[quote]Zavox wrote...
What..? I.. huh..? I hope you're kidding otherwise you need some training in comprehensive reading, or logical thinking, or both. I never meant such a thing, and it's quite obvious.[/quote]
Maybe I do.
Or you could make more comprehensible posts =)
[quote]
They do have more "ethics" than Cerberus does, for you are assuming that STG had another option. They hadn't, the Krogans never gave any indication of a desire to peacetalks, in fact the war seemed to go in their favor even with the Turians on the Council's side. At best it would've been a never ending stalemate. Is either the massacre of Council races or a never ending war preferable over what the Salarians did? Plus, as has been said numerous times in ME, the genophage sets the Krogans back to fertility rates before the uplifting (thus a neutralization of the effects of removal from hostile environment). Not to mention that it was actually the Turians that released the initial genophage, without orders of the STG.[/quote]
Mordin tells you: "willing to do whatever it takes" and gives the genophage/genophage v2 as an example. If "doing whatever it takes" doesn't mean throwing ethics to the curb if the situation calls for such, what does?
[quote]Cerberus however, as you so 'hastely dismiss while not providing any evidence whatsoever against' (bit uncalled for to use that don't you think? I did give evidence, but that you deny that evidence is your own doing.),[/quote]
Sorry, you gave more opinions than actual evidence. That barely amounts to anything, although I conceed it was, indeed, uncalled for.
[quote]isn't doing a risk-assessment, fail-safes, examining other options before extreme experiments, etc. You're not going to tell me that the Rachni experiments, Teltin Project, Thorian Creeper experiments, etc. are last ditch efforts, do you?[/quote]
No, of course not. Cerberus aren't saints. However, the motive behind those experiments were to spare human lives in combat. That was the objective and the "other options" were, for all intents and purposes, the reasearch on each species/creature that were being conducted.
Teltin, on the other hand, doesn't factor in with the Rachni and Thorian Creepers. It's another subject of debate.
[quote]Genophage was. Secondly, experimenting, for instance the Teltin Project, is done on live sentient subjects (forced even). This is something the STG has never done (Mordin says as much). In light of that moral decision I can definately conclude that STG is a more ethical organisation than Cerberus is.[/quote]
Being more ethical doesn't necessarily mean it is ethical.
[quote]'Getting the job done' didn't mean forego ethical decisions... Mordin also says they never experimented on live sentient subjects. Cerberus does. Cerberus has the motivation that the ends justify the means, STG has not (last ditch effort, but no genocide). Again, genophage, while
arguably unethical, is placing the Krogan back to pre-uplifting fertility rates. In essence setting them back to where they were before any help. The STG specifically designed it for that purpose, even though it would've been so much easier to just make a pathogen that would've utterly destroyed the Krogan race. Now that would've been definately unethical.[/quote]
Now we're getting somewhere with this debate, thank you =)
Indeed, for this, I have to concede.
And, for the record, I do agree with the Genophage, I'm just using it as an example of an unethical decision based on conjecture.
[quote]Terrorist or black-ops? Sheesh, you guys use those words interchangeable whenever you like it don't you? Cerberus is black-ops, so no terrorists. STG are terrorists just like Cerberus. What the hell, make up your minds?[/quote]
What I meant to say was just that actually, if the STG does such a mission it must be considered on the same footing Cerberus' are. Sorry for not being clearer, I usually write in the short time I have avaiable.
[quote]Either way, it again is a necessary action. It's forced upon them in light of what their simulations showed. Krogan agressive expansion was a certainty. Teltin project isn't forced upon Cerberus, neither are most other experiments they did. Oh.. where is the parallel now eh? Please don't make things simpler than they are, it doesn't work.[/quote]
Simulations, however more reliable than TIM's judgement, do not mean that it'll actually play out like that. They are what they are, simulations. Insert variables and perceptions of a race and see how it can play out.
So, on this matter, I can't agree with you, sorry.
It was a terrorist/black-ops action (however you wish to put it) on par with one of Cerberus, even if the intentions were good. (The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that jazz)
[quote]Simple, Rachni have always been agressive towards all others but their own. Extraordinarily so. This makes them obviously very hard to control. Secondly, I called them bad ideas in light of them being hurried, without sufficient failsafes, unethical and no justification of them even being necessary at the time. Risk Reward you know...[/quote]
Ah, but you didn't mention that last sentence previously
However, just being unethical to experiment on animals is hardly enough grounds to justify it being a bad idea if it'd save human lives in the end.
