86 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

Lmaoboat wrote...

and I'm not going to punish someone like that in such a cowardly manner.

Keep on mind Sidonis requests the meeting to take place in public place in broad lights precisely to make it impossible to get captured/killed in any direct manner. The sniper setup Garrus arranges is there out of necessity, the only other way for him would be to ask Shepard to do it for him instead, since Sidonis sure as heck isn't going to stick around should he notice Garrus nearby.

Modifié par tmp7704, 03 février 2010 - 06:11 .

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Eradyn wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

Eradyn wrote...

You're welcome to ask Garrus; he's the one who mentioned "shades of gray."

So basically you have no idea yourself what he meant by that, either?

I know very well what Garrus meant and I'm very comfortable in that understanding.  But I'm not required or driven to explain it to those who repeatedly refuse to even accept the possibility of there being a valid and equally legitimate reason for an action/opinion contrary to their own.  It isn't their place to make such laughable demands.

When people were more interested in honest discussion, I was more amenable to explaining my pov.  Now I see that it isn't about discussion but about something more childish and bordering trolling.  So...I no longer feel compelled to explain things that have been alluded to by others (and myself) already since honest discourse is no longer the apparent goal.

Tacit Withdrawal is not a substitute for proper argument.

[Eradyn]

Dr. Peter Venkman wrote...

Tacit Withdrawal is not a substitute for proper argument.

You are mistaken, then.  I am not here to argue over such a thing -- the idea is amusing, actually, that you would repeatedly attempt to engage in arguing over something like this.  I am now spending the time watching you and others froth over the decisions made by a number of other individuals who happened to hold a contrary opinion...I rather enjoy it and find your passionate insistance humorous.  If you are a troll, I applaud you.

If you are not: I've already stated my own opinions regarding this particular decision.  I have nothing to hide in that regard, but I certainly am not required to answer to you for my decisions.

[tmp7704]

Eradyn wrote...

I know very well what Garrus meant and I'm very comfortable in that understanding.  But I'm not required or driven to explain it to those who repeatedly refuse to even accept the possibility of there being a valid and equally legitimate reason for an action/opinion contrary to their own.  It isn't their place to make such laughable demands.

When people were more interested in honest discussion, I was more amenable to explaining my pov.

I'm sorry but i just don't see the "i know what fictional character* meant but i'm not telling because i don't have to" as any sort of attempt to have honest discussion. I also don't see where exactly did i "repeatedly refuse to accept possibility etc" when all i did was to make request to elaborate on your position after providing my own reasoning that led me to opposite view. Which as far as i know is actually how the "honest discussion" works.

*) something you quite obviously cannot actually know without as you put it, asking the character himself. Or being the person who wrote his dialogue.

[Lmaoboat]

Dr. Peter Venkman wrote...

You keep spouting off "it's not justice, it's not justice", but you have yet to define what Justice is. I say it is getting payback for the murder of 10 good men certainly is. Prison is full of "unarmed and remorseful" men; are you going to let them go too?


It does solve something; Sidonis is no longer a free man and 10 dead men are repaid for. And Garrus is not guilty of anything-look up justifiable homicide.

lol, he wasn't a scumbag? What the heck fits your definition of a scumbag then?

Justice is seeing him taken to trail and put in jail, not just randomly shooting him in the head. He's not some cold-blooded killer, he's just a weak, cowardly man who caused the death 10 people, and that will haunt him forever. Killing him brings no justice because he can never be held accountable for his actions, you're just doing it so you can feel better. And I'm not sure why you seem be getting so worked up over an ethical debate over some event in a video game, but perhaps you should chill out a little.

Modifié par Lmaoboat, 03 février 2010 - 06:33 .

[Eradyn]

tmp7704 wrote...

Eradyn wrote...

I know very well what Garrus meant and I'm very comfortable in that understanding.  But I'm not required or driven to explain it to those who repeatedly refuse to even accept the possibility of there being a valid and equally legitimate reason for an action/opinion contrary to their own.  It isn't their place to make such laughable demands.

When people were more interested in honest discussion, I was more amenable to explaining my pov.

I'm sorry but i just don't see the "i know what fictional character* meant but i'm not telling because i don't have to" as any sort of attempt to have honest discussion. I also don't see where exactly did i "repeatedly refuse to accept possibility etc" when all i did was to make request to elaborate on your position after providing my own reasoning that led me to opposite view. Which as far as i know is actually how the "honest discussion" works.

*) something you quite obviously cannot actually know without as you put it, asking the character himself. Or being the person who wrote his dialogue.

