123 réponses à ce sujet

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Cerberus didn't reverse engineer the Normandy. They helped build the original Normandy with the Alliance and the Turians. EDI said so.

[AlanC9]

Cerberus being so well funded made sense when they were supposed to be a small organisation. If they have a small number of operations going at once it can be explained. Project Lazarus and building the SR-2 going on at the same time can be accepted with their multi-billion per year income (which if you ask me is also kind of implausible), but we keep seeing more things going on at once than Cerberus should be able to handle in the given timeframe. Overlord involves several massive, custom-built installations, then there's project Firewalker, EDI is developed at the same time as Lazarus and SR-2, tracking the derelict Reaper, all of Brooks' antics, blah blah. To say nothing of all the stuff we don't see, the general recon and research, the starships they're evidently building, the numerous bases they're holding and maintaining. I'm no finance expert, but billions a year doesn't account for all the stuff they do if you ask me.

Sure, but all this proves is that Cerberus was portrayed as a very large organization all the way through ME2, and anything Miranda or EDI or the Codex or anyone said to make us think that it wasn't huge was lies of one form or another.

[Jorji Costava]

Cerberus didn't reverse engineer the Normandy. They helped build the original Normandy with the Alliance and the Turians. EDI said so.

 

Guess I missed that line of dialogue. Still, just building the thing would still be a pretty massive undertaking, particularly when you're also making substantial improvements to the design and keeping the whole thing secret at the same time.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Related to this, I also have another dumb story idea that I have to mention: I think it would have been cool if instead of getting a replacement Normandy for ME2, we got a ship that was significantly more rickety and unreliable, or at least, much more uncomfortable in its accommodations. It would have added to the sense that there is something dangerous and risky about Shepard's mission and the association with Cerberus. After all, the whole point of spending the game in the Terminus is to give us a part of the world that is more lawless and dangerous than what you'll find in the comparatively 'safe' confines of Council space, and there's no reason why even Shepard's own vessel can't be a means to reinforce that sense of risk.

 

I had a similar idea as well where the ship Shepard travels on in ME2 is much less conspicuous (although my idea takes place in an almost entirely different ME2, Shepard isn't killed and command of the Normandy is given to someone else). This new ship would also be a reflection of the Terminus system, specifically it's a Corsair ship.

[SporkFu]

Related to this, I also have another dumb story idea that I have to mention: I think it would have been cool if instead of getting a replacement Normandy for ME2, we got a ship that was significantly more rickety and unreliable, or at least, much more uncomfortable in its accommodations. It would have added to the sense that there is something dangerous and risky about Shepard's mission and the association with Cerberus. After all, the whole point of spending the game in the Terminus is to give us a part of the world that is more lawless and dangerous than what you'll find in the comparatively 'safe' confines of Council space, and there's no reason why even Shepard's own vessel can't be a means to reinforce that sense of risk.

Re: the bolded part. I would love this idea for the next ME game, but shep's story ain't shep's story without the Normandy. Citadel DLC would not be the same at all. 

[Arcian]

Your ME2 assertion is false. Cerberus are not terrorists, nor are they human supremacists.

♪♫"Livin' in Denial"♫♪

--James Brown ft. Doctor Without a Medical Degree

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

♪♫"Livin' in Denial"♫♪

--James Brown ft. Doctor Without a Medical Degree

 

I've already explained in the past how my assertion isn't false. You're the one living in denial for claiming that there is no veracity to my statement and never can be. 

 

Most claims of denial have an element to it behind the speakers words. You know, many Christians will tell you that you're living in denial as well regarding sin, or evolution, or some rule or whatnot. What are we to make of that, hmm? Are they right? 

 

And you don't have to insult me personally. That's just vindictiveness on your part. 

[Farangbaa]

The fact that you agree with their goals does not make them any less terrorist, Massively.

 

Or what do you call an organization that kidnaps children for biotic death camps? Practical? Extreme?

