146 réponses à ce sujet

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Well, it means that no one from another race can trust you with their race's welfare if humanity has something to lose, because your agenda is to maximize humanity. See your next post.
 

 

Your pro-human position apparently includes allowing and not caring that other races to perish. Sounds anti-alien.

 

And it means you being obtuse and coming to a conclusion that I or humanity caused said galactic extinction. For all I know, the virus on Omega might have accidentally gotten loose again and killed everyone that wasn't human. Don't make assumptions from the brush.

[themikefest]

@Bad King

 

Have you done a playthrough like what you've posted?

[DeinonSlayer]

And it means you being obtuse and coming to a conclusion that I or humanity caused said galactic extinction. For all I know, the virus on Omega might have accidentally gotten loose and killed everyone that wasn't human.

I always got the idea that the virus was intended to wipe out the aliens on Omega to make it easier for the Collectors to harvest its human population.

I always dismissed Mordin's burbling about "superior genetic diversity" among humans, though. Major science fail on Drew K's part.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I always got the idea that the virus was intended to wipe out the aliens on Omega to make it easier for the Collectors to harvest its human population.

I always dismissed Mordin's burbling about "superior genetic diversity" among humans, though. Major science fail on Drew K's part.

 

There were a lot of major science fails. Synthesis comes to mind. It, and the overlying understanding or interpretation of what I'd really be doing aren't bearable. I'd have some kind of normative deontological breakdown.

 

Lazarus, Shepard's death in general, also comes to mind. 

[ImaginaryMatter]

I always got the idea that the virus was intended to wipe out the aliens on Omega to make it easier for the Collectors to harvest its human population.

I always dismissed Mordin's burbling about "superior genetic diversity" among humans, though. Major science fail on Drew K's part.

 

It never bothered me more than element zero. What bothered me about it was that it pretty much the only reason for the focus on humanity and it basically got dropped.

[DeinonSlayer]

Would you really be fine with missing out on something for humanity so that another race can make a gain through some ideal of altruism that won't be reciprocated?

"Altruism?" Not sure how you read that into my post. I suppose you'd have to be more specific.

The only problem I have with the rate of human colonization is that the Alliance was really biting off more than they could chew, and as such seriously fell short in its obligation to protect its holdings. We can partially thank the BS Treaty of Farixen for that.

I posed the question before, what people would want the Alliance to do if, say, the Turians tried to modify Farixen to reclassify carriers (unique to humanity) as restricted capitol ships, thus forcing humanity to either dismantle existing warships to fall back within the legal dreadnought cap and trust the safety of our colonies to Council protection, or lose our embassy on the Citadel. Faced with the choice, I'd go with the latter. We can establish relations on our own terms.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

"Altruism?" Not sure how you read that into my post. I suppose you'd have to be more specific.

The only problem I have with the rate of human colonization is that the Alliance was really biting off more than they could chew, and as such seriously fell short in its obligation to protect its holdings. We can partially thank the BS Treaty of Farixen for that.

I posed the question before, what people would want the Alliance to do if, say, the Turians tried to modify Farixen to reclassify carriers (unique to humanity) as restricted capitol ships, thus forcing humanity to either dismantle existing warships to fall back within the legal dreadnought cap and trust the safety of our colonies to Council protection, or lose our embassy on the Citadel. Faced with the choice, I'd go with the latter. We can establish relations on our own terms.

 

Not your post; Obadiah's.

 

And on that note, I agree. It was basically a land grab to find as many plots as possible and stake claims to as many worlds as possible. I'd have made several medium sized outposts in each cluster, concentrating resources there and having them be easier and more reliably secureable. Branch out from there, but branch slowly. I'd probably imagine that if we did take the second option, we'd end up in a similar situation to the Batarians. The Council races wouldn't want to work with us since we weren't following their system. Relations would be difficult to create as well due to the pressure from the Turians to not do business with us. We'd basically have to become a relatively isolated system. We wouldn't have to worry about a military attack from the council, but we would have to look at the possibility of an embargo or blockade of relays that don't belong to us that separate our colonies. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

MassivelyEffective0730: No need for personal attacks.

