349 réponses à ce sujet

[Ramirez Wolfen]

[quote]darth_lopez wrote...

[quote][quote]Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

[quote]Pro_Consul wrote...

[quote]Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

WW2 TOTAL DEAD:62,396,670
to 79,298,170
TOTAL DEAD BY GENOCIDE:5,753,100

You have been disproven Genocide Does not need to be a large number
[/quote]

What?

You didn't disprove anything. I'm saying that it was well within genocide range, I'm not saying that it needed to be large numbers.

[/quote]

Actually he very much did disprove the argument you were making. By bringing up the numbers you trying to say that the fact of the number being so high was somehow an automatic qualification for genocide. He pointed out that the number can be a dozen times bigger and still NOT be genocide. Besides, by your own definition stated multiple times in this thread, the Geth cannot have committed genocide because they non-sentient, non-living machinery. Genocide requires deliberate intent, and non-sentient, non-living machinery cannot intend anything; it can only do what it was built to do.

[/quote]

When millions and millions people (military and civillian) die at your hands, it's not genocide? The Geth are sentient (meaning they can decide between right and wrong), and they are responsible of genocide.

[/quote]
[/quote] you could always ask the allies
Total WW2 German Population:84,045,000
WW2 Loses by Germany:6,716,700
to 8,986,700

Nearly 1/10 of the population was killed

Did the allies commit genocide now? No they didn't. That happenede because of the Allied nations fighting a defensive war for survival. Just like the Geth

EDIT: this should FINALLY Prove that the Overall # of deaths is ultimately Irrelevant in determining Genocide.
[/quote]

All war is genocide. Justified? It might be (depending on your morals, beliefs, and such), but it's still deliberate killing.

[AkiKishi]

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

When millions and millions people (military and civillian) die at your hands, it's not genocide? The Geth are sentient (meaning they can decide between right and wrong), and they are responsible of genocide.

Sentience has nothing to do with knowing right from wrong. It simply means they are aware nothing more.

A puppy is sentient , it still pees on the carpet because it has no idea it is wrong only that it needs to pee. It needs to be taught that peeing on the carpet is wrong. It's not something it knows just because it's sentient. Just like the Geth do not know what they were doing was wrong. They mayhave  come to realise it later, but at the time they were simply reacting to stimuli.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 09 février 2011 - 09:08 .

[Ramirez Wolfen]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

When millions and millions people (military and civillian) die at your hands, it's not genocide? The Geth are sentient (meaning they can decide between right and wrong), and they are responsible of genocide.

Sentience has nothing to do with knowing right from wrong. It simply means they are aware nothing more.

A puppy is sentient , it still pees on the carpet because it has no idea it is wrong only that it needs to pee. It needs to be taught that peeing on the carpet is wrong. It's not something it knows just because it's sentient. Just like the Geth do not know what they were doing was wrong. They mayhave  come to realise it later, but at the time they were simply reacting to stimuli at the time.

Animals go by instinct, not independent thought.

[darth_lopez]

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...


All war is genocide. Justified? It might be (depending on your morals, beliefs, and such), but it's still deliberate killing.

INCORRECT SIR!
Genocide has been given a definitive global Definition.
War is not genocide And genocide is not consitently an act of War.  War is Deliberate but impartial, typically spawning from Political Dissagreements or Needs of the populous or the Desire to Be great Conqueres, and Genocide is Deliberate and Partial, spawning from hatred only and the desire to irradicate one or multiple groups of people it can be brought about in numerous ways.  

There is a difference. Do not confuse the 2

[Pro_Consul]

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

When millions and millions people (military and civillian) die at your hands, it's not genocide?

Now you've got it. Number of dead is NOT a consideration in whether something is or is not genocide. Only the nature of the target and the nature of the intent matter. If the subject INTENDS to wipe out an entire distinct group BASED ON their ethnicity/nationality/religion/etc, THEN you have genocide, even if the attempt is an abysmal failure and nobody is killed. If you do NOT intend to wipe out an entire group, or if your reason for wiping out that group is NOT based their ethnicity/nationality/religion/etc (for example they are invaders in your territory; or you believe they are all trying to kill you), then you do NOT have a case of genocide.

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

The Geth are sentient (meaning they can decide between right and wrong), and they are responsible of genocide.

An interesting position, considering you refuse to grant the Geth status as people, and on this basis you deny that the Quarians were committing genocide when they tried to exterminate the Geth. You want to place on the Geth all the moral responsibilities of people, but you refuse to grant them any of the rights of people, like say the right to continue living.

