290 réponses à ce sujet

[Onyx Jaguar]

We do own Guantanamo, would be a waste of land to get rid of it



/throws a bucket of gasoline onto the fire

[DuffyMJ]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

DuffyMJ wrote...

Yup, and it's fine to torture people because Guantanamo Bay isn't technically under American law too, right?  You make me sick. 

Yup, and it's fine to use guys like you to get elected, then say: Ooops, I can't shut down Guantanamo right away, just wait a little bit. That's your democracy at work.

The United States is not a democracy, it is a Federal Republic, and a very poor one that had elected over half of its president's without the candidate attaining the majority of the popular vote.

[Nizzemancer]

Booglarize wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Apparently presenting the evidence to the Quarians will destabilise them to a great degree.
Which means they have the political stability of Afghanistan. Honestly these people were screwed long before the Geth kicked them out.

Is that a Taliban reference? If so, clever. 

Tali ban?

[Zulu_DFA]

DuffyMJ wrote...
YES they do.  The "carte blanche" idea has been disproven numerous times by the natural sciences which have observed moral decision making in everything from feral children and even in dogs and other animals.  Empathy is hard wired into the brain from birth. 

Empathy, not "good" or "bad". It's instinct, not decision making.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Actually he is a bit right, it isn't a pure democracy the states rights have higher precedent.

[CmdrFenix83]

The Angry One wrote...

It's a war crime in principle.
Moreover there was a time in our own history where non-whites were considered sub-human in many parts of the world and didn't have the same rights and protection as others. Did this make it okay to experiment on them?
And again, it's a war crime under the Quarian's own law, for different reasons.

I'm not getting into this debate again.  You believe sentient toasters deserve rights, I don't, and neither does the Council support that.  Please leave it at that.

How do we know? If he was capable of something that stupid we don't know what else he's done.
The Quarian admiralty isn't exactly made of the most ethical and balanced people to begin with.

He's a revered hero dating back before his pilgrimmage, as Han'Garrel relates the story.  As revealing the evidence shows, it causes a rift in the Quarian people.  If I remember the video correctly(since I've never, and would never do this), it stated that the fleet itself was separated because of this.

You're railroaded into being her "voice", moreover just because you're her de facto lawyer it doesn't mean the truth goes out the window. Moreover it means you have a duty to present the evidence that will clear her name.
The paragon/renegade options are really just a copout.

Yeah, you're forced into representing her.  However, you are representing *her*.  You are only serving as her voice, not as some detective.  You're the advocate to her defense.  The only evidence you're supposed to bring is the evidence that supports your case.  Exactly how Sunry's trial worked in KotOR.  If the charm option hadn't been there, I certainly would have let her accept the exile, as that is *her* wish.  Amazing how many people do these loyalty missions, missions meant to help your crew and clear their heads so they can focus ont he mission, then turn around and screw these people over.

I'm not debating. The Geth are clearly sapient. Don't claim otherwise just because it's inconvenient.

And I'm saying it's irrelevant.  They're sapient toasters, and aren't given rights because they're machines and not people.  Now please, let's not discuss this further, I'm sick of the Geth sympathizers and won't argue this any further. 

[The Angry One]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

We do own Guantanamo, would be a waste of land to get rid of it

/throws a bucket of gasoline onto the fire

We'll still need Gitmo in the future to house the remaining troublesome Quarians after the Geth blow their fleet up.

[Zulu_DFA]

DuffyMJ wrote...

The United States is not a democracy,

Don't tell anyone, Commie!

[Onyx Jaguar]

The Angry One wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

We do own Guantanamo, would be a waste of land to get rid of it

/throws a bucket of gasoline onto the fire

We'll still need Gitmo in the future to house the remaining troublesome Quarians after the Geth blow their fleet up.

Well at least they'll be comfortable, I hear their facilities are quite nice.

[DuffyMJ]

The Angry One wrote...

DuffyMJ wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

DuffyMJ wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Azint wrote...

Am I the only one who thought of the Sunry trial in KOTOR?

I did too, and it has similar warped morals.
Granted, this isn't as outright horrible as that one.
In this case, you can reason that you need Tali and the Quarians ignorant of the truth at least until the Reapers are defeated.
In the KOTOR trial, you're outright supposed to get a murderer off free with lies, intimidation and evidence witholding just because he's a Republic agent and the victim was a Sith agent (the murder not being done for any cause to benefit the Republic, and the agent having no information that would warrant absolving him)

This is so f'd up.  It is not Shepard's duty in his assigned role as Tali's advocate in this particular adjudication process to have any care of concern about the Quarian people or what they are/aren't ignorant of.  This is THE QUARIANS vs. Tali, why on Earth would incriminating Tali's father (and her as an ignorant collaborator, as well) be "the right thing to do"?  

Like I said before, the right thing to do would probably be for Shepard to recuse himself from serving as Tali's advocate, but that was not an option, and so Shepard's first duty is his obligation to defend his client to the fullest extent (providing incriminating evidence of her by association with her father's activities is NOT conductive to this end.) 

It's as simple as that. 