 

?

 

I made no personal attacks. If you think what I said was a personal attack, you're going to have a lot of problem with me. You might want to learn to handle some criticism as well. And consider thicker skin. This is the internet after all. Especially the BSN. It's like the Korangal Valley of the Internet. Or as an old favorite once called it, 'the internet Mos Eisley'.

[Obadiah]

And it means you being obtuse and coming to a conclusion that I or humanity caused said galactic extinction. For all I know, the virus on Omega might have accidentally gotten loose again and killed everyone that wasn't human. Don't make assumptions from the brush.

 

I think you're just trying to obfuscate your agenda.

 

If you have no problem with a galactic extinction just because humanity didn't cause it and humanity survived, that's one way of telling that you're anti-alien.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Sorry, not taking the troll bait. I've said my piece and I'm moving on; feel free to do the same. Thank you.

 

The hell? 

 

Anyone, please feel free to tell where I was trolling this guy. 

[DeinonSlayer]

Not your post; Obadiah's.

And on that note, I agree. It was basically a land grab to find as many plots as possible and stake claims to as many worlds as possible. I'd have made several medium sized outposts in each cluster, concentrating resources there and having them be easier and more reliably secureable. Branch out from there, but branch slowly. I'd probably imagine that if we did take the second option, we'd end up in a similar situation to the Batarians. The Council races wouldn't want to work with us since we weren't following their system. Relations would be difficult to create as well due to the pressure from the Turians to not do business with us. We'd basically have to become a relatively isolated system. We wouldn't have to worry about a military attack from the council, but we would have to look at the possibility of an embargo or blockade of relays that don't belong to us that separate our colonies.

Ever since I read about Ekuna, I've believed that the Council was feeding Udina a line of crap about the potential for stepping up patrols of their own borders to start a war with the Terminus. A mere eighty years earlier, they were willing to send dreadnoughts into the Terminus to bombard the Quarians off of a world they discovered and tried to settle. As I see it, after Eden Prime the Council was perfectly content to prop up its feet and let the Geth put us uppity humans back in our place without getting their own hands dirty. If they had tried to pass a measure like I described, further crippling our ability to defend ourselves after demonstrating their own unwillingness to defend us, I wouldn't be very inclined to comply.

Perhaps I'm overestimating the value of dreadnoughts and carriers. It'd be a prohibitively costly and time-consuming process to build up a fleet of lesser vessels in their stead, though.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I think you're just trying to obfuscate your agenda.

 

If you have no problem with a galactic extinction just because humanity didn't cause it and humanity survived, that's one way of telling that you're anti-alien.

 

I think you're just trying to bs me.

 

How exactly am I anti-alien again? Apathy doesn't equal hate or distrust. It just means I don't give a damn. They're dead, we aren't. What do you think I should do, whine about the dead Asari and Krogan babies?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Ever since I read about Ekuna, I've believed that the Council was feeding Udina a line of crap about the potential for stepping up patrols of their own borders to start a war with the Terminus. A mere eighty years earlier, they were willing to send dreadnoughts into the Terminus to bombard the Quarians off of a world they discovered and tried to settle. As I see it, after Eden Prime the Council was perfectly content to prop up its feet and let the Geth put us uppity humans back in our place. If they had tried to pass a measure like I described, further crippling our ability to defend ourselves after demonstrating their own unwillingness to defend us, I wouldn't be very inclined to comply.

 

Neither would I. I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, I'm just saying what the ramifications for doing so would likely include. Essentially, we'd be set up to fail by the Council. The only way out would be to act as Executor Pallin described; get in line and be good little minions of the system.

 

Really, this is actually good for making a case for why it would be good for humans to be in power. I'm not going to impose a limit on the other races so they can defend their territory. I'd simply tell them to do what they had to do. That said, it's already a system of supremacy for the big 3 races. It's a power's club. And even then, I honestly believe that all 3 would take out the other 2 if they could get away with it. Ironically, the Turians would be least likely to do this. The entire system is pretty cynical. It's one reason I think Cerberus had it right. 

 

It's just one big political realists wet one.

