the hero. Look at Copy X from the Megaman Zero series, he also has a hero complex while also being the big bad of the first game.
Who's the villain? Who's the hero?
Are we just two conflicting parties with conflicting ideologies?
What makes a villain? What makes a hero?
It's all relative in my opinion.
Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 25 septembre 2013 - 05:08 .
#234
Posté 25 septembre 2013 - 01:53
MassivelyEffective0730
-
- Members
- 9 230 messages
Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...
Ravensword wrote...
David is something. He managed to unite the forum. Und=fortunately, he united them against him.
All this time David thought he was the hero of the BSN, but in the end he was actually the villain.
Not the villain we deserved, but the one we needed.
And I, the anti-David, the great hero will come and smite him with my divine heroic characterization!
I am the hero of the BSN!
#235
Posté 25 septembre 2013 - 01:57
KaiserShep
-
- Members
- 23 828 messages
andy69156915 wrote...
Villains always see themselves as the hero. Look at Copy X from the Megaman Zero series, he also has a hero complex while also being the big bad of the first game.
This isn't necessarily true. A villain can be someone who is more or less aware that they're into their activities for their own selfish wants, rather than trying to achieve some kind of greater good. Of course, the most interesting, to me, are the ones that do the latter, like the operative in Serenity. The fact that he was doing things that he himself admits is evil and monstrous to ensure that others can live better lives does make him a better villain for a story.
#236
Posté 25 septembre 2013 - 02:13
Cyberstrike nTo
-
- Members
- 1 721 messages
MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
The Illusive Man was indoctrinated. From ME: Evolution comic book series.
Now you're just jumping to false conclusion that really has no support beyond the comic. This has not been regarded as true or not. I'm inclined to disbelieve that it is true. I believe the Reapers existence was enough to convince TIM to create a group that would serve as technological, military, and political watchdog group for humanity whose purpose was to preserve them in a harsh galaxy.
You deny all you want but the facts are my side:
Maya Brooks from ME3: The Citadel says he's indoctrinated.
In the final conflict with him on Citadel, where TIM learns and then more or less admits it.
Then the Catalyst confirms it. And says "He could never control us because we were controling him."
He was indoctrinated for a long time which is in the lore. In the end TIM founded Cerebus because he was indoctrinated and he NEVER was advancing humanity when he actually was advancing the Reapers and he didn't even know it which again makes Cerebus a stupid, terrorist group.
Modifié par Cyberstrike nTo, 25 septembre 2013 - 02:19 .
#237
Posté 25 septembre 2013 - 02:39
Cyberstrike nTo
-
- Members
- 1 721 messages
MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
andy69156915 wrote...
Villains always see themselves as the hero. Look at Copy X from the Megaman Zero series, he also has a hero complex while also being the big bad of the first game.
Who's the villain? Who's the hero?
Are we just two conflicting parties with conflicting ideologies?
What makes a villain? What makes a hero?
It's a relative in my opinion.
A hero tries to protect people and help them regardless of race, gender, ideologies, religion, sexual preference, etc.
A villain doesn't care protect and help people and only does it when it serves them. They would quickly throw them under the bus to save their own skin or serve their benefit and wouldn't care about it.
I used to be a moral relativist but I found out that while Moral Relativity sounds cool but in the end it doesn't exist and good or evil does. There are some things in this world that I find 100% good and 100% evil and while these are rare.
I sided with the Alliance/Council over Cerberus because they were the lesser of evil of 2 (or 3) and they had more resources and promoted ideals that I believe in like peace through cooperation. They also had more ships and soliders, resources, and ideas from a multicultural colitation wins out more than working for an evil, stupid, terrorist group ran by a guy working for the Reapers.
#238
Posté 25 septembre 2013 - 04:57
MassivelyEffective0730
-
- Members
- 9 230 messages
Cyberstrike nTo wrote...
MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
The Illusive Man was indoctrinated. From ME: Evolution comic book series.
Now you're just jumping to false conclusion that really has no support beyond the comic. This has not been regarded as true or not. I'm inclined to disbelieve that it is true. I believe the Reapers existence was enough to convince TIM to create a group that would serve as technological, military, and political watchdog group for humanity whose purpose was to preserve them in a harsh galaxy.
