653 réponses à ce sujet

[Arijharn]

Xilizhra wrote...
Arijharn: What, then, if you thought that killing 300 babies might save the universe, but you didn't know for certain?

I've already answered this, if I seriously thought it would then yes. Of course, the concept that 300 babies might save the universe is ridiculous, so I don't think it really is a 1:1 statement at all.

True, it's wrong to deprive them of the chance of growing up and living a life, but in my view, it's even more wrong to damn the universe to extinction (including, yes those 300 babies) just because of it.

EDIT: Also, I don't mean to imply that I'd do it on a whim either in case someone is going to argue that route, and there is a cut-off period to which I personally wouldn't cross. All my example is really saying is that I'd adjust what I'd consider an 'acceptable cost' to ensure that galactic civilisation remains -- including using weaponry we don't fully understand against our foes.

Modifié par Arijharn, 04 décembre 2010 - 04:31 .

[Moiaussi]

Arijharn wrote...
What?

I don't know about you, but I consider any genocide to be a pretty bad thing, 'evil' in fact.

You are in a fight in which neither side is giving quarter. Communications are impossible. Any ability to breed on the part of your opponent (and I mean any ability to breed, since Rachni cannot breed without a queen and a single queen can repopulate the race) means you are right back to war with a starfaring race. Since you cannot withhold information between generations (it is all passed along), you cannot take away their interstellar capacity without taking away all capacity for technology. 

That is the context of the Rachni war. What are your alternatives to genocide? Eternal racial imprisonment and hope they never find a way off world? 
 

I fail to see how you can have a conclusive answer to whether the 'end justifies the means' is a 'fallacy' though, because frankly, I disagree with the assertion that you are some mighty moral compass for me to govern myself by, as I find that to be preposterous and frankly the epitome of arrogance.

I was pointing out that while the end may sometimes justify the means, it doesn't always do so. The phrase is typically used as if it is always true, as if it never has to be defended with respect to any given case. That is 'the epitome of arrogance.' So is acting like you or anyone else should be beyond the judgement of others, regardless of what you do.

Obviously; you disagree, but I'd be willing to do whatever it takes to stop the Reapers if I thought such actions would have a tangible effect on a conflict. Why? Because anything else is irresponsible in my view. We are talking about not just humanity's extinction (which I would say, that hopefully most people would have something against that eventuality) but everyone else as well. I view it as being selfish, even morally reprehensible to enforce my morality on other species who may not agree or respect my morals, especially when it's their ass on the line too. 

Ahh, but that 's the rub... 'if you thought the actions would have a tangible effect.'  Shouldn't you have to actually make that case rather than simply declare it? Or do anything you please 'just in case it might work?'

By making moral concessions on their behalf (and obviously mine as well), then providing we win, they can continue existing and even if we don't, I can die knowing that I had left no stone unturned to try and align things into our favour.

And yet you seem to have no problems making moral concessions on everyone else, particularly the test subjects. You don't seem to feel you should have to actually justify anything you do other than by saying 'well this might work.' Cerberus doesn't ask for volunteers or warn test subjects what they are in for. For someone going on about others limiting your morality, you seem to show no such consideration to others.

So, as for a though experiment, if I seriously thought sacrificing 300 baby's would create a superweapon that would destroy a race that threatens galactic civilisation I would do so (although, not without massive guilt & regret). Why? Because of the scale of what galactic civilisation means versus the deaths of 300 baby's. And you know what else? In said galactic civilisation there are more innocents in it than the 300 baby's you have, and in that galactic civilisation there would be more than the 300 you have as well.

But is the 300 a definate result or a hail mary that may or may not work and may even backfire? Victory might well involve the loss of a lot more than 300, regardless of age, gender or race, but there is a vast difference between a sacrifice that you know is neccessary, a hail mary sacrifice when you are losing anyway, and a pre-emptive sacrifice that may or may not be needed and may actually harm or distract from the threat.

Back to the OP though; while Cerberus does underhanded things, I couldn't call them evil because they seek to better position their species. I would view that as being rather altruistic in fact, because by the nature of Cerberus, any scientific advancement they perform (aka; the resurrection of someone) they wouldn't be able to take credit for. Cerberus may get a hefty cash windfall from such an enterprise, but Cerberus isn't the one that would go to market with that technology, and more to the point, the scientists involved with the resurrection wouldn't be able to go to the lecture circuit either.

Of course! They are altruistic in the fact that they experiment on people (mostly on humans, actually) against their will, with at best mixed results and with the possible exception of Shepard's ressurection (assuming they didn't endanger him in the first place), negligible benefit against the reapers. Your logic is astounding!

Modifié par Moiaussi, 04 décembre 2010 - 09:20 .

[Arijharn]

Moiaussi wrote...
You are in a fight in which neither side is giving quarter. Communications are impossible. Any ability to breed on the part of your opponent (and I mean any ability to breed, since Rachni cannot breed without a queen and a single queen can repopulate the race) means you are right back to war with a starfaring race. Since you cannot withhold information between generations (it is all passed along), you cannot take away their interstellar capacity without taking away all capacity for technology. 