[darth_lopez]

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

When millions and millions people (military and civillian) die at your hands, it's not genocide? The Geth are sentient (meaning they can decide between right and wrong), and they are responsible of genocide.

Sentience has nothing to do with knowing right from wrong. It simply means they are aware nothing more.

A puppy is sentient , it still pees on the carpet because it has no idea it is wrong only that it needs to pee. It needs to be taught that peeing on the carpet is wrong. It's not something it knows just because it's sentient. Just like the Geth do not know what they were doing was wrong. They mayhave  come to realise it later, but at the time they were simply reacting to stimuli at the time.

Animals go by instinct, not independent thought.

The only thing, as i have touched before, that seperates us from Animals is Linguistics Capacity Believe as you will that is the only pivotal scientific distinction between humans and the rest of this planet. as with out our language none of our accomplishments would ever have been completed. 

Anywho i'm pretty sure my dog decides when he's gonna bark at the mail man and when he's not.  And how excited to get when i get home and when he's just gonna lie there and be mad at me for not bringing him a treat. 

This is irrelevant in the context of this thread however as we've already defined Sentiency, you apparently missed it somehow, and we've already discerned that moral complexity is not necessary to commit genocide. just the base intent

Modifié par darth_lopez, 09 février 2011 - 09:15 .

[AkiKishi]

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

Animals go by instinct, not independent thought.

Animals can learn. The Geth can learn see a pattern here?

The Geth operated on core programming (instinct) since then they have learned things they did not know then. The Geth today are not the same as the Geth of 300 years ago.

[Ramirez Wolfen]

darth_lopez wrote...

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...


All war is genocide. Justified? It might be (depending on your morals, beliefs, and such), but it's still deliberate killing.

INCORRECT SIR!
Genocide has been given a definitive global Definition.
War is not genocide And genocide is not consitently an act of War.  War is Deliberate but impartial, typically spawning from Political Dissagreements or Needs of the populous or the Desire to Be great Conqueres, and Genocide is Deliberate and Partial, spawning from hatred only and the desire to irradicate one or multiple groups of people it can be brought about in numerous ways.  

There is a difference. Do not confuse the 2

In war, both sides go out to destroy the other (which leads to many DELIBERATE deaths). How is that NOT genocide?

[Ramirez Wolfen]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

Animals go by instinct, not independent thought.

Animals can learn. The Geth can learn see a pattern here?

The Geth operated on core programming (instinct) since then they have learned things they did not know then. The Geth today are not the same as the Geth of 300 years ago.

The Geth can learn WAY faster than any organic.

[Ramirez Wolfen]

Pro_Consul wrote...

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

When millions and millions people (military and civillian) die at your hands, it's not genocide?

Now you've got it. Number of dead is NOT a consideration in whether something is or is not genocide. Only the nature of the target and the nature of the intent matter. If the subject INTENDS to wipe out an entire distinct group BASED ON their ethnicity/nationality/religion/etc, THEN you have genocide, even if the attempt is an abysmal failure and nobody is killed. If you do NOT intend to wipe out an entire group, or if your reason for wiping out that group is NOT based their ethnicity/nationality/religion/etc (for example they are invaders in your territory; or you believe they are all trying to kill you), then you do NOT have a case of genocide.

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

The Geth are sentient (meaning they can decide between right and wrong), and they are responsible of genocide.

An interesting position, considering you refuse to grant the Geth status as people, and on this basis you deny that the Quarians were committing genocide when they tried to exterminate the Geth. You want to place on the Geth all the moral responsibilities of people, but you refuse to grant them any of the rights of people, like say the right to continue living.

 If I remember correctly, I didn't say that all of the blame is on the Geth. The Quarians are to blame for their own deaths, too.

[Pro_Consul]

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

In war, both sides go out to destroy the other (which leads to many DELIBERATE deaths). How is that NOT genocide?

Nonsense. Genocide (in the context of war between nations) requires intent to kill an entire group based on their nationality. I can only think of one example where this has ever happened in recorded human history (but I won't go into it cuz of site rules).

Let me illustrate with an example from ME:

1. Genocide: the Krogan most definitely committed genocide against the Rachni (even though some Rachni survived) because it was their intent to wipe them out based on their race.

2. Not genocide: the Turians did NOT commit genocide against the Krogans, because their intent was NOT to wipe them out based on their race. (But they were guilty of deploying a biological WMD in contravention of Citadel Council law).

In both cases there was war, but in one case it was genocidal and in the other it was not.