You deny all you want but the facts are my side:
No, they aren't. You're just stating things that happen to be true, but aren't related in any way beyond a corollary draw. Your literally listing random attributes and proclaiming it as evidence for your point.
Cyberstrike nTo wrote...
Maya Brooks from ME3: The Citadel says he's indoctrinated.
Citadel also takes place well into the Reaper War. Evolutions was 30 years prior. And Brooks was a loyal member of Cerberus for over 20 years. If he was indoctrinated, she wouldn't have worked for him. This point is disregarded. TIM did not become indoctrinated until much later.
In the final conflict with him on Citadel, where TIM learns and then more or less admits it.
Yes. Read my above response. Just because TIM is indoctrinated in ME3 does not mean he was indoctrinated in Evolutions. You're having a problem with making evidence fit your conclusions. That's called 'inadmissable evidence' in legal terms.
Then the Catalyst confirms it. And says "He could never control us because we were controling him."
See above.
He was indoctrinated for a long time which is in the lore.
No it's not. It's not in the lore. Prove to me that it is. Show me the physical proof.
In the end TIM founded Cerebus because he was indoctrinated and he NEVER was advancing humanity when he actually was advancing the Reapers and he didn't even know it which again makes Cerebus a stupid, terrorist group.
This is completely made up and falls under your entire premise of 'making evidence fit your conclusion'. There is not support for your argument.
#239
Posté 25 septembre 2013 - 05:07
MassivelyEffective0730
-
- Members
- 9 230 messages
Cyberstrike nTo wrote...
MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
andy69156915 wrote...
Villains always see themselves as the hero. Look at Copy X from the Megaman Zero series, he also has a hero complex while also being the big bad of the first game.
Who's the villain? Who's the hero?
Are we just two conflicting parties with conflicting ideologies?
What makes a villain? What makes a hero?
It's a relative in my opinion.
A hero tries to protect people and help them regardless of race, gender, ideologies, religion, sexual preference, etc.
That's but one (very subjective) definition I'm afraid. And the actions that constitute it are even more clouded and subjective.
A villain doesn't care protect and help people and only does it when it serves them. They would quickly throw them under the bus to save their own skin or serve their benefit and wouldn't care about it.
That sounds more like a pragmatist and a survivalist. I understand it completely. It's survivalism. This is again entirely subjective on your end. In fact, I'd call this guy an anti-hero. There really isn't anything villainous here. I'd call him a hero.
I used to be a moral relativist but I found out that while Moral Relativity sounds cool but in the end it doesn't exist and good or evil does. There are some things in this world that I find 100% good and 100% evil and while these are rare.
Where does good and evil exist? It's nothing more than a made up figment of the human psyche.
That's not moral relativism. And really, you're proving my point. You're also taking a moralistic fallacy approach. You're assuming that because you think something is good or bad, it must be objectively good or bad. A moral relativist can form his or her own opinion or philosophy, but still aacknowledge that it is nothing more than their own opinion, that might or might not be shared en masse with the public. There is no universal bar for good or evil.
For example, I might think rape is bad. That does not, however, make it universally so. It is an action, and it is one that humans tend to feel very strongly against. And it isn't unreasonable, because they have support for it. Ultimately, however, it is an action, and not inherently or fundamentally wrong.
The Universe is amoral.
#240
Posté 25 septembre 2013 - 06:41
Cyberstrike nTo
-
- Members
- 1 721 messages
[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
[quote]Cyberstrike nTo wrote...
[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
[quote]
The Illusive Man was indoctrinated. From ME: Evolution comic book series.
[/quote]
Now you're just jumping to false conclusion that really has no support beyond the comic. This has not been regarded as true or not. I'm inclined to disbelieve that it is true. I believe the Reapers existence was enough to convince TIM to create a group that would serve as technological, military, and political watchdog group for humanity whose purpose was to preserve them in a harsh galaxy. [/quote]
You deny all you want but the facts are my side:
[/quote]
No, they aren't. You're just stating things that happen to be true, but aren't related in any way beyond a corollary draw. Your literally listing random attributes and proclaiming it as evidence for your point.[/quote]
I state facts that are in the actually lore it proves that I'm right and you're wrong. There is no draw here.