 

Nope, terrorists.

[von uber]

They are more like ISIS in ME3, to use a contemporary example.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

The fact that you agree with their goals does not make them any less terrorist, Massively.

 

Or what do you call an organization that kidnaps children for biotic death camps? Practical? Extreme?

 

Nope, terrorists.

 

Nope. I've stated how they are, by definition, not terrorists. You have to abide by certain criteria to call them as such. They have a political agenda, yes. Are they making attacks and taking claim for it in the name of their political agenda? That fact that you disagree with their goals does not make them any more terrorist. I take it you're trying to treat me like David by calling me out by my true name? If that's the case, you're a few years too late. I had another name before that one, and another before that.

 

Before I call them anything, I look at why they do what they do and what they're trying to accomplish. Also, biotic 'death' camps isn't the purpose of the organization's project. It's an inaccurate term used by people who are in emotional distress at the idea of something bad is happening. People don't know how to separate their emotions from their rationale. 

 

While extreme, yes, their methods do get results, thus making them practical. That's what matters. If it's evil, but practical, then it's not evil. If it's stupid, but it works, then it's not stupid.

 

They are more like ISIS in ME3, to use a contemporary example.

 

Hardly! 

 

Before I delve further into this, I want to know what comparison you're drawing to ISIS compared to Cerberus. 

 

ISIS for starters is a jihadist group that seeks domination over the Muslim populace of the world, and they have threatened to do so with violent force on an external level. Cerberus is indoctrinated by ME3. You really can't say that they are acting of their own accord. I know a lot of people don't like to give them that excuse since they consider it a cheap cop-out and disproves their emotion insensibilities about the organization at large.

[Farangbaa]

There is no definition of 'terrorism', Massively.
 

In the international community, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts that are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (e.g., neutral military personnel or civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war. The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism, though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group. Usage of the term has also been criticized for its frequent undue equating with Islamism or jihadism, while ignoring non-Islamic organizations or individuals.[3][4]

And you know this damn well, and you know why this is true as well: one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. But looking at the above quote, Cerberus' activities fall well within what is commonly seen as terrorism.

And what else do you want to call a camp where children are put to death to create a biotic super soldier? A biotic fun camp?

And you gotta stop with the 'whatever yields results is good' line, it's getting lame and boring, you can sweep any action under it and call it good. If I kill your family it gets results too, but it's never a good thing. Hell, Hitler got results too.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

There is no definition of 'terrorism', Massively.


And you know this damn well, and you know why this is true as well: one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. But looking at the above quote, Cerberus' activities fall well within what is commonly seen as terrorism.

 

No, they really don't. They don't perpetuate war with anyone until ME3, by which point its open war. They don't ransack planets or populations in the name of an ideological goal. They perform experiments and projects in the name of making scientific advancements for humanity and the galaxy at large. Would you call groups like the STG and the Spectre's terrorists? Would you define their governments as such as well?

 

As well, you can't claim that 1) there is no definition for terrorism, 2) claim that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and 3) then say that I am false for not calling them a terrorist. That's a non-sequiter. 

 

Honestly, I think it makes you mad that someone could ever entertain the thought of the kinds of experiments that Cerberus takes as being a good thing. You and Uber both seem to get into emotional distress whenever anyone defends Cerberus or proclaims them to have a good cause with worthy methods.

[von uber]

It's not emotional distress; it's (for me) a disbelief that you actually believe it and it's not just internet posturing.
If you do believe it then you are no better than those you allege to fight, and thus worthy of the same contempt.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

It's not emotional distress; it's (for me) a disbelief that you actually believe it and it's not just internet posturing.
If you do believe it then you are no better than those you allege to fight, and thus worthy of the same contempt.

 

Well, I suppose on the internet there isn't any real way to prove anything one way or the other in regards to beliefs.