When people begin making demands and getting argumentative, "honest discussion" has long since passed.  This is applicable to all who meet the "requirements" of such a statement.  If you fall under it, you fall under it, and if you don't then rest easy knowing I'm not talking about you.

I have no problem with discussion, but I do have a problem with people demanding others explain theirselves while getting worked up over the contrary opinion...especially when it's apparent they are the ones with the problem with that opinion and not the other way around.  See...I have nothing to argue.  I acknowledge and understand your point of view and that of others who chose differently.  I can see the logic behind their decision and why they made that decision, and I certainly have no illusions of being "owed" an explanation of any sort.  If I didn't understand their pov, I might ask if they could explain it, but that's about as far as it goes.  As it is, I neither require clarification of any sort nor do I feel compelled to request it.

As it stands, however, I have no reason to argue as I have no problem with your pov or mine.

@Lmaoboat: You are far more patient than me.  I applaud your effort. ^^

Modifié par Eradyn, 03 février 2010 - 06:35 .

[FredegarKadere]

I let Garrus take the shot only because of the way Bioware made the conversation choices. My Shepard was paragon based so I tried convincing Garrus to hold off and let me get Sedonis' side. Unfortunately, Bioware gave me the option to move aside or "Warn" Sedonis. If they had given me an option to talk it out with Sedonis I would have gone for it.

Poor Sedonis.. If only the text label had been more forgiving and not a Black and White choice.

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Lmaoboat wrote...

Justice is seeing him taken to trail and put in jail, not just randomly shooting him in the head.

Not an option. C-Sec has revolving door prisons...like the "Justice" system in the U.S. I imagine it is that x10 on the Citadel from talks with Garrus

He's not some cold-blooded killer, he's just a weak, cowardly man who
caused the death 10 people, and that will haunt him forever.

So the same guy who had no problem killing bad guys with Garrus is suddenly "weak and cowardly" in his betrayal? He can't have it both ways. Him being haunted forever does not atone for what he did.

Killing him
brings no justice because he can never be held accountable for his
actions, you're just doing it so you can feel better.

Being shot in the head is a very sure way to be held accountable. Letting him go free without knowing that he will turn himself in is a horrible compromise with unknown results.

And I'm not sure
why you seem be getting so worked up over an ethical debate over some
event in a video game, but perhaps you should chill out a little.

And I'm not sure why you think I am getting so worked up over an ethical debate over some
event in a video game, but perhaps you should realize I'm just having a discussion.

Modifié par Dr. Peter Venkman, 03 février 2010 - 06:58 .

[tmp7704]

Eradyn wrote...

I have no problem with discussion, but I do have a problem with people demanding others explain theirselves while getting worked up over the contrary opinion...

If you aren't willing to explain your point of view, how do you expect people who themselves arrived to different conclusions to understand it without your help, if it so happens they cannot do it on their own? I don't see that as "demands" and if that's how you perceive simple questions, i have to wonder just how you'd form your own request to elaborate on an unclear issue.

If I didn't understand their pov, I might ask if they could explain it, but that's about as far as it goes.  As it is, I neither require clarification of any sort nor do I feel compelled to request it.

Well, as it happens i did require clarification of sort in order to understand your pov. Since you refused to provide it claiming that somehow showed i wasn't interested in honest discussion i guess this is where our exchange stops.

[tmp7704]

Lmaoboat wrote...

Justice is seeing him taken to trail and put in jail, not just randomly shooting him in the head.

The catch to this reasoning would be, the situation in question happened in Omega station. There is no legal power there, no law enforcement, no courts to hold trial and no prison to put the sentenced person to. Sidonis turning himself to C-Sec is quite a blunder here that shouldn't happen at all because this is outside of their jurisdiction. As far as law is concerned they can only tell him "bad Turian, don't do that again" and let him go.

While Garrus is acting as self-appointed judge, jury and executioner in this case, this is the closest you're technically going to get to "justice".

Modifié par tmp7704, 03 février 2010 - 07:08 .

[Eradyn]

tmp7704 wrote...

Eradyn wrote...

I have no problem with discussion, but I do have a problem with people demanding others explain theirselves while getting worked up over the contrary opinion...

If you aren't willing to explain your point of view, how do you expect people who themselves arrived to different conclusions to understand it without your help, if it so happens they cannot do it on their own? I don't see that as "demands" and if that's how you perceive simple questions, i have to wonder just how you'd form your own request to elaborate on an unclear issue.

If I didn't understand their pov, I might ask if they could explain it, but that's about as far as it goes.  As it is, I neither require clarification of any sort nor do I feel compelled to request it.