That is the context of the Rachni war. What are your alternatives to genocide? Eternal racial imprisonment and hope they never find a way off world? 

I wasn't against the Genophage, I am merely pointing out that saying that they ran simulations and that it is the only option to be premature, considering it's impossible to account for all variables. The first deployment of the Genophage I think made sense and may have even saved lives over the long run, but I do not find the second deployment to be as much of a 'good idea' simply because
a) The Genophage had already made a massive difference.
The socio effect of their changing circumstance had already started with the effect of Wrex and his disagreements with his father. I do not think that Wrex's opinion may be all that unique necessarily.
c) The DMZ is strictly enforced.
 

Moiassui wrote.
I was pointing out that while the end may sometimes justify the means, it doesn't always do so. The phrase is typically used as if it is always true, as if it never has to be defended with respect to any given case. That is 'the epitome of arrogance.' So is acting like you or anyone else should be beyond the judgement of others, regardless of what you do.

So when does the 'ends justify the means' become justified or not? When everyone is at stake? The difference is that neither Dean or I said that it is a 'logical fallacy' which implies that it's always a fallacy as opposed to only sometimes.O

Moissaui wrote...
Ahh, but that 's the rub... 'if you thought the actions would have a tangible effect.'  Shouldn't you have to actually make that case rather than simply declare it? Or do anything you please 'just in case it might work?'

I can only speak for myself, but personally I think there is a cut-off point to when something just becomes untenable. For example; if a present option is that to escape the Reapers I must give the order that all of humanity must die, then I wouldn't give the order because it's as ridiculous as the Reapers winning, furthermore I would resist attempts by other people to give that order.

However, I would give the order to turn off active Mass Relays to buy time for defences to arrive or whatever against the Reapers, even if said action might have catastrophic consequences for inhabitants of that system.

Moissaui wrote...
And yet you seem to have no problems making moral concessions on everyone else, particularly the test subjects. You don't seem to feel you should have to actually justify anything you do other than by saying 'well this might work.' Cerberus doesn't ask for volunteers or warn test subjects what they are in for. For someone going on about others limiting your morality, you seem to show no such consideration to others.

True, but I feel that if I save 1000 people at the expense of 10 people, then that is more preferable if losses have to be incurred. I don't think there is a right answer though. I think Cerberus is necessary, but I think a lot of the 'evil' that Cerberus has performed is just because it's a video game organisation rather than for an actual reason. For example; was Pragia actually necessary or couldn't they have gotten that information just by reviewing Biotic performance from combat logs?

As to whether Cerberus asks for volunteers or not? Well... I don't know. Obviously Jack didn't ask for her situation, and I doubt David did as well, but I'm not going to believe Corporal Toombs testimony just out of hand though. I also have no idea about other Cerberus activities so while I admit it doesn't look good for Cerberus, I'm not going to pass complete judgement on them.

Moissaui wrote...
But is the 300 a definate result or a hail mary that may or may not work and may even backfire? Victory might well involve the loss of a lot more than 300, regardless of age, gender or race, but there is a vast difference between a sacrifice that you know is neccessary, a hail mary sacrifice when you are losing anyway, and a pre-emptive sacrifice that may or may not be needed and may actually harm or distract from the threat.

Personally? I don't think it matters. As distasteful as that sounds I treat galactic civilisation as more important than 300. Why? Because 300 is a finite number; galactic civilisation is constantly expanding. If I don't try then I fail galactic civilisation, if I try and fail then while I fail galactic civilisation, I've done everything I could. 

Like I clarified later though (so I can't blame you for missing it), I personally couldn't do it on just a 'whim' though, I'd have to risk-analysis the situation and make sure of the variables as they are shown to me before I make the decision. I think that is more prudence than anything else though.

Moissaui wrote...
Of course! They are altruistic in the fact that they experiment on people (mostly on humans, actually) against their will, with at best mixed results and with the possible exception of Shepard's ressurection (assuming they didn't endanger him in the first place), negligible benefit against the reapers. Your logic is astounding!

Now you're just being belligerent.

Considering they aren't advancing themselves but instead their species then yes it is altruistic despite their methods. No one thinks of themselves as a villain after all.

[Moiaussi]

Arijharn wrote...

I wasn't against the Genophage, I am merely pointing out that saying that they ran simulations and that it is the only option to be premature, considering it's impossible to account for all variables. The first deployment of the Genophage I think made sense and may have even saved lives over the long run, but I do not find the second deployment to be as much of a 'good idea' simply because
a) The Genophage had already made a massive difference.
The socio effect of their changing circumstance had already started with the effect of Wrex and his disagreements with his father. I do not think that Wrex's opinion may be all that unique necessarily.
c) The DMZ is strictly enforced.