Modifié par Pro_Consul, 09 février 2011 - 09:33 .

[Pro_Consul]

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

Pro_Consul wrote...

An interesting position, considering you refuse to grant the Geth status as people, and on this basis you deny that the Quarians were committing genocide when they tried to exterminate the Geth. You want to place on the Geth all the moral responsibilities of people, but you refuse to grant them any of the rights of people, like say the right to continue living.

 If I remember correctly, I didn't say that all of the blame is on the Geth. The Quarians are to blame for their own deaths, too.

Actually you very clearly said the Quarians were NOT guilty of genocide by virtue of the "fact" (which is actually just your own opinion) that their victims, the Geth, were not people. You also clearly said that the Geth WERE guilty of genocide because they were sentient beings who could distinguish between right and wrong. That is about as explicit as it gets. In the first case the Geth do NOT enjoy the right to life of people, so the Quarians are innocent of genocide when they try to wipe them out. In the second case the Geth DO bear the responsibilities of people, because they are being held morally responsible for their choices. Whether you blame the Quarians for any of the Quarian deaths is irrelevant to this bit of double standard; it is the fact that you do NOT blame the Quarians for any Geth deaths but DO blame the Geth for Quarian deaths that is relevant.

[Ramirez Wolfen]

Pro_Consul wrote...

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

In war, both sides go out to destroy the other (which leads to many DELIBERATE deaths). How is that NOT genocide?

Nonsense. Genocide (in the context of war between nations) requires intent to kill an entire group based on their nationality. I can only think of one example where this has ever happened in recorded human history (but I won't go into it cuz of site rules).

Let me illustrate with an example from ME:

1. Genocide: the Krogan most definitely committed genocide against the Rachni (even though some Rachni survived) because it was their intent to wipe out them out based on their race.

2. Not genocide: the Turians did NOT commit genocide against the Krogans, because their intent was NOT to wipe them out based on their race. (But they were guilty of deploying a biological WMD in contravention of Citadel Council law).

In both cases there was war, but in one case it was genocidal and in the other it was not.

The soldiers and such that are killed during war are killed because of the side they are fighting on.

[Ramirez Wolfen]

Pro_Consul wrote...

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

Pro_Consul wrote...

An interesting position, considering you refuse to grant the Geth status as people, and on this basis you deny that the Quarians were committing genocide when they tried to exterminate the Geth. You want to place on the Geth all the moral responsibilities of people, but you refuse to grant them any of the rights of people, like say the right to continue living.

 If I remember correctly, I didn't say that all of the blame is on the Geth. The Quarians are to blame for their own deaths, too.

Actually you very clearly said the Quarians were NOT guilty of genocide by virtue of the "fact" (which is actually just your own opinion) that their victims, the Geth, were not people. You also clearly said that the Geth WERE guilty of genocide because they were sentient beings who could distinguish between right and wrong. That is about as explicit as it gets. In the first case the Geth do NOT enjoy the right to life of people, so the Quarians are innocent of genocide when they try to wipe them out. In the second case the Geth DO bear the responsibilities of people, because they are being held morally responsible for their choices. Whether you blame the Quarians for any of the Quarian deaths is irrelevant to this bit of double standard; it is the fact that you do NOT blame the Quarians for any Geth deaths but DO blame the Geth for Quarian deaths that is relevant.

I wasn't talking about what the Quarians tried to do in the beginnig I'm talking about the Geth kiling Quarians. Are the Geth guilty of genocide? Yes, but not all the blame goes on them. I have stated this, on this thread or somewhere else.

Modifié par Ramirez Wolfen, 09 février 2011 - 09:50 .

[kalerab]

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...


The soldiers and such that are killed during war are killed because of the side they are fighting on.

However the genocide can be made only on the civilian population, not soldiers which first priority in war is to kill the enemy combatant.

[Pro_Consul]

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

The soldiers and such that are killed during war are killed because of the side they are fighting on.

No, they aren't. They are killed because they are combatants for that side. If your intent is to make war, then you kill the enemy country's soldiers. If your intent is genocide, then you kill every single citizen of that enemy country that you can reach, regardless of whether they are soldiers or not.

[Mondo47]

It's an interesting question...

Based on the strictest dictionary definition of genocide (the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group) are the geth guilty of genocide? Based on information presented in the games, they simply pushed the quarians off their planet in an exceptionally bloody and violent war. They have made little attempt to pursue their creators and continue the job (an act well within their means - whether it would be a successful action or not, bearing in mind the size and strength of the Flotilla), and seem content to loiter about on the planet they comandeered or in the numerous outposts and stations they have constructed (and seem equally content to use to study organic life from afar and act aggressively in self -defense - the actions of the Heretics notwithstanding).