[quote]Cyberstrike nTo wrote...
Maya Brooks from ME3: The Citadel says he's indoctrinated.
[/quote]
[quote]Citadel also takes place well into the Reaper War. Evolutions was 30 years prior. And Brooks was a loyal member of Cerberus for over 20 years. If he was indoctrinated, she wouldn't have worked for him. This point is disregarded. TIM did not become indoctrinated until much later. [/quote]
The codex on Indoctrination states very clearly that it can years.
[quote]
In the final conflict with him on Citadel, where TIM learns and then more or less admits it.
[/quote]
[quote]Yes. Read my above response. Just because TIM is indoctrinated in ME3 does not mean he was indoctrinated in Evolutions. You're having a problem with making evidence fit your conclusions. That's called 'inadmissable evidence' in legal terms.
[quote]Then the Catalyst confirms it. And says "He could never control us because we were controling him."[/quote]
See above.[/quote]
[quote]He was indoctrinated for a long time which is in the lore.[/quote]
No it's not. It's not in the lore. Prove to me that it is. Show me the physical proof.[/quote]
Read Mass Effect: Evoloution #1-4 and the codex about Idocination in both ME2 and ME3.
[quote]In the end TIM founded Cerebus because he was indoctrinated and he NEVER was advancing humanity when he actually was advancing the Reapers and he didn't even know it which again makes Cerebus a stupid, terrorist group.
This is completely made up and falls under your entire premise of 'making evidence fit your conclusion'. There is not support for your argument.[/quote]
I haven't made up anything it's simply logical leap. Since you have no proof in the lore to prove anything in the lore. All you are doing is trying to prove your headcanon is true and they simply aren't.
[quote]
I used to be a moral relativist but I found out that while Moral Relativity sounds cool but in the end it doesn't exist and good or evil does. There are some things in this world that I find 100% good and 100% evil and while these are rare.
Where does good and evil exist? It's nothing more than a made up figment of the human psyche.
That's not moral relativism. And really, you're proving my point. You're also taking a moralistic fallacy approach. You're assuming that because you think something is good or bad, it must be objectively good or bad. A moral relativist can form his or her own opinion or philosophy, but still aacknowledge that it is nothing more than their own opinion, that might or might not be shared en masse with the public. There is no universal bar for good or evil.
For example, I might think rape is bad. That does not, however, make it universally so. It is an action, and it is one that humans tend to feel very strongly against. And it isn't unreasonable, because they have support for it. Ultimately, however, it is an action, and not inherently or fundamentally wrong.
The Universe is amoral.[/quote]
Moral relivisim is made up because it's impossible for human beings to be moral relvit. Yiu have stated you don't like Ashley Liara, Tali, Garrus, Anderson, Hackett, the Alliance and the Council. You like Cerebus and TIM. If you're a real moral revaliist you would not hate and love either side or any character. Since human beings have morals being a moral relvisit is impossible. Just like being pure 100% logical like Spook, humans can not do it.
[quote]Cyberstrike nTo wrote...
[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
[quote]
The Illusive Man was indoctrinated. From ME: Evolution comic book series.
[/quote]
Now you're just jumping to false conclusion that really has no support beyond the comic. This has not been regarded as true or not. I'm inclined to disbelieve that it is true. I believe the Reapers existence was enough to convince TIM to create a group that would serve as technological, military, and political watchdog group for humanity whose purpose was to preserve them in a harsh galaxy. [/quote]
You deny all you want but the facts are my side:
[/quote]
No, they aren't. You're just stating things that happen to be true, but aren't related in any way beyond a corollary draw. Your literally listing random attributes and proclaiming it as evidence for your point.[/quote]
I state facts that are in the actually lore it proves that I'm right and you're wrong. There is no draw here.
[quote]Cyberstrike nTo wrote...
Maya Brooks from ME3: The Citadel says he's indoctrinated.