When you said 'genocide' I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you meant the Rachni war. The Genophage isn't genocide, and the Krogan are doing just fine with it in place. The adjustments made to it didn't worsen it, they maintained it.

There is no evidence of any errors in their calculations. The Krogan did just fine with those survival rates before elevation and continue to do so now. There is no evidence that they have matured enough as a race to accept peace if their reproductive rate returned to post rachni war pre-genophage levels. The rival clan's plan to cure the genophage and go back to war proves that.

It is true that instead of controlling the effective birthrate, they could simply shoot down every ship that takes off, but how is that better? If the Krogan simply sent a colony ship or two (unarmed, so they should get past the DMZ) out to deep space somewhere, how would the DMZ help?
 

So when does the 'ends justify the means' become justified or not? When everyone is at stake? The difference is that neither Dean or I said that it is a 'logical fallacy' which implies that it's always a fallacy as opposed to only sometimes.O

You need to re-read the posts of ine that you are objecting to. In my reply to Dean I pointed out that I was challenging him to defend Cerberus in this specific instance rather than hide behind 'the end justifies the means' as if it always does. Besides, if the end only sometimes justifies the means, how useful is it as as saying? Seriously... think about it. And don't just say 'everyone is at stake.' Prove that the lack of results from any given project is what is puting them at stake. Otherwise you might as well say 'Everyone is at stake so send all your money to me. I may or may not be able to help or do anything at all, but I would like to live well until the end. And never know... I might save the day."

I can only speak for myself, but personally I think there is a cut-off point to when something just becomes untenable. For example; if a present option is that to escape the Reapers I must give the order that all of humanity must die, then I wouldn't give the order because it's as ridiculous as the Reapers winning, furthermore I would resist attempts by other people to give that order.

However, I would give the order to turn off active Mass Relays to buy time for defences to arrive or whatever against the Reapers, even if said action might have catastrophic consequences for inhabitants of that system.

That is essentially what I am saying though... there are circumstances where extreme measures are needed. The idea though is to try to avoid such circumstances until you have to take such measures.

True, but I feel that if I save 1000 people at the expense of 10 people, then that is more preferable if losses have to be incurred. I don't think there is a right answer though. I think Cerberus is necessary, but I think a lot of the 'evil' that Cerberus has performed is just because it's a video game organisation rather than for an actual reason. For example; was Pragia actually necessary or couldn't they have gotten that information just by reviewing Biotic performance from combat logs?

As to whether Cerberus asks for volunteers or not? Well... I don't know. Obviously Jack didn't ask for her situation, and I doubt David did as well, but I'm not going to believe Corporal Toombs testimony just out of hand though. I also have no idea about other Cerberus activities so while I admit it doesn't look good for Cerberus, I'm not going to pass complete judgement on them.

Praiga was built when biotics were a newer thing. They could have simply waited until there was  better data, but decided that the fate of humanity was at risk then so they kidnapped biotics (especially gifted ones) to research on. Besides the ethical issues over kidnapping and the nature of the experiments, how much potential was taken out of the gene pool? How much data was lost to the Alliance because TIM wanted it for himself?

How much is the Alliance (and everyone else) put at risk by TIM hiding evidence of the reapers and other important data? This is the problem... it is not merely that Cerberus is engaging in experiments of questionable ethics, they are not cooperating with the rest of civilization, thus putting everyone at greater risk.

Personally? I don't think it matters. As distasteful as that sounds I treat galactic civilisation as more important than 300. Why? Because 300 is a finite number; galactic civilisation is constantly expanding. If I don't try then I fail galactic civilisation, if I try and fail then while I fail galactic civilisation, I've done everything I could. 

Like I clarified later though (so I can't blame you for missing it), I personally couldn't do it on just a 'whim' though, I'd have to risk-analysis the situation and make sure of the variables as they are shown to me before I make the decision. I think that is more prudence than anything else though.

It sounds like you and I are in agreement on methodology. The problem is that there is no evidence whatsoever that Cerberus engages in any such risk analysis rather that 'Hey, this sounds cool and might work!'

Now you're just being belligerent.

Considering they aren't advancing themselves but instead their species then yes it is altruistic despite their methods. No one thinks of themselves as a villain after all.

But given they don't share openly with the Alliance, and are actively trying to manipulate politics in their favour, are they really advancing the species or just themselves? Note that they may even believe they are doing good. That does not mean they are.

[mosor]

Jagri wrote...

Then the Bible and other religious material belongs in the fantasy section of a book store and in the hands of kingdergarten students?

They often try to define good and evil.

Yes the bible does belong in the fantasy section of the bookstore, but not in the hands of kindergarten students. With the level of violence that exists in the bible, it should be rated mature.

[mosor]

Moiaussi wrote...

When you said 'genocide' I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you meant the Rachni war. The Genophage isn't genocide, and the Krogan are doing just fine with it in place. The adjustments made to it didn't worsen it, they maintained it.