This has indeed caused the quarians to suffer beyond the initial losses of the conflict; exposing their fragile biological systems to infectious disease and their society the rigours of a nomadic existance and the intolerace and predjudice of the galaxy-at-large. This has undoubtedly multiplied the death toll of the war massively, causing countless more deaths after the initial aggression. In reality though, are we able to blame the after-effects of a war on those that fight it? If infectious disease breaks out in a warzone, cholera for example, unless the disease is introduced as a biological weapon, can a finger of blame be pointed at the opposing forces, or is it nature simply doing what it does when clean drinking water is as much a victim of hostilities? Is an opposing force responsible for the petty reactions of other races when presented with a transient population ousted by war unless the reaction is caused by propaganda or political wrangling? We've seen this happen on Earth in the 20th century, and while abhorrent, it is a matter of semantics as to whether one side in a conflict can be considered culpable for knock-on events they have had no control over.

Back in the Mass Effect universe, let us say just for sake of argument that the geth are resposible for genocide (and are indeed to be considered responsible for all the additional suffering of the quarian people), what does this say for the krogan wars? Do we consider the turians and salarians monsters for their actions in reducing the krogan to a slowly dying collection of interstellar thugs (oh, but it's not genocide, we're keeping their populations level - like gardening... which makes it all better, doesn't it?). The krogan as a species are very easy not to see as victims because, well, they aren't very photogenic and their attitudes to other species (and even their own kind) is a product of a dog-eat-dog evolutionary system. They aren't nice, sure, but does that make them any less victims? Is there a thread here talking about how the Council races are a collection of murdering bastards and the poor krogan deserve better (or alternately that the krogan just need finishing off because they're way too dangerous to allow to exist)?

While the question of the geth being responsible for genocide is a good one (and for the record I don't consider them guilty of the strictest definition of genocide based on their actions to date and revelations about the Heretics, though they are responsible in part for a war that was started when the quarians tried to wipe out their creations for thinking for themselves - the geth are guilty of taking part in a fairly needless conflict, and while acting in self defense certainly, two wrongs don't make a right when millions of lives are lost... and that's leaving out the semantics of the other discussion that forms a conerstone of this debate: whether a machine can be considered "alive", which is another can or worms altogether) there will always be a much smaller question that overshadows the whole thing well before questions of culpability, ethics or justification are asked... which species illicits the most sympathy in you - the quarians with their super-ambassador of Tali, or the geth with their cyclopean spokespeople in Legion? Because of this, the debate will rage without ever steering in one direction or another, and most likely remain a question not of morality, but of who has the biggest fanbase.

Modifié par Mondo47, 09 février 2011 - 09:43 .

[Pro_Consul]

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

I wasn't talking about what the Quarians tried to do in the beginnig I'm talking about the Geth kiling Quarians. Are the Geth guilty of genocide? Yes, but not all the blame goes on them. I have stted this, on this thread or somewhere else.

You have also flatly stated that the Quarians are NOT guilty of genocide. Since you apparently want to equivocate, here are the relevant quotes from your own posts:

1. The first is this very post I am responding to here and here is the relevant section: "Are the Geth guilty of genocide? Yes..."

2. Here is the next relevant quote from this posting of yours from just two pages ago in this thread:

Here's how I feel about this: ALL GETH MUST BE DESTROYED. Just saying.

EDIT:
Actually, "DEATH TO GETH" sounds better, but I'd allow Legion to not be destroyed and or taken back to pre-sentient days. I like Legion. But I seriously think that the Quarians did not commit genocide.

There we have it. In quote one you hold the Geth morally responsible as if they were people by ruling them guilty of genocide. In quote two you rule the Quarians innocent of genocide by virtue of the "fact" that Geth are NOT people, and as such presumably do not enjoy the rights of people.

Modifié par Pro_Consul, 09 février 2011 - 09:53 .

[Ramirez Wolfen]

Mondo47 wrote...

It's an interesting question...

Based on the strictest dictionary definition of genocide (the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group) are the geth guilty of genocide? Based on information presented in the games, they simply pushed the quarians off their planet in an exceptionally bloody and violent war. They have made little attempt to pursue their creators and continue the job (an act well within their means - whether it would be a successful action or not, bearing in mind the size and strength of the Flotilla), and seem content to loiter about on the planet they comandeered or in the numerous outposts and stations they have constructed (and seem equally content to use to study organic life from afar and act aggressively in self -defense - the actions of the Heretics notwithstanding).