[/quote]
[quote]Citadel also takes place well into the Reaper War. Evolutions was 30 years prior. And Brooks was a loyal member of Cerberus for over 20 years. If he was indoctrinated, she wouldn't have worked for him. This point is disregarded. TIM did not become indoctrinated until much later. [/quote]
The codex on Indoctrination states very clearly that it can years.
[quote]
In the final conflict with him on Citadel, where TIM learns and then more or less admits it.
[/quote]
[quote]Yes. Read my above response. Just because TIM is indoctrinated in ME3 does not mean he was indoctrinated in Evolutions. You're having a problem with making evidence fit your conclusions. That's called 'inadmissable evidence' in legal terms.
[quote]Then the Catalyst confirms it. And says "He could never control us because we were controling him."[/quote]
See above.[/quote]
[quote]He was indoctrinated for a long time which is in the lore.[/quote]
No it's not. It's not in the lore. Prove to me that it is. Show me the physical proof.[/quote]
Read Mass Effect: Evoloution #1-4 and the codex about Idocination in both ME2 and ME3.
[quote]In the end TIM founded Cerebus because he was indoctrinated and he NEVER was advancing humanity when he actually was advancing the Reapers and he didn't even know it which again makes Cerebus a stupid, terrorist group.
This is completely made up and falls under your entire premise of 'making evidence fit your conclusion'. There is not support for your argument.[/quote]
I haven't made up anything it's simply logical leap. Since you have no proof in the lore to prove anything in the lore. All you are doing is trying to prove your headcanon is true and they simply aren't.
[quote]
I used to be a moral relativist but I found out that while Moral Relativity sounds cool but in the end it doesn't exist and good or evil does. There are some things in this world that I find 100% good and 100% evil and while these are rare.
Where does good and evil exist? It's nothing more than a made up figment of the human psyche.
That's not moral relativism. And really, you're proving my point. You're also taking a moralistic fallacy approach. You're assuming that because you think something is good or bad, it must be objectively good or bad. A moral relativist can form his or her own opinion or philosophy, but still aacknowledge that it is nothing more than their own opinion, that might or might not be shared en masse with the public. There is no universal bar for good or evil.
For example, I might think rape is bad. That does not, however, make it universally so. It is an action, and it is one that humans tend to feel very strongly against. And it isn't unreasonable, because they have support for it. Ultimately, however, it is an action, and not inherently or fundamentally wrong.
The Universe is amoral.[/quote]
Moral relivisim is made up because it's impossible for human beings to be moral relvit. Yiu have stated you don't like Ashley Liara, Tali, Garrus, Anderson, Hackett, the Alliance and the Council. You like Cerebus and TIM. If you're a real moral revaliist you would not hate and love either side or any character. Since human beings have morals being a moral relvisit is impossible. Just like being pure 100% logical like Spook, humans can not do it.
Modifié par Cyberstrike nTo, 25 septembre 2013 - 06:48 .
#241
Posté 25 septembre 2013 - 07:40
AlexMBrennan
-
- Members
- 7 002 messages
Is this a court of law? In any case, I seriously doubt that that is the term you are looking for (inadmissible evidence is, in fact, actual evidence that cannot be used to procedural errors - e.g. obtained in illegal searches and such).What, did you watch one legal soap and now think that everyone will bow to your eloquence?That's called 'inadmissable evidence' in legal terms.
#242
Posté 25 septembre 2013 - 07:49
Astartes Marine
-
- Members
- 1 615 messages
I didn't think David could stoop so low.dreamgazer wrote...
(sits back, grabs popcorn, and awaits David's attempts to pick at Firefly)
You do realize you are arguing with the equivalent of a brick wall right? You're not going to change their mindset because they're dead set on supporting Cerberus and continuing their downwards spiral.Cyberstrike nTo wrote...
Moral relivisim is made up because it's impossible for human beings to be moral relvit. Yiu have stated you don't like Ashley Liara, Tali, Garrus, Anderson, Hackett, the Alliance and the Council. You like Cerebus and TIM. If you're a real moral revaliist you would not hate and love either side or any character. Since human beings have morals being a moral relvisit is impossible. Just like being pure 100% logical like Spook, humans can not do it.