It's at very least cultural genocide. The council screwed krogan culture twice over. First by uplifting the krogan, preventing them from evolving their culture naturally. Second, by the genophage in an attempt to correct their first mistake. Lets face it, if Cerberus did that to the krogan rather than the council, you'd be screaming bloody murder and chalk it up as another Cerberus crime.


 

Modifié par mosor, 04 décembre 2010 - 07:36 .

[Barquiel]

mosor wrote...

It's at very least cultural genocide. The council screwed krogan culture twice over. First by uplifting the krogan, preventing them from evolving their culture naturally. Second, by the genophage in an attempt to correct their first mistake. Lets face it, if Cerberus did that to the krogan rather than the council, you'd be screaming bloody murder and chalk it up as another Cerberus crime.

I doubt the krogan would have evolved better without the uplifting.

no krogan support - asari/salarians lose - rachni overrun the galaxy (and Tuchanka)

[Jagri]

mosor wrote...

It's at very least cultural genocide. The council screwed krogan culture twice over. First by uplifting the krogan, preventing them from evolving their culture naturally. Second, by the genophage in an attempt to correct their first mistake. Lets face it, if Cerberus did that to the krogan rather than the council, you'd be screaming bloody murder and chalk it up as another Cerberus crime.

Cerberus would have completely purged the Krogan if they were in the same position as the Council. It would be in their eyes wasted resources unless they could come up with a method to enslave them or have a certain means to control them for their own ends.

Say what you will about the Council but they gave the Krogan a chance even after the war crimes they commited. People tend to disregard the fact the Krogan used asteroids as weapons and left three worlds completely destroyed. Thats potentially millions to billions of lives ended in what could be seen as cowardly acts. I would have to applaud Turian restraint cause if those were human worlds I can see our kind killing them to the very last.

Now as for the Bible and other religious material, I am not organized religion as it is but I don't have the arrogance or ego to claim my personal beliefs are right and everyone else is wrong. Those documents have guided peoples life and when upheld correctly makes the world a better place for everyone. Values and morals are provided as guide lines to living a good life. To say that is material only suited for fantasy is just plain sad. Its like morality, discpline, and kindness has no place in this world but in a childish dream.

[Arijharn]

Moiaussi wrote...
When you said 'genocide' I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you meant the Rachni war. The Genophage isn't genocide, and the Krogan are doing just fine with it in place. The adjustments made to it didn't worsen it, they maintained it.

True, the genophage didn't directly kill them as what the word would usually mean, but the situation hardly fostered change. Maelon also mentions that Krogan kill each other for the chance to mate. Furthermore; by the time the second genophage was being developed then they'd know full well the implications of their activities, so they basically used the Krogan culture against them.

Moiaussi wrote...
There is no evidence of any errors in their calculations. The Krogan did just fine with those survival rates before elevation and continue to do so now. There is no evidence that they have matured enough as a race to accept peace if their reproductive rate returned to post rachni war pre-genophage levels. The rival clan's plan to cure the genophage and go back to war proves that.

Sure there's evidence of their errors, the Krogan kill each other for the right to breed, furthermore how can any species really claim a moral right to decide the future of another though in such a fashion? Maybe the Krogan would be susceptible to peace efforts with the Council now after they had been smashed to pulp under the weight of two Genophage's and the enforced DMZ -- but we wouldn't know that because the Council just plain cbf at the moment. I'm sure they'll change their tune when Reapers start pouring into Citadel held worlds though.

Weyrloc Guld and his clan proved that they were desperate to cure the Genophage and yes, revenge for what the Council did to them is at the forefront of their minds, but that doesn't prove the 'immaturity' of the Krogan species any more than Cerberus' actions prove the 'immaturity' of humanity.

Moiaussi wrote...
It is true that instead of controlling the effective birthrate, they could simply shoot down every ship that takes off, but how is that better? If the Krogan simply sent a colony ship or two (unarmed, so they should get past the DMZ) out to deep space somewhere, how would the DMZ help?

How is it better? It's not the legal enforced systematic oppression of another species, which seems to be something of the Council's forte. The Krogan DMZ doesn't exist to shoot any ship arriving or leaving Tuchanka, it exists so that the Krogan can not build or receive military vessels, or weapons that are capable of being deployed as ship based Mass Accelerator weaponry. It isn't the same thing at all.
Furthermore; even in your example the Krogan have control of their destiny, which is something not in presence with the ongoing effects of the Genophage.

Moiassui wrote...
You need to re-read the posts of ine that you are objecting to. In my reply to Dean I pointed out that I was challenging him to defend Cerberus in this specific instance rather than hide behind 'the end justifies the means' as if it always does. Besides, if the end only sometimes justifies the means, how useful is it as as saying? Seriously... think about it. And don't just say 'everyone is at stake.' Prove that the lack of results from any given project is what is puting them at stake. Otherwise you might as well say 'Everyone is at stake so send all your money to me. I may or may not be able to help or do anything at all, but I would like to live well until the end. And never know... I might save the day."