Well, as it happens i did require clarification of sort in order to understand your pov. Since you refused to provide it claiming that somehow showed i wasn't interested in honest discussion i guess this is where our exchange stops.

If people really are genuine about this, then why not simply ask instead of getting argumentative/making demands? *sigh* It would have been so much more simple...and civil.  To keep it simple, I don't believe it was the appropriate choice of action because revenge does nothing to truly correct or solve anything.  It doesn't even feel good.  It leaves wounds and scars and leads to at least as many problems as it solves.  Is Sidonis despicable? I pity him, the type of pity one has for something that crawls in garbage.

His fear for his own life led to mercs gaining the location of Garrus' base of operations.  In addition, he aided in drawing Garrus out of that base (I wonder, in a sick twist of irony, if that didn't end up saving Garrus' life?).  He didn't directly murder anyone, but he did, in a moment of weakness, betray his friends (apparently under threat of death).  Regardless, I cannot judge him (or anyone in real life who is forced into such a pitiable situation) to be worthy of a revenge killing.  How many people in the reality would be noble enough to choose death, or a brief existance of torture before it, instead of betraying trust?  There are very few people in this world who would actually do that.

But I like Garrus.  I don't believe he should sully his hands and lessen himself to carry out a revenge killing.  Most people are desensitized to revenge, I think...but I'm not there yet.  I still see how much it can warp and harm the person who is consumed by it (and Garrus himself is evidence of that).  I would rather plead for Garrus for Garrus' sake, because I believe that revenge does more harm to the person committing it than the one suffering it.  It was not out of agreement of what Sidonis did that I pleaded with Garrus, it was because I cared more about Garrus than I did Sidonis.  Just as I would plead with a suicidal man standing on a precipice, I would argue for Garrus (or one I cared for).

That's about as simple as I can make it at 2am.  I'm not about to go into the nitty-gritty, but there you go.

Modifié par Eradyn, 03 février 2010 - 07:18 .

[tmp7704]

Eradyn wrote...

Then why not simply ask instead of getting argumentative/making demands?

Well, i posted sentences with "?" at the end of them, aimed to clarify the points where i couldn't figure out your reasoning. These were in my understanding "simple questions", not demands or anything. It honestly didn't occur to me they could be interpreted as anything like that.

To keep it simple, I don't believe it was the appropriate choice of action because revenge does nothing to truly correct or solve anything.

I see; however, it'd appear Garrus doesn't see his act as revenge but rather as delivering justice with him being the only person being in position to do that (he tells you as much himself in the cab)  Given the circumstances which i addressed in post made before this one (there's no organization with legal power to address that matter) i can't really say he is incorrect in his view.

His fear for his own life led to mercs gaining the location of Garrus' base of operations.  In addition, he aided in drawing Garrus out of that base (I wonder, in a sick twist of irony, if that didn't end up saving Garrus' life?).

Funnily enough i expected that to be the man's saving grace. As in, that while he did betray his companions he at least actively tried to save Garrus. But from the way he explains things to Shepard it turned out it that really wasn't the case and he was concerned just about himself.

He didn't directly murder anyone, but he did, in a moment of weakness, betray his friends (apparently under threat of death).  Regardless, I cannot judge him (or anyone in real life who is forced into such a pitiable situation) to be worthy of a revenge killing.  How many people in the reality would be noble enough to choose death, or a brief existance of torture before it, instead of betraying trust?  There are very few people in this world who would actually do that.

I think the ironic part here is, Garrus is probably one of these few. I recognize this coloured my view of the situation -- learning that Sidonis didn't actually try to save the guy much better than himself even though he apparently could, let alone these 9 others, and it was just some sort of unplanned accident that Garrus lived at all ... at that point i really couldn't pity Sidonis enough to care about his fate. And if Garrus considered it justice to put bullet in his head, i didn't feel entitled to stop it, nor the man to be worth defending any further.

But I like Garrus.  I don't believe he should sully his hands and lessen himself to carry out a revenge killing.  Most people are desensitized to revenge, I think...but I'm not there yet.  I still see how much it can warp and harm the person who is consumed by it (and Garrus himself is evidence of that).

Hmm i guess it just boils down to us having different view on this particular aspect. That is, you view Sidonis' execution purely as act of revenge and as such something Garrus shouldn't do. While i'm inclined to lean towards Garrus' opinion this is more about justice than revenge. But i'm willing to accept possibility Garrus is wrong about it and his personal bias (and in certain manner also mine) makes him unable to see things for what they really are.

I'll stick to my take on the situation i think, but i can now see where you're coming from with yours better than before. So thanks for that