 

The thing is though, I'm not trying to be better than those I'm trying to fight. I'm trying to beat them so that I and what I protect survives. I don't need to be the better person, I just need to be the winner. I don't see a lot of them as worthy of contempt. It's brilliance really. Use tactics that make others feel is dishonorable and would never use themselves, and they'll have no defense against you. 

 

Colonel Kurtz said it best: It's impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what horror means. Horror... Horror has a face... and you must make a friend of horror. Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not, then they are enemies to be feared. They are truly enemies! I remember when I was with Special Forces... seems a thousand centuries ago. We went into a camp to inoculate some children. We left the camp after we had inoculated the children for polio, and this old man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn't see. We went back there, and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile. A pile of little arms. And I remember... I... I... I cried, I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out; I didn't know what I wanted to do! And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it... I never want to forget. And then I realized... like I was shot... like I was shot with a diamond... a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought, my God... the genius of that! The genius! The will to do that! Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were stronger than we, because they could stand that these were not monsters, these were men... trained cadres. These men who fought with their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with love... but they had the strength... the strength... to do that. If I had ten divisions of those men, our troubles here would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral... and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling... without passion... without judgment... without judgment! Because it's judgment that defeats us.

 

As far as military action goes, every commander should aspire to be Unfettered.

[Farangbaa]

The problem I have with you Massively is that, if you take 'results' as a means to constitute whether something is good or bad; anything goes. Using that I could easily argue Hitler was the best thing to happen to humanity, ever.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

The problem I have with you Massively is that, if you take 'results' as a means to constitute whether something is good or bad; anything goes. Using that I could easily argue Hitler was the best thing to happen to humanity, ever.

 

Anything does go if the results work. If you get strong, usable results from an immoral action, then that action was not immoral.

 

That's an induction of Godwin's Law. Your argument is now invalid.

 

Pulling the Hitler Card dispels your argument.

 

[Farangbaa]

No it doesn't, it's a perfect example of why results should not be what you measure morality by. Besides, that MTG card doesn't apply here, I wasn't comparing you or anyone to Hitler, I was just saying that if I take results a measurement of morality, Hitler would be an awesome guy.

 

And I'm sure we can agree that he wasn't.

[TheEternalStudent]

 

Anything does go if the results work. If you get strong, usable results from an immoral action, then that action was not immoral.

 

That's an induction of Godwin's Law. Your argument is now invalid.

 

Pulling the Hitler Card dispels your argument.

 

Comparing something to Hitler doesn't disprove your own argument. If someone inspires a country in the midst of an economic depression to rekindle prejudices to pull themselves up, that's being like Hitler. It's not a trump, and it's overused, but refusing to allow anything to be compared to Hitler makes it an isolated instance we could never reachieve.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

No it doesn't, it's a perfect example of why results should not be what you measure morality by. Besides, that MTG card doesn't apply here, I wasn't comparing you or anyone to Hitler, I was just saying that if I take results a measurement of morality, Hitler would be an awesome guy.

 

And I'm sure we can agree that he wasn't.

 

It is. Denying the point that it isn't a Godwin is lunacy. Simply by mentioning him and comparing my philosophy to his is a Godwin. That breaks your argument.

 

And no, we can't agree on that part. The thing is, Hitler had just as many failures as his achievements. Personally, I do commend him for his achievements. When they worked they were golden, but he failed as much if not more than when he succeeded. 

 

Dr. Mengele had several successful experiments that were later taken by the Allies post-war and applied practically. You can't deny results as bad if the means to get there were 'immoral'. Otherwise you'd have to condemn the U.S. Air Force, NASA, the FBI, and other organizations that took some clues from the German business of running things.

 

I don't buy into is/ought/should arguments at all. I don't find your idea of morality compelling at all. That's why I have my own. It places value on the material, not on the abstract. If a positive result is achieved, and it was achieved economically and feasibly, and it is practical, then by my standard, it was a moral action. 