Fair enough. I'll leave Dean to reply if he wants.

My opinion? Cerberus exists to safeguard humanity. It does so by approaching facets of study that may have large 'pay-offs' down the line but may not go down well with folks back home. Believe it or not; but biotic studies would have a huge impact on the professionalism and capability of human soldiers, so it's indepth study is more than useful, but essential, if diplomatic breakdowns with other species such as the Turian's get to the point of outright military action. In a way, if you knowingly turn your back on any advantages you have, or don't seek to gain advantages, then you aren't doing what you can to win, and that's the military's job... it's to win. It isn't to take happy snaps as it is to securing military objectives, and if a military objective can be better secured by a powerful biotic... than all the better.

I'm not going to defend Pragia in and of itself though, because I don't see the value in studying children biotic potential, because it seems to me that it could be duplicated elsewhere much easier, but like I said before; I'm not a child psychologist so what the hell would I know?

Moissaui wrote...
That is essentially what I am saying though... there are circumstances where extreme measures are needed. The idea though is to try to avoid such circumstances until you have to take such measures.

I have never been an outright completely sympathetic supporter of Cerberus believe it or not, I only acknowledge that their presence is needed, their research at times are needed (and not just to resurrect me from the dead ) and sometimes even their more brutal methods are needed as well. That's a lot of caveats really.

I think TIM is actually well placed to handle his role judging by the few interactions I have with him though. 

Moiassui wrote...
Praiga was built when biotics were a newer thing. They could have simply waited until there was  better data, but decided that the fate of humanity was at risk then so they kidnapped biotics (especially gifted ones) to research on. Besides the ethical issues over kidnapping and the nature of the experiments, how much potential was taken out of the gene pool? How much data was lost to the Alliance because TIM wanted it for himself?

Pragia was built in a timeline when Cerberus was part of the Alliance (providing of course, that they no longer are). Cerberus only 'broke' from the alliance a short time before the events of ME1. Ergo; it stands to reason that all information as pertaining to Pragia was provided to the Alliance, since they are the ones who authorized the mission in the first place.

Moiassui wrote...
How much is the Alliance (and everyone else) put at risk by TIM hiding evidence of the reapers and other important data? This is the problem... it is not merely that Cerberus is engaging in experiments of questionable ethics, they are not cooperating with the rest of civilization, thus putting everyone at greater risk.

Who's to say that Cerberus hasn't been passing that information along? How has Cerberus been 'hiding' evidence of the Reapers? Considering that the Reapers will threaten all, including Cerberus actions, then I think it's rather knee-jerk to assume that TIM hasn't been putting that information out there, probably even using the Shadow Broker in case people distrust TIM's motivations.

TIM is ruthless, arrogant and scheming, but he isn't stupid.

Moiassui wrote...
It sounds like you and I are in agreement on methodology. The problem is that there is no evidence whatsoever that Cerberus engages in any such risk analysis rather that 'Hey, this sounds cool and might work!'

Why would there be 'evidence' for a black ops organisation that operates in secrecy? We only knew about them because we ran into their operations in ME1 and were brought back by them in ME2. We have no idea about their operations other than the ones we are involved in.

Like Gavin Archer says though: "What if you didn't investigate the Reapers Commander?"

Moiassui wrote...
But given they don't share openly with the Alliance, and are actively trying to manipulate politics in their favour, are they really advancing the species or just themselves? Note that they may even believe they are doing good. That does not mean they are.

If Cerberus is privately funded, then it seems to me that Cerberus' backers would like to see pay-offs for their investments. Would the Alliance even trust Cerberus considering they are an 'avowed enemy of the Council?' Cerberus wouldn't make 'announcements' for their new technology, they'd distribute it to their front companies or send it back to their backers so they could claim technology. Say if Cerberus science teams pioneered a new ablative process for ship hulls that gave frigates and fighters/interceptors a massive weight reduction but didn't sacrifice protection, Cerberus wouldn't announce that discovery to the world; they'd let Cord-Hislop take credit and Cord-Hislop might make overtures to the Alliance.
I'd be manipulating politics into my favour as well though if I was in their position.
'Good' and 'evil' are subjective to the beholder though, so while I sometimes question their methods I don't question their motives.

Modifié par Arijharn, 05 décembre 2010 - 12:32 .

[Moiaussi]

mosor wrote...

It's at very least cultural genocide. The council screwed krogan culture twice over. First by uplifting the krogan, preventing them from evolving their culture naturally. Second, by the genophage in an attempt to correct their first mistake. Lets face it, if Cerberus did that to the krogan rather than the council, you'd be screaming bloody murder and chalk it up as another Cerberus crime.

Based on that logic, everyone else, including Humanity should have committed suicide or some sort of mass exodus to avoid interfering with Krogan culture, or allowed the Krogan to win the war and wipe everyone else out. How do you define 'natural cultural evolution?'