Although I will agree with what you say, it is much the same with bias; no one can claim to be completely unbiased, there will always be that little whisper in the back of one's mind that defies absolute neutrality.
Modifié par Astartes Marine, 25 septembre 2013 - 08:05 .
#243
Posté 25 septembre 2013 - 09:09
MassivelyEffective0730
-
- Members
- 9 230 messages
[quote]Cyberstrike nTo wrote...
I state facts that are in the actually lore it proves that I'm right and you're wrong. There is no draw here.
[/quote]
You didn't prove anything. You stated facts. Events. Things that have happened and are known to be true. But you're linking them to Cerberus in a negative manner.
You state that something exists, and make a false correlation to it. I'm not wrong. It's impossible for me to be wrong, because I've made no claim.
You're using your facts in a fallacious manner. The type of fallacy you're using currently is the False Attribution Fallacy, where an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.
[quote]
[quote]Cyberstrike nTo wrote...
Maya Brooks from ME3: The Citadel says he's indoctrinated.
[/quote]
[quote]Citadel also takes place well into the Reaper War. Evolutions was 30 years prior. And Brooks was a loyal member of Cerberus for over 20 years. If he was indoctrinated, she wouldn't have worked for him. This point is disregarded. TIM did not become indoctrinated until much later. [/quote]
The codex on Indoctrination states very clearly that it can years.
[/quote]
Yes...
How do we know this is the case? *hint: We don't.
You're assuming a conclusion for TIM that claims that since indoctrination can take years, it must have been the case for TIM. You're arguing something that is unprovable and stating it as confirmed fact when there is no fact to support the idea that TIM has been indoctrinated for a long time beyond a comic that doesn't even imply that TIM has been indoctrinated at all.
Once again, you're using a false attribution fallacy.
[quote]
In the final conflict with him on Citadel, where TIM learns and then more or less admits it.
[/quote]
[quote]Yes. Read my above response. Just because TIM is indoctrinated in ME3 does not mean he was indoctrinated in Evolutions. You're having a problem with making evidence fit your conclusions. That's called 'inadmissable evidence' in legal terms.
[quote]Then the Catalyst confirms it. And says "He could never control us because we were controling him."[/quote]
See above.[/quote]
[quote]He was indoctrinated for a long time which is in the lore.[/quote]
No it's not. It's not in the lore. Prove to me that it is. Show me the physical proof.[/quote]
Read Mass Effect: Evoloution #1-4 and the codex about Idocination in both ME2 and ME3.
[/quote]
I read those.
I reiterate, no where is it in the lore that it states that TIM has been indoctrinated for a long time.
This is not proof. It is not proof because you are linking a line from the codex and assuming that it applies to TIM with no support beyond TIM being exposed to a Reaper monolith, and then assuming that he has been indoctrinated from the very beginning.
False Attribution, and then something else:
Correlation does not imply causation.
[/b]
A post hoc fallacy.
Your logic is this:
A occurred, then B occurred.Therefore, A caused B.[/list]When B is undesirable, this pattern is often extended in reverse: Avoiding A will prevent B.
[quote]In the end TIM founded Cerebus because he was indoctrinated and he NEVER was advancing humanity when he actually was advancing the Reapers and he didn't even know it which again makes Cerebus a stupid, terrorist group.
This is completely made up and falls under your entire premise of 'making evidence fit your conclusion'. There is not support for your argument.[/quote]
I haven't made up anything it's simply logical leap. Since you have no proof in the lore to prove anything in the lore. All you are doing is trying to prove your headcanon is true and they simply aren't.
[/quote]
You have entirely made this up.
I just defined to you what you did.
You made a Post Hoc Fallacy. I defined this for you.
I'll even do it again.
A occurred, then B occurred.Therefore, A caused B.[/list]When B is undesirable, this pattern is often extended in reverse: Avoiding A will prevent [b]B.
I made no claim. I'm not denying lore. I'm not trying to prove any headcanon.