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

Comparing something to Hitler doesn't disprove your own argument. If someone inspires a country in the midst of an economic depression to rekindle prejudices to pull themselves up, that's being like Hitler. It's not a trump, and it's overused, but refusing to allow anything to be compared to Hitler makes it an isolated instance we could never reachieve.

 

That's called the Hitler Ate Sugar statement. Of course you can't say that everything Hitler did was bad, or that an action was bad because Hitler partook or advocated it.

 

However, the point being leveled at me was that my 'end justifies the means' position is philosophically comparable to Hitler's philosophy. That is a Godwin Argument, and I was valid to call it. Your dissent on the point is noted, but it's sort of categorically beside the point. I get what you're saying, but that isn't really what was being said.

[Farangbaa]

If you payed attention, I have absolutely zero problem with using the results of immoral and unethical research. Leaving the results just because they were obtained the wrong way doesn't fly with me; they are there, you might as well use them to have the victims not be completely disregarded and died in vain.

 

I am not comparing your philosophy to Hitler's. I am saying that using you philosphy I can argue Hitler was a fantastic guy, nothing more, nothing less.

[Farangbaa]

Lets get back to biotic death camps:

 

How many deaths need to happen before you'd quit the experiment?

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

If you payed attention, I have absolutely zero problem with using the results of immoral and unethical research. Leaving the results just because they were obtained the wrong way doesn't fly with me; they are there, you might as well use them to have the victims not be completely disregarded and died in vain.

 

I am not comparing your philosophy to Hitler's. I am saying that using you philosphy I can argue Hitler was a fantastic guy, nothing more, nothing less.

 

In some ways, he was a fantastic guy. You can't judge a person as horribly and irredeemably evil. No one is like that. No single person can ever be labelled in terms of black, or white, or grey. 

 

I don't believe that results are ever obtained 'the wrong way', at least morally or ethically. Economically and practically, perhaps. But as far as morals and ethics go, you either have results, or you don't. If you got results, then it was morally and ethically sound. If you didn't get results, then it was not. The people, the victims, their lives are not relevant. They're resources, tools to be used. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

Lets get back to biotic death camps:

 

How many deaths need to happen before you'd quit the experiment?

 

Depends on how many deaths it took for me to establish a trend that 1) no viable results are being made, and 2) no change or significant variation in the negative results occurs. I check my experiments again, make sure there is no flaw or contamination in the process and try again. Once a negative trend is established (unknown how many lives will be necessary), then I abandon the method as inefficient, impractical, or ineffectual.

[Farangbaa]

In some ways, he was a fantastic guy. You can't judge a person as horribly and irredeemably evil. No one is like that. No single person can ever be labelled in terms of black, or white, or grey.

Sure he was (no sarcasm). First person to come up with animal welfare, first person to consider putting a ban on smoking (I'm a smoker myself, but I can see the positives of a ban), among other things. I'm not a black and white guy. 
 

I don't believe that results are ever obtained 'the wrong way', at least morally or ethically. Economically and practically, perhaps. But as far as morals and ethics go, you either have results, or you don't. If you got results, then it was morally and ethically sound. If you didn't get results, then it was not. The people, the victims, their lives are not relevant. They're resources, tools to be used. Nothing more, nothing less.

And what if you run out of people before you get results?

And really, you don't see the flaw in this? You basically give people a 'do whatever the hell you want'-card, anything goes, but if the results don't suit you they're suddenly a bad person doing wrong things. It's way better to establish right and wrong beforehand and let people work within those confines to achieve results, which is working just fine in the real world.
 

Depends on how many deaths it took for me to establish a trend that 1) no viable results are being made, and 2) no change or significant variation in the negative results occurs. I check my experiments again, make sure there is no flaw or contamination in the process and try again. Once a negative trend is established (unknown how many lives will be necessary), then I abandon the method as inefficient, impractical, or ineffectual.

At which point your research would be completely immoral and unethical, by your own standards.


Anyway, I have civilians to disregared on Omega, we'll continue this sometime later