Your statement that 'if it was Cerberus instead' is throwaway. You are abandoning analysis in favour of blind accusation.

[Moiaussi]

Arijharn wrote...

True, the genophage didn't directly kill them as what the word would usually mean, but the situation hardly fostered change. Maelon also mentions that Krogan kill each other for the chance to mate. Furthermore; by the time the second genophage was being developed then they'd know full well the implications of their activities, so they basically used the Krogan culture against them.

Pardon? Both runs were to keep the birth rate to pre-uplifting levels. The Krogan culture was based on those surivial levels, and there is no evidence that the war changed it , let alone in any positive way.

Sure there's evidence of their errors, the Krogan kill each other for the right to breed, furthermore how can any species really claim a moral right to decide the future of another though in such a fashion? Maybe the Krogan would be susceptible to peace efforts with the Council now after they had been smashed to pulp under the weight of two Genophage's and the enforced DMZ -- but we wouldn't know that because the Council just plain cbf at the moment. I'm sure they'll change their tune when Reapers start pouring into Citadel held worlds though.

Weyrloc Guld and his clan proved that they were desperate to cure the Genophage and yes, revenge for what the Council did to them is at the forefront of their minds, but that doesn't prove the 'immaturity' of the Krogan species any more than Cerberus' actions prove the 'immaturity' of humanity.

The Krogan killed each other routinely before the uplifting, and continued to do so after. Their culture has been constant infighting for supremacy and power. Before the genophage and with no reason to want revenge for anything, the Krogan went to war against everyone else. Weyrloc's actions only prove that they have not changed from that mentality.

How is it better? It's not the legal enforced systematic oppression of another species, which seems to be something of the Council's forte. The Krogan DMZ doesn't exist to shoot any ship arriving or leaving Tuchanka, it exists so that the Krogan can not build or receive military vessels, or weapons that are capable of being deployed as ship based Mass Accelerator weaponry. It isn't the same thing at all.
Furthermore; even in your example the Krogan have control of their destiny, which is something not in presence with the ongoing effects of the Genophage.

And yet there are Krogan on military vessels all over the place. There are Krogan mercenary leaders. The genophage ensures that Krogan population levels stay stable and that no ships have to be shot down.

My opinion? Cerberus exists to safeguard humanity. It does so by approaching facets of study that may have large 'pay-offs' down the line but may not go down well with folks back home. Believe it or not; but biotic studies would have a huge impact on the professionalism and capability of human soldiers, so it's indepth study is more than useful, but essential, if diplomatic breakdowns with other species such as the Turian's get to the point of outright military action. In a way, if you knowingly turn your back on any advantages you have, or don't seek to gain advantages, then you aren't doing what you can to win, and that's the military's job... it's to win. It isn't to take happy snaps as it is to securing military objectives, and if a military objective can be better secured by a powerful biotic... than all the better.

I'm not going to defend Pragia in and of itself though, because I don't see the value in studying children biotic potential, because it seems to me that it could be duplicated elsewhere much easier, but like I said before; I'm not a child psychologist so what the hell would I know?

Cerberus exists to protect humanity from everyone but Cerberus. Assuming humans did become dominant and Cerberus did end up in charge, do you really believe they would suddenly stop their experiments and political methods? Meanwhile, other than the reapers, how are the other races any more oppressive on humanity than Cerberus themselves? Is there any evidence of the other races interfering in Alliance politics directly (assassinations, support of key candidates, etc)?

I have never been an outright completely sympathetic supporter of Cerberus believe it or not, I only acknowledge that their presence is needed, their research at times are needed (and not just to resurrect me from the dead ) and sometimes even their more brutal methods are needed as well. That's a lot of caveats really.

I think TIM is actually well placed to handle his role judging by the few interactions I have with him though. 

Given how many Cerberus operations go rogue (TIM's explaination for failures), is TIM really that great a leader?

Pragia was built in a timeline when Cerberus was part of the Alliance (providing of course, that they no longer are). Cerberus only 'broke' from the alliance a short time before the events of ME1. Ergo; it stands to reason that all information as pertaining to Pragia was provided to the Alliance, since they are the ones who authorized the mission in the first place.

That is uncertain.  It is before Cerberus was declared rogue, but organizations usually don't up and announce one day 'Hey, everyone, we are going rogue today.' Since the surviving subjects were transferred to the Alliance facilities, the implication is that they might have kept the data. The data might even have been lost outright. Pragia had gone rogue from Cerberus let alone the Alliance.

Who's to say that Cerberus hasn't been passing that information along? How has Cerberus been 'hiding' evidence of the Reapers? Considering that the Reapers will threaten all, including Cerberus actions, then I think it's rather knee-jerk to assume that TIM hasn't been putting that information out there, probably even using the Shadow Broker in case people distrust TIM's motivations.

TIM is ruthless, arrogant and scheming, but he isn't stupid.

Hmm... how about the fact that there are Cerberus teams on the derelect reaper that noone else seems to know about? How about the fact that they conceiled information about the collectors? Not to mention leaking that Shepard was working with Cerberus and other similar misinformation.