[quote]
Moral relivisim is made up because it's impossible for human beings to be moral relvit.[/quote]
It is not impossible. Do you know what moral relativisim is? Moral relativism is the acceptance and understanding that morality is subjective and abstract. It is not physical. There is nothing tangible about it. It is a concept. Like logic. Like idea's. Non-concrete. There is no universal preference for good or evil. There is no standard for good and bad. The universe is inherently neutral and amoral.
[quote]
Yiu have stated you don't like Ashley Liara, Tali, Garrus, Anderson, Hackett, the Alliance and the Council. You like Cerebus and TIM. If you're a real moral revaliist you would not hate and love either side or any character. [/quote]
That's not moral relativism. At all. It is possible to create ones own morals and philosophy while understanding and accepting that there is no universal truth or inherent 'moral correctness' in the universe at all.
[quote]
Since human beings have morals being a moral relvisit is impossible. Just like being pure 100% logical like Spook, humans can not do it.
[/quote]
As I've said repeatedly, you don't know what moral relativism is.
As a last resort, here's how Stanford University defines it.
I state facts that are in the actually lore it proves that I'm right and you're wrong. There is no draw here.
[/quote]
You didn't prove anything. You stated facts. Events. Things that have happened and are known to be true. But you're linking them to Cerberus in a negative manner.
You state that something exists, and make a false correlation to it. I'm not wrong. It's impossible for me to be wrong, because I've made no claim.
You're using your facts in a fallacious manner. The type of fallacy you're using currently is the False Attribution Fallacy, where an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.
[quote]
[quote]Cyberstrike nTo wrote...
Maya Brooks from ME3: The Citadel says he's indoctrinated.
[/quote]
[quote]Citadel also takes place well into the Reaper War. Evolutions was 30 years prior. And Brooks was a loyal member of Cerberus for over 20 years. If he was indoctrinated, she wouldn't have worked for him. This point is disregarded. TIM did not become indoctrinated until much later. [/quote]
The codex on Indoctrination states very clearly that it can years.
[/quote]
Yes...
How do we know this is the case? *hint: We don't.
You're assuming a conclusion for TIM that claims that since indoctrination can take years, it must have been the case for TIM. You're arguing something that is unprovable and stating it as confirmed fact when there is no fact to support the idea that TIM has been indoctrinated for a long time beyond a comic that doesn't even imply that TIM has been indoctrinated at all.
Once again, you're using a false attribution fallacy.
[quote]
In the final conflict with him on Citadel, where TIM learns and then more or less admits it.
[/quote]
[quote]Yes. Read my above response. Just because TIM is indoctrinated in ME3 does not mean he was indoctrinated in Evolutions. You're having a problem with making evidence fit your conclusions. That's called 'inadmissable evidence' in legal terms.
[quote]Then the Catalyst confirms it. And says "He could never control us because we were controling him."[/quote]
See above.[/quote]
[quote]He was indoctrinated for a long time which is in the lore.[/quote]
No it's not. It's not in the lore. Prove to me that it is. Show me the physical proof.[/quote]
Read Mass Effect: Evoloution #1-4 and the codex about Idocination in both ME2 and ME3.
[/quote]
I read those.
I reiterate, no where is it in the lore that it states that TIM has been indoctrinated for a long time.
This is not proof. It is not proof because you are linking a line from the codex and assuming that it applies to TIM with no support beyond TIM being exposed to a Reaper monolith, and then assuming that he has been indoctrinated from the very beginning.
False Attribution, and then something else:
Correlation does not imply causation.
[/b]
A post hoc fallacy.
Your logic is this:
A occurred, then B occurred.Therefore, A caused B.[/list]When B is undesirable, this pattern is often extended in reverse: Avoiding A will prevent B.
[quote]In the end TIM founded Cerebus because he was indoctrinated and he NEVER was advancing humanity when he actually was advancing the Reapers and he didn't even know it which again makes Cerebus a stupid, terrorist group.
This is completely made up and falls under your entire premise of 'making evidence fit your conclusion'. There is not support for your argument.[/quote]
I haven't made up anything it's simply logical leap. Since you have no proof in the lore to prove anything in the lore. All you are doing is trying to prove your headcanon is true and they simply aren't.
[/quote]
You have entirely made this up.