[DeinonSlayer]

I'd have liked if, in ME1, Saracino had confronted Shepard with news like that - making the player choose between being taken advantage of, or taking a stand and potentially walking alone. I'd be curious how general opinion would fall on that. As it is, siding with Saracino is cast as a renegade decision (hell, the quest itself is named "our own worst enemy"). It was nice to see a bit of politicking, but things could stand to be a bit more complicated.

Loved the Landsmeet in DA:O.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I'd have liked if, in ME1, Saracino had confronted Shepard with news like that - making the player choose between being taken advantage of, or taking a stand and potentially walking alone. I'd be curious how general opinion would fall on that. As it is, siding with Saracino is cast as a renegade decision (hell, the quest itself is named "our own worst enemy"). It was nice to see a bit of politicking, but things could stand to be a bit more complicated.

Loved the Landsmeet in DA:O.

 

Saracino strikes me as too much of a hardline isolationist. I disagree with his perspective, and that of his group. I'm not opposed to rejecting alien cooperation or influence on humanity, but I'm not one to simply become their little minion. I think I can find a nice medium between Saracino's hardline antics and Xilizhra's shameless shilling of Asari supremacy. Namely, Cerberus is what I see as that medium.

[TheOneTrueBioticGod]

Honestly, assuming no plot point of the crucible, I would make sure that the reports of the majority of the Reaper fleet were at Earth were correct, then destroy the Charon Relay. Then, take my fleet to Palaven, then Thessia. Sur'Kesh doesn't need help, due to the smart decision their government made. The Salarians are the most competent of any of the races in ME. 

Then I'd stick little timmy's head on a pike in the Presidium. 

[DeinonSlayer]

Saracino strikes me as too much of a hardline isolationist. I disagree with his perspective, and that of his group. I'm not opposed to rejecting alien cooperation or influence on humanity, but I'm not one to simply become their little minion. I think I can find a nice medium between Saracino's hardline antics and Xilizhra's shameless shilling of Asari supremacy. Namely, Cerberus is what I see as that medium.

Fair enough. The idea would be in part to see if people's reaction to such a bombshell would be colored by who they were hearing it from. Would their stance be rejected out of hand due to the baggage of association. Would people choose submission and weakening ourselves (a transparently bad thing in light of the Council's inaction) over siding with someone like him.

[Obadiah]

I think you're just trying to bs me.

 

How exactly am I anti-alien again? Apathy doesn't equal hate or distrust. It just means I don't give a damn. They're dead, we aren't. What do you think I should do, whine about the dead Asari and Krogan babies?

 

Apathy in the face of massive death of others is pretty much the same as hate, and if you don't think so, I encourage you to make that case in the real world and see how many people are convinced by, say, proclaimed and asserted apathy to massive death counts of people in another country.

 

The non anti-alien response would be: OMG, that's terrible, we should go do something, lets see how we can help. The "meh, this is an opportunity for us" is the anti-alien response.

[CrutchCricket]

Pro-human =/= anti-alien.

 

This thread is mislabeled at best, or thinly veiled "acceptable" racism at worst.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Apathy in the face of massive death of others is pretty much the same as hate, and if you don't think so, I encourage you to make that case in the real world and see how many people are convinced by, say, proclaimed and asserted apathy to massive death counts of people in another country.

 

The non anti-alien response would be: OMG, that's terrible, we should go do something, lets see how we can help. The "meh, this is an opportunity for us" is the anti-alien response.

 

I don't think so. I think it's tunnel vision on your part. I think you're trying to dictate what is good and what is bad. I don't think it's either. The issue is that I'm not making an argument for all of humanity, I'm making an argument for myself. A billion people die, they die. It happens. I don't subscribe to your morality, or your definition of apathy or anti-alien idealism. You're setting yourself up on a moral high ground and barring circumstances for anyone to feel differently based on your own judgement. Who the hell are you to tell me what's good and what's bad anyway? Because I treat death with callousness? I really do. Death happens. That's what people do. They die. No use getting all worked up about it.