Why would there be 'evidence' for a black ops organisation that operates in secrecy? We only knew about them because we ran into their operations in ME1 and were brought back by them in ME2. We have no idea about their operations other than the ones we are involved in.

Like Gavin Archer says though: "What if you didn't investigate the Reapers Commander?"

Shepard overran how many ops in ME1? And in ME2, TIM's excuse for those ops were that they went rogue, as if that isn't a problem in and of itself.

If Cerberus is privately funded, then it seems to me that Cerberus' backers would like to see pay-offs for their investments. Would the Alliance even trust Cerberus considering they are an 'avowed enemy of the Council?' Cerberus wouldn't make 'announcements' for their new technology, they'd distribute it to their front companies or send it back to their backers so they could claim technology. Say if Cerberus science teams pioneered a new ablative process for ship hulls that gave frigates and fighters/interceptors a massive weight reduction but didn't sacrifice protection, Cerberus wouldn't announce that discovery to the world; they'd let Cord-Hislop take credit and Cord-Hislop might make overtures to the Alliance.
I'd be manipulating politics into my favour as well though if I was in their position.
'Good' and 'evil' are subjective to the beholder though, so while I sometimes question their methods I don't question their motives.

You are talking as if there have never been pyramid schemes in the world, and that is scams promising actual tangible returns in currency. Given Cerberus is only promising the ephemeral 'advancement of humanity,' false reports to investors are even easier to prepare. All they have to do to ensure support is trump up xenophobia, something that is rarely that difficult historicly.

[Dean_the_Young]

Jagri wrote...

mosor wrote...

It's at very least cultural genocide. The council screwed krogan culture twice over. First by uplifting the krogan, preventing them from evolving their culture naturally. Second, by the genophage in an attempt to correct their first mistake. Lets face it, if Cerberus did that to the krogan rather than the council, you'd be screaming bloody murder and chalk it up as another Cerberus crime.

Cerberus would have completely purged the Krogan if they were in the same position as the Council. It would be in their eyes wasted resources unless they could come up with a method to enslave them or have a certain means to control them for their own ends.

Source?

Say what you will about the Council but they gave the Krogan a chance even after the war crimes they commited. People tend to disregard the fact the Krogan used asteroids as weapons and left three worlds completely destroyed. Thats potentially millions to billions of lives ended in what could be seen as cowardly acts. I would have to applaud Turian restraint cause if those were human worlds I can see our kind killing them to the very last.

Was this before or after the unprovoked Turrian intervention and attack from behind the Krogan?

[lovgreno]

One of of Cerberus agendas is to unite humanity under their and humans with similar agendas as theirs rule by actively promote xenophobia. Using lies and assasinations (very risky methods that often are self defeating and usualy only used by the narrow minded idealists and the desperate) if they feel like doing so, wich seems to be very often.



Among us humans this way of giving people a false sense of superiority over someone else has sadly often been a efficent way of making them obedient and satisfied. Often no substantial prooof of to convince people is needed. It's a old remnant from our tribal society. As it is just human nature I wouldn't call it evil but it is definitely getting very old fashioned and inefficent even in todays world. In the world of ME where you have to get along with a multitude of different spiecies, many of them considerably stronger than humanity, to avoid conflict it just seems stupid. Especialy as you realy don't want to weaken anyone considering the comming reaper conflict.



But once again there is no bad intentions (well there are probably a lot of insecure haters in Cerberus but I would prefer to think that TIMmy is smarter than that) behind this, just a bit too much idealism, so I wouldn't call it evil.

[Dean_the_Young]

lovgreno wrote...

One of of Cerberus agendas is to unite humanity under their and humans with similar agendas as theirs rule by actively promote xenophobia. Using lies and assasinations (very risky methods that often are self defeating and usualy only used by the narrow minded idealists and the desperate) if they feel like doing so, wich seems to be very often.

Cerberus does not have any demonstrated, stated, or implied agenda of promoting xenophobia. In fact, one of the assassinations we do know about (the Pope) made way for better relations with the Salarians (by removing a mass advocate for opposing the Salarians for the genophage), while TIM and Cerberus are just as pleased if Paragon Shepard made the sacrifice of human lives to gain the Council's trust as they are if Shepard's actions let the Alliance take charge.

Cerberus has a number of xenophobes, but it also has a great number who aren't not, and it's actions and policies have been about elevating humanity up and over, not suppressing the aliens down and under.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 05 décembre 2010 - 03:19 .

[mosor]

Moiaussi wrote...

Based on that logic, everyone else, including Humanity should have committed suicide or some sort of mass exodus to avoid interfering with Krogan culture, or allowed the Krogan to win the war and wipe everyone else out. How do you define 'natural cultural evolution?'

Your statement that 'if it was Cerberus instead' is throwaway. You are abandoning analysis in favour of blind accusation.