I just defined to you what you did.
You made a Post Hoc Fallacy. I defined this for you.
I'll even do it again.
A occurred, then B occurred.Therefore, A caused B.[/list]When B is undesirable, this pattern is often extended in reverse: Avoiding A will prevent [b]B.
I made no claim. I'm not denying lore. I'm not trying to prove any headcanon.
[quote]
Moral relivisim is made up because it's impossible for human beings to be moral relvit.[/quote]
It is not impossible. Do you know what moral relativisim is? Moral relativism is the acceptance and understanding that morality is subjective and abstract. It is not physical. There is nothing tangible about it. It is a concept. Like logic. Like idea's. Non-concrete. There is no universal preference for good or evil. There is no standard for good and bad. The universe is inherently neutral and amoral.
[quote]
Yiu have stated you don't like Ashley Liara, Tali, Garrus, Anderson, Hackett, the Alliance and the Council. You like Cerebus and TIM. If you're a real moral revaliist you would not hate and love either side or any character. [/quote]
That's not moral relativism. At all. It is possible to create ones own morals and philosophy while understanding and accepting that there is no universal truth or inherent 'moral correctness' in the universe at all.
[quote]
Since human beings have morals being a moral relvisit is impossible. Just like being pure 100% logical like Spook, humans can not do it.
[/quote]
As I've said repeatedly, you don't know what moral relativism is.
As a last resort, here's how Stanford University defines it.
Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 25 septembre 2013 - 09:09 .
#244
Posté 25 septembre 2013 - 09:11
MassivelyEffective0730
-
- Members
- 9 230 messages
AlexMBrennan wrote...
Is this a court of law? In any case, I seriously doubt that that is the term you are looking for (inadmissible evidence is, in fact, actual evidence that cannot be used to procedural errors - e.g. obtained in illegal searches and such).What, did you watch one legal soap and now think that everyone will bow to your eloquence?That's called 'inadmissable evidence' in legal terms.
I admit, wrong-term, but lets put it this way: It's a continuum fallacy and a false attribution and a post hoc fallacy.
And you're being a jackass to me because...
#245
Posté 25 septembre 2013 - 09:15
MassivelyEffective0730
-
- Members
- 9 230 messages
Astartes Marine wrote...
You do realize you are arguing with the equivalent of a brick wall right? You're not going to change their mindset because they're dead set on supporting Cerberus and continuing their downwards spiral.
What downward spiral?
I'm seeing nothing but ascension.
Where does said downward spiral lead? Is it infinite? If that's the case, is there a purpose to even measuring it or regarding it?
There's no such thing as 'correct morality'.
Although I will agree with what you say, it is much the same with bias; no one can claim to be completely unbiased, there will always be that little whisper in the back of one's mind that defies absolute neutrality.
And the idea that such bias' exists is support for the idea in relativistic thought processes.
#246
Posté 25 septembre 2013 - 09:27
MassivelyEffective0730
-
- Members
- 9 230 messages
[url=https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/assets/FallaciesPosterHigherRes.jpg]Thou Shall Not Commit Logical Fallacies[/img]
Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 25 septembre 2013 - 09:28 .
#247
Posté 25 septembre 2013 - 09:37
Astartes Marine
-
- Members
- 1 615 messages
Cerberus' downward spiral into the realm of outcasts. No one likes them, no one accepts them, not even their own species and people seem to shoot at them at every turn and IMO for very good reason.MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
What downward spiral?
The Reapers also used that term quite frequently. One could wonder just whose side you are truly on...MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
I'm seeing nothing but ascension.
Death or prison to anyone wearing Cerberus colors apparently judging by just about anyone's feelings about them and actions towards them in the games.MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Where
does said downward spiral lead?
I'm perfectly content with that too. Their reputation is quite well earned.
Modifié par Astartes Marine, 25 septembre 2013 - 09:38 .
#248
Posté 25 septembre 2013 - 09:53
ScriptBabe
-
- Members
- 157 messages
I did so want the trial at the beginning of ME3. It could have been used to bring new players into the universe and what has transpired up to this point. I would have happily written it for them. 