[quote]*sigh* Same as above technically. No sufficient failsafes, apparently hurried experiments, unethical, etc. I find them especially 'bad ideas' because they posed so much risk, yet so little possible reward (in comparison to the risk obviously).[/quote]
As far as failsafes go, again, it is conjectural. They did manage to safely transport them to their bases, and we don't really know what, exactly, failed in their containment. We only know it did.
[quote]Knock off on the childish behavior please, you can converse as an adult, can't you? There's more than enough evidence for Cerberus to know the risk was huge. Both Rachni and Thorian Creepers have been highly agressive before, to all others, never having shown any form of potentially being seduced.[/quote]
Again my appologies, it is just that your previous post didn't really enlighten much out of your opinions or why you had them to begin with, so I just assumed you were one of those "Cerberus is ebil because I say so and I don't like them", they lacked substance. So, let me reiterate my appologies.
As for those species' agressiveness, isn't that a good thing from Cerberus' perspective?
If you were able to tame them, they'd wipe a whole area clean and leave the caretakers unharmed.
If we need a Mass Effect analogy, we have the Varren. Insanely agressive, yet the Krogan treat them as pets.
I don't think a species' agressiveness automatically means they shouldn't be approached, certainly warrants caution, but not to keep at arm's length at all occasions.
I guess that one comes down to opinion, then?
[quote]
Oh, and lets not discuss all the potential ramifications of having Rachni or Thorian Creepers as shock-troops to humanities reputation, army morale, risks during combat, potential for arms-race, etc.[/quote]
That is up to conjecture on both our parts since we'd have to base ourselves on nothing, so, yes let's avoid it. =)
[quote]Did
not.Since when is such a thing evidence to Cerberus being in the Alliance?[/quote]
I'm sorry, should have said "implied".
[quote]In fact, one could say the exact opposite. Why would Hackett adress Shepard as Commander through unsecure channels if that could implicate that Cerberus is part of the Alliance?[/quote]
How unsecure are they? How can we know they were unsecure? We can also infer that only Shepard can access his message panel, other than TIM, that is. (I doubt he'd let Shepard just get any mail without skimming through it first)
[quote]Makes no sense at all, the only thing that makes sense is that it's a confirmation that Shepard is ALSO still in the Alliance.[/quote]
See, now we agree. Shepard is part of the Alliance still. We just disagree as to how.
I mean, he was
dead. Then joined an organisation that the Alliance officially abhors, effectively making him a traitor, and you're telling me the Alliance is so desperate and wishful thinking/trusting of Shep that they still keep Shepard in the Alliance? Even tho, for all they know (apart from four people: Hackett, Anderson, Udina and the VS) he is as dead as dead can get? It wasn't an MiA that was issued, it was a KiA.
Besides, how did Hackett know Shepard was alive to begin with in order to send him the message?
What interest would TIM have in telling Hackett so quickly after Shepard had been revived were Cerberus to be completely separate from the Alliance?
From LotSB, we see TIM directly contacted Anderson to "tip him of" about Horizon (the quotes aren't there because I think Anderson has links to Cerberus, they're there because there wasn't anything to tip him of about, only to lure the VS in).
Further, Shepard himself tells the Flotilla he can't even be called "commander" because he's no longer part of the Alliance. If we don't metagame, the only reason Shepard had to base himself on to make that ascertion was the fact he had been dead, that is a pretty clear indicator as to why he can't "also" still be in the Alliance.
Occam's Razor kicks in: Cerberus is unofficially part of the Alliance.
[quote]Or to make it even more ridiculous, Shepard can be a Spectre in ME2, does that make Cerberus a part of the Council's fleet?[/quote]
Spectre is a rank that has no bearing on the Alliance/Cerberus. A Spectre is a Spectre. Only thing being a Spectre implies is a very close connection to the Council.
[quote]To possibly throw even more salt in your wounds (sorry), even Anderson named him Commander when Shepard went to the Presidium...[/quote]
Hey, no problem, all is fair in war, but that is still a weak assessment.
Anderson has a *very* close relationship with Shepard; which is something we never had any indication of Hackett having, and even fanthoming the thought of such relationship is pure conjecture at this point in time.
Also, I don't claim my "evidence" to be definite proof, only done it once, and that was due to a lapse in judgement. I'm still saying it is circumstantial, but it is there and we have too many coincidences to just ignore, IMO.
edit: grammar fail<_<
Modifié par DarkLord_PT, 12 janvier 2011 - 02:01 .
Guest_thurmanator692_*
Retour en haut