Wrong. The Krogan were not a spacefearing race. If the Krogan were left alone to deal with their own issues, to reorganize their society after their nuclear war, they'd either have come to terms with their warlike nature or gone extinct. With Salarian uplifting, they had no incentive to re-organize. They got stronger weapons and a ticket out of their nuclear wasteland.  Their rebellion is a direct result of Salarian interfearance of uplifting them. Again, instead of beating them in a war, they use bioweapons instead.
.

[mosor]

Barquiel wrote...

I doubt the krogan would have evolved better without the uplifting.

I don't think this is true. Wrex is already trying to change krogan culture to adapt to changing circumstances. This could have happened a couple thousand years earlier without salarian interfearance.

no krogan support - asari/salarians lose - rachni overrun the galaxy (and Tuchanka)

We don't know this to be true either. We know the council wins with krogan allies. We don't know if they would have lost without the krogan, that they wouldn't have found another way to beat the rachni. Maybe a way that didn't involve their near extinction.

[Rip504]

Yes Cerberus is evil. Their actions in ME1 and 2 prove that. ( Or simply bringing Shepard back from the dead. This is an action against every morale standing there is.)



The Geth are also evil. You naive children with your eyes closed you, you will never be able to see anything. So good day to you. Maybe one day we will be able to call you sentient.

[BlueRecluse]

I can't say for sure if they're evil or not.



Their intentions seem noble enough, but their methods are very questionable.

[Rip504]

Their is nothing Noble in cold blooded murder. Cerberus has showed us on more then one occasion,they are willing to kill in cold blood. Overlord? Yea everything going on there is Noble and Good. Are you serious? OPEN your eyes. Ppl who think Cerberus is not evil,probaly think its ok to light a Krogan on fire (burn him to death),so they can hurry up and not have to listen to his side of the story. Yes odds are your going to kill him anyway,but a bullet to the head is much more humane the burning him to death.

The entire galaxy considers Cerberus evil,even the Alliance. The council tells you it is treason to work with them. I mean this should be enough to answer your question.

Modifié par Rip504, 05 décembre 2010 - 07:34 .

[Barquiel]

mosor wrote...

We don't know this to be true either. We know the council wins with krogan allies. We don't know if they would have lost without the krogan, that they wouldn't have found another way to beat the rachni. Maybe a way that didn't involve their near extinction.

The codex states that the Citadel races fought a losing war against the rachni for nearly a century until the salarians uplifted the krogan. I think they have tried to find a better way to beat the rachni. But after 100 years (diplomacy wasn't possible)...I can't blame them.

And I doubt Wrex's reforms would be successful without the genophage.

[Dean_the_Young]

Rip504 wrote...

Their is nothing Noble in cold blooded murder. Cerberus has showed us on more then one occasion,they are willing to kill in cold blood. Overlord? Yea everything going on there is Noble and Good. Are you serious? OPEN your eyes. Ppl who think Cerberus is not evil,probaly think its ok to light a Krogan on fire (burn him to death),so they can hurry up and not have to listen to his side of the story. Yes odds are your going to kill him anyway,but a bullet to the head is much more humane the burning him to death.

The entire galaxy considers Cerberus evil,even the Alliance. The council tells you it is treason to work with them. I mean this should be enough to answer your question.

The Council also thinks genocide is an acceptable policy position, so...

Cold blooded genocide is superior to cold blooded murder? Really?

[Dean_the_Young]

Barquiel wrote...

mosor wrote...

We don't know this to be true either. We know the council wins with krogan allies. We don't know if they would have lost without the krogan, that they wouldn't have found another way to beat the rachni. Maybe a way that didn't involve their near extinction.

The codex states that the Citadel races fought a losing war against the rachni for nearly a century until the salarians uplifted the krogan. I think they have tried to find a better way to beat the rachni. But after 100 years (diplomacy wasn't possible)...I can't blame them.

And I doubt Wrex's reforms would be successful without the genophage.

The genophage would have been applied regardless. 'Reforms' assumes a Council-acceptable foreign policy, but in truth Wrex's reforms are about breeding policy, not niceness. Had the Krogans unified and been a giant, fast-breeding aggressive empire who was smart enough to keep a breeding strategy, even if they didn't start the war like so eventually the Council would have gotten worried.

[Xilizhra]

Clearly this is because people disagree with you on the definition of genocide. I suspect that pursuing this argument further is futile.

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

Clearly this is because people disagree with you on the definition of genocide. I suspect that pursuing this argument further is futile.

Or we could work to what a working definition of genocide and complicity in genocide includes.

I consider complicity in genocide to include actually wiping out a species, intervening repeatedly to set and keep a race onto a path of extinction unless it does what you want, or withdrawing all support in a time of desperate need and watching the 99.9% extermination of a nominal ally.

What do you consider complicity in genocide?

[Xilizhra]

I'm not entirely sure that it truly counts as genocide if the race in question will only continue on its path of extinction by its own choice.