The evidence clears her name.
Thus it is Shepard's duty as Tali's advocate to present evidence that proves her innocence.

The evidence proves her works' association with a war criminal, which is self-incrimincation to -- as far as Shepard is aware with his limited knowledge of Quarian law -- a new offense.

Don't be ridiculous. The evidence proves Tali had no knowledge of Rael's crimes. Both Shepard and Tali know this, and presenting the evidence clears Tali's name.

It's not ridiculous.  Defense never presents evidence without fully anticipating its consequences on the client.  There are many cases in the U.S. where individuals were prosecuted for unknowingly aiding in treasonous or even much lesser offenses.  Just off the top of my head, several people -- including the first woman in American history to be executed -- were hung for providing lodging and treating the wounds of John Wilkes Booth in Virginia. 

[CmdrFenix83]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

DuffyMJ wrote...

Bigdoser wrote...

Sometimes the logical choices are not always the right ones. oh yes you can still get zeead loyalty if you save the workers so don't say you can't.

Yes but what renegades fail to realize that no decision is a direct 1-to-1 function.  You let hundreds of people die by allowing that factory to burn to the ground, and while you presume to know the consequences of your actions (based on the loyalty quest) the truth of the matter is you have no idea what your decision wrought.  you might have killed a young woman who would have grown up to invent some great medical technology, or someone who had some valuable knowledge that could have served well in the war against the Reapers.  You don't know.  And the renegade's fallacy is this presumption that "I know what's best" when... yeah.... ya don't...

A couple of pages ago somebody told me that there's nothing more petty, than "what if's".

And the mission was: assist Zaeed on his mission.

Besides, how many more young women going to invent something do you think Vido will kill if he escapes?

And you also ignored what the true mission was there.  The mission Zaeed was given was to liberate a refinery.  Period.  He states exactly that when you pick him up.  Not revenge.  The *mission* was to save those people and the machinery, not blow it all to hell in a lust for revenge.  If you go renegade, you *fail* the mission, but secure his loyalty.  This is why the company sends you credits when you save the place, because you completed the mission.

[CmdrFenix83]

GenericPlayer2 wrote...

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

Actually, Zaeed's mission was about liberating the refinery workers from slavery.  Vido just happens to be there, and Zaeed lets his own lust for revenge jeopardize the mission.  Or did you not pay attention to anything Shepard says in the paragon route here?

Zaeed only took the mission because Vido was there. Shall we continue to nitpick over convenient semantics?

The reason he selected it is irrelevant.  The mission was to liberate the place.  Period.  Zaeed gives up on the mission for his revenge.  You can call it semantics all you want, but you're flat out wrong.  The mission is the mission, regardless of why he took it.

[DuffyMJ]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Actually he is a bit right, it isn't a pure democracy the states rights have higher precedent.

Hence 'Federal' republic. 

90% of government that has any impact on your life is your state and local government.  Pretty much any crime you commit with be prosecuted under state law.  Every government official you ever deal with will probably either be a teacher, a state/county clerk, or a police officer from your city/town/county/state highway patrol.

[The Angry One]

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

I'm not getting into this debate again.  You believe sentient toasters deserve rights, I don't, and neither does the Council support that.  Please leave it at that.

Again, current law doesn't reflect morality.

He's a revered hero dating back before his pilgrimmage, as Han'Garrel relates the story.

Ironic considering Han is voiced by Loghain's VA. Loghain being a hero too. A hero who turned out to be a rat bastard dictator.
What's the relevance here? Heroic actions don't make you a good person forever.

As revealing the evidence shows, it causes a rift in the Quarian people.  If I remember the video correctly(since I've never, and would never do this), it stated that the fleet itself was separated because of this.

That's Tali's view on it. And she's just a little bit biased.
Yes the revelation that one of their leaders is a war criminal would be shocking, but to outright divide the fleet? How do these people survive with such a lack of proper stability?

Yeah, you're forced into representing her.  However, you are representing *her*.  You are only serving as her voice, not as some detective.  You're the advocate to her defense.  The only evidence you're supposed to bring is the evidence that supports your case.  Exactly how Sunry's trial worked in KotOR.  If the charm option hadn't been there, I certainly would have let her accept the exile, as that is *her* wish.  Amazing how many people do these loyalty missions, missions meant to help your crew and clear their heads so they can focus ont he mission, then turn around and screw these people over.

Her wish is based on emotion and pointless loyalty to a dead man.
Tali of all people should realise the importance of letting the Quarians know what kind of crap Rael was up to. 

And I'm saying it's irrelevant.  They're sapient toasters, and aren't given rights because they're machines and not people.  Now please, let's not discuss this further, I'm sick of the Geth sympathizers and won't argue this any further. 

It's not my problem if you only accept sapience if it comes from meat. If you don't want to discuss it, don't bring it up.

[Onyx Jaguar]

JohnnyDollar wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

We do own Guantanamo, would be a waste of land to get rid of it

/throws a bucket of gasoline onto the fire

I think we have an indefinite lease on it actually. 

That could be true actually.  I'll have to look it up.  But some would say that saying that is also similar to saying we didn't go to war with the North Vietnamese. 