 

Let me ask: why should I care beyond an economic or practical matter? Why should I care on a moralistic or ethical manner? Does 'caring' make the aliens any better? Does 'caring' make the people of North Korea any less oppressed? If the aliens are dying and we can't help them, why the hell shouldn't we use the hand that fate has dealt us? It is an opportunity. Everything is. It's not that I particularly want to see them die or hold views against them. It's just that in light of the given circumstances, I'd decide to make the best of a bad situation. Simply put, that is, in my own opinion, at least it's not us. At least we get a whole galaxy of resources to ourselves now. Always look on the bright side of life chap.

 

Or have I pissed off your sense of self-righteousness?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

This thread is mislabeled at best, or thinly veiled "acceptable" racism at worst.

 

Eh, it's mislabeled. 

 

As I said, pro-human =/= anti-alien. I think we can agree on that.

[CrutchCricket]

Eh, it's mislabeled. 

 

As I said, pro-human =/= anti-alien. I think we can agree on that.

 

We agree on that. Everyone else in this thread going "kill all aliens" may not.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

We agree on that. Everyone else in this thread going "kill all aliens" may not.

 

Kill em or love em. Doesn't make a difference to me. They're all just meatbags who die. Just like the rest of us.

 

That said, all the people who seem to be pro-alien are crying that it means anti-alien as well.

[CrutchCricket]

That said, all the people who seem to be pro-alien are crying that it means anti-alien as well.

 

Probably because that's the way it's presented. The entire OP in a nutshell is :

 

"Thou shalt kill all aliens except when not killing an alien allows you to kill more aliens later".

 

I get what you're saying. If Thessia got struck by an asteroid, I'd say condolences, offer to assist and look to see if I can get in on those eezo deposits. But I'm not going to go out of my way to bomb the place because "**** asari lololol".

[DeinonSlayer]

I don't think so. I think it's tunnel vision on your part. I think you're trying to dictate what is good and what is bad. I don't think it's either. The issue is that I'm not making an argument for all of humanity, I'm making an argument for myself. A billion people die, they die. It happens. I don't subscribe to your morality, or your definition of apathy or anti-alien idealism. You're setting yourself up on a moral high ground and barring circumstances for anyone to feel differently based on your own judgement. Who the hell are you to tell me what's good and what's bad anyway? Because I treat death with callousness? I really do. Death happens. That's what people do. They die. No use getting all worked up about it.
 
Let me ask: why should I care beyond an economic or practical matter? Why should I care on a moralistic or ethical manner? Does 'caring' make the aliens any better? Does 'caring' make the people of North Korea any less oppressed? If the aliens are dying and we can't help them, why the hell shouldn't we use the hand that fate has dealt us? It is an opportunity. Everything is. It's not that I particularly want to see them die or hold views against them. It's just that in light of the given circumstances, I'd decide to make the best of a bad situation. Simply put, that is, in my own opinion, at least it's not us. At least we get a whole galaxy of resources to ourselves now. Always look on the bright side of life chap.
 
Or have I pissed off your sense of self-righteousness?

I think the "and we can't help them" stipulation in your post is crucial, Massively. It's the difference between simply acknowledging a situation for what it is and "manufacturing" these "opportunities," even through inaction. Case in point: the Alliance discovers a civilization numbering in the hundreds of millions. Their planet is blessed with an abundance of precious metals/whatever/something worth wanting, but their space program is no more advanced than ours in the modern day. They have no colonies, and have only sent a few dozen of their people to the Citadel as part of First Contact proceedings. However, a dinosaur-killer asteroid is found to be on a collision course with this world, albeit almost a year from now - a natural, random event, not Balak 2.0. The people under the hammer lack the means to deflect the asteroid and save their species, but the Alliance could do so on a whim.

With your morality as you've described it, I still expect that you'd have the Alliance deflect the asteroid, if only because it'd be more economical to trade with them for the metals, harvested by them via their existing infrastructure, rather than stepping back, watching them die, then swooping in afterwards to claim it all for ourselves. If I'm mistaken, either in my judgment of your motives or course of action in the provided scenario, I apologize - I'd rather not be David, insisting you'd do what I'm guessing you'd do. That's just my best guess based on what I've gathered thus far.