I've been known to have written a pretty effective trial scene.
I've been known to have written a pretty effective trial scene.
#249
Posté 25 septembre 2013 - 09:56
Astartes Marine
-
- Members
- 1 615 messages
Hmm, so it'd be a sort of "Previously on Mass Effect..."ScriptBabe wrote...
I did so want the trial at the beginning of ME3. It could have been used to bring new players into the universe and what has transpired up to this point. I would have happily written it for them.
I like the idea, it could have saved alot of ME3 and allowed the devs to better reward older fans as well as get newcomers up to speed quick. It'd be tricky to pull off without sounding exactly like a "previously on..." segment though.
#250
Posté 25 septembre 2013 - 10:06
MassivelyEffective0730
-
- Members
- 9 230 messages
[quote]Astartes Marine wrote...
[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
What downward spiral? [/quote]
Cerberus' downward spiral into the realm of outcasts. No one likes them, no one accepts them, not even their own species and people seem to shoot at them at every turn and IMO for very good reason.
[/quote]
Well, with the endorsement of Shepard, the great galactic hero, along with his own scathing condemnation of the alliance and the Council, that'll change.
Plus my Shepard will shoot anyone who tries to shoot at them.
My take on Cerberus: The heroes the galaxy deserves, but not the ones it needs right now...and so we'll hunt then, because they can take it. Because they're not heroes. They're a silent guardian, a watchful protector...a dark knight.
[quote]
[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
I'm seeing nothing but ascension. [/quote]
The Reapers also used that term quite frequently. One could wonder just whose side you are truly on...
[/quote]
I'm on humanity's side. The galaxy's side. Against the Reapers.
It just so happens that I'm willing to be just as 'disgusting' and 'despicable' as the Reapers to beat them. If that's what it takes, I'll do it without regret or remorse. And the people of the galaxy will get down on their bloody knees and thank me for it, just like when they came to me on their bloody knees begging me to save them.
[quote]
[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Where
does said downward spiral lead? [/quote]
Death or prison to anyone wearing Cerberus colors apparently judging by just about anyone's feelings about them and actions towards them in the games.
I'm perfectly content with that too. Their reputation is quite well earned.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Hmm, my Shepard expressed his resentment towards the alliance and his wish that Cerberus had recruited him earlier.
I don't care what their reputation is. I provide safety and security for the galaxy en masse. They don't get to question how I provide it. Otherwise, good luck fixing your own problems against the Reapers.
[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
What downward spiral? [/quote]
Cerberus' downward spiral into the realm of outcasts. No one likes them, no one accepts them, not even their own species and people seem to shoot at them at every turn and IMO for very good reason.
[/quote]
Well, with the endorsement of Shepard, the great galactic hero, along with his own scathing condemnation of the alliance and the Council, that'll change.
Plus my Shepard will shoot anyone who tries to shoot at them.
My take on Cerberus: The heroes the galaxy deserves, but not the ones it needs right now...and so we'll hunt then, because they can take it. Because they're not heroes. They're a silent guardian, a watchful protector...a dark knight.
[quote]
[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
I'm seeing nothing but ascension. [/quote]
The Reapers also used that term quite frequently. One could wonder just whose side you are truly on...
[/quote]
I'm on humanity's side. The galaxy's side. Against the Reapers.
It just so happens that I'm willing to be just as 'disgusting' and 'despicable' as the Reapers to beat them. If that's what it takes, I'll do it without regret or remorse. And the people of the galaxy will get down on their bloody knees and thank me for it, just like when they came to me on their bloody knees begging me to save them.
[quote]
[quote]MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Where
does said downward spiral lead? [/quote]
Death or prison to anyone wearing Cerberus colors apparently judging by just about anyone's feelings about them and actions towards them in the games.
I'm perfectly content with that too. Their reputation is quite well earned.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Hmm, my Shepard expressed his resentment towards the alliance and his wish that Cerberus had recruited him earlier.
I don't care what their reputation is. I provide safety and security for the galaxy en masse. They don't get to question how I provide it. Otherwise, good luck fixing your own problems against the Reapers.
Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 25 septembre 2013 - 10:10 .