[Zulu_DFA]

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

GenericPlayer2 wrote...

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

Actually, Zaeed's mission was about liberating the refinery workers from slavery.  Vido just happens to be there, and Zaeed lets his own lust for revenge jeopardize the mission.  Or did you not pay attention to anything Shepard says in the paragon route here?

Zaeed only took the mission because Vido was there. Shall we continue to nitpick over convenient semantics?

The reason he selected it is irrelevant.  The mission was to liberate the place.  Period.  Zaeed gives up on the mission for his revenge.  You can call it semantics all you want, but you're flat out wrong.  The mission is the mission, regardless of why he took it.

The mission was to fulfill Shepard's part of the bargain. Which was to help Zaeed on his mission. Technically, Zaeed was the boss on Zorya.

[The Angry One]

DuffyMJ wrote...

It's not ridiculous.  Defense never presents evidence without fully anticipating its consequences on the client.  There are many cases in the U.S. where individuals were prosecuted for unknowingly aiding in treasonous or even much lesser offenses.  Just off the top of my head, several people -- including the first woman in American history to be executed -- were hung for providing lodging and treating the wounds of John Wilkes Booth in Virginia. 

Too bad we're discussing Quarian law here, and Tali OUTRIGHT SAYS the evidence will clear her.

[DuffyMJ]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

DuffyMJ wrote...
YES they do.  The "carte blanche" idea has been disproven numerous times by the natural sciences which have observed moral decision making in everything from feral children and even in dogs and other animals.  Empathy is hard wired into the brain from birth. 

Empathy, not "good" or "bad". It's instinct, not decision making.

You've got to be kidding me.  Have you not felt empathy in your life?  Empathy is the individual's capacity to simulate the BAD circumstances of another and simulate their state of mind.  Like when you see a kid get punched in the face, you feel BAD.  Or when you see an olympian defy odds and win and celebrate with his family, you feel GOOD with him. 

Jesus, it's like you can't even agree with me on what *reality* is.

[DuffyMJ]

The Angry One wrote...

DuffyMJ wrote...

It's not ridiculous.  Defense never presents evidence without fully anticipating its consequences on the client.  There are many cases in the U.S. where individuals were prosecuted for unknowingly aiding in treasonous or even much lesser offenses.  Just off the top of my head, several people -- including the first woman in American history to be executed -- were hung for providing lodging and treating the wounds of John Wilkes Booth in Virginia. 

Too bad we're discussing Quarian law here, and Tali OUTRIGHT SAYS the evidence will clear her.

Too bad Tali is an engineer and not a lawyer...

Do you just believe NPC's unquestionably?  Like when Miranda says Samara is a great choice for a fireteam leader or that she herself is totally ready to be the biotic bubble person, do you totally 100% believe her too...?

[The Angry One]

DuffyMJ wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

DuffyMJ wrote...

It's not ridiculous.  Defense never presents evidence without fully anticipating its consequences on the client.  There are many cases in the U.S. where individuals were prosecuted for unknowingly aiding in treasonous or even much lesser offenses.  Just off the top of my head, several people -- including the first woman in American history to be executed -- were hung for providing lodging and treating the wounds of John Wilkes Booth in Virginia. 

Too bad we're discussing Quarian law here, and Tali OUTRIGHT SAYS the evidence will clear her.

Too bad Tali is an engineer and not a lawyer...

Do you just believe NPC's unquestionably?  Like when Miranda says Samara is a great choice for a fireteam leader or that she herself is totally ready to be the biotic bubble person, do you totally 100% believe her too...?

Okay let's see.

Tali thinks the evidence will clear her.
Shepard thinks the evidence will clear her.
The evidence does, in fact, clear her.

[Onyx Jaguar]

JohnnyDollar wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

JohnnyDollar wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

We do own Guantanamo, would be a waste of land to get rid of it

/throws a bucket of gasoline onto the fire

I think we have an indefinite lease on it actually. 

That could be true actually.  I'll have to look it up.  But some would say that saying that is also similar to saying we didn't go to war with the North Vietnamese. 

Would you elaborate?  I'm not following you.

Some people like to call it a police action since Congress didn't declare War.  Some would believe that issuing a War Declaration is necessary, I say a war is a war.  Just mild congressional jargon.

[DuffyMJ]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

JohnnyDollar wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

We do own Guantanamo, would be a waste of land to get rid of it

/throws a bucket of gasoline onto the fire

I think we have an indefinite lease on it actually. 

That could be true actually.  I'll have to look it up.  But some would say that saying that is also similar to saying we didn't go to war with the North Vietnamese. 

The ownership/lease issue -- regardless -- doesn't really matter. The point is that certain inviduals justified torturing people at that base because somehow (like magic) you're no longer responsible for your actions or obligated to NOT F-ING TORTURE PEOPLE LIKE A SADISTIC MONSTER one you enter the magical legal netherland of cuba. 

and then this dolt's response is 'huh-huh-huh people like you voted obama and he didn't close guantanamo!' while conveniently ignoring the fact that obama ended the torturing and we now use the army field interrogation manual (which follows the geneva convention mandates) in all dealings with detainees.