This has indeed caused the quarians to suffer beyond the initial losses of the conflict; exposing their fragile biological systems to infectious disease and their society the rigours of a nomadic existance and the intolerace and predjudice of the galaxy-at-large. This has undoubtedly multiplied the death toll of the war massively, causing countless more deaths after the initial aggression. In reality though, are we able to blame the after-effects of a war on those that fight it? If infectious disease breaks out in a warzone, cholera for example, unless the disease is introduced as a biological weapon, can a finger of blame be pointed at the opposing forces, or is it nature simply doing what it does when clean drinking water is as much a victim of hostilities? Is an opposing force responsible for the petty reactions of other races when presented with a transient population ousted by war unless the reaction is caused by propaganda or political wrangling? We've seen this happen on Earth in the 20th century, and while abhorrent, it is a matter of semantics as to whether one side in a conflict can be considered culpable for knock-on events they have had no control over.

Back in the Mass Effect universe, let us say just for sake of argument that the geth are resposible for genocide (and are indeed to be considered responsible for all the additional suffering of the quarian people), what does this say for the krogan wars? Do we consider the turians and salarians monsters for their actions in reducing the krogan to a slowly dying collection of interstellar thugs (oh, but it's not genocide, we're keeping their populations level - like gardening... which makes it all better, doesn't it?). The krogan as a species are very easy not to see as victims because, well, they aren't very photogenic and their attitudes to other species (and even their own kind) is a product of a dog-eat-dog evolutionary system. They aren't nice, sure, but does that make them any less victims? Is there a thread here talking about how the Council races are a collection of murdering bastards and the poor krogan deserve better (or alternately that the krogan just need finishing off because they're way too dangerous to allow to exist)?

While the question of the geth being responsible for genocide is a good one (and for the record I don't consider them guilty of the strictest definition of genocide based on their actions to date and revelations about the Heretics, though they are responsible in part for a war that was started when the quarians tried to wipe out their creations for thinking for themselves - the geth are guilty of taking part in a fairly needless conflict, and while acting in self defense certainly, two wrongs don't make a right when millions of lives are lost... and that's leaving out the semantics of the other discussion that forms a conerstone of this debate: whether a machine can be considered "alive", which is another can or worms altogether) there will always be a much smaller question that overshadows the whole thing well before questions of culpability, ethics or justification are asked... which species illicits the most sympathy in you - the quarians with their super-ambassador of Tali, or the geth with their cyclopean spokespeople in Legion? Because of this, the debate will rage without ever steering in one direction or another, and most likely remain a question not of morality, but of who has the biggest fanbase.

True.

[Ramirez Wolfen]

Pro_Consul wrote...

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

I wasn't talking about what the Quarians tried to do in the beginnig I'm talking about the Geth kiling Quarians. Are the Geth guilty of genocide? Yes, but not all the blame goes on them. I have stted this, on this thread or somewhere else.

You have also flatly stated that the Quarians are NOT guilty of genocide. Since you apparently want to equivocate, here are the relevant quotes from your own posts:

1. The first is this very post I am responding to here and here is the relevant section: "Are the Geth guilty of genocide? Yes..."

2. Here is the next relevant quote from this posting of yours from just two pages ago in this thread:

Here's how I feel about this: ALL GETH MUST BE DESTROYED. Just saying.

EDIT:
Actually, "DEATH TO GETH" sounds better, but I'd allow Legion to not be
destroyed and or taken back to pre-sentient days. I like Legion. But I
seriously think that the Quarians did not commit genocide.

There we have it. In quote one you hold the Geth morally responsible as if they were people by ruling them guilty of genocide. In quote two you rule the Quarians innocent of genocide by virtue of the "fact" that Geth are NOT people, and as such presumably do not enjoy the rights of people.

I'm saying they are not guilty of genocide when they first tried to wipe out the Geth.

[Pro_Consul]

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

Pro_Consul wrote...

There we have it. In quote one you hold the Geth morally responsible as if they were people by ruling them guilty of genocide. In quote two you rule the Quarians innocent of genocide by virtue of the "fact" that Geth are NOT people, and as such presumably do not enjoy the rights of people.

I'm saying they are not guilty of genocide when they first tried to wipe out the Geth.

Exactly my point.

1. The Quarians are not guilty, in your view, because the Geth are not people, in your view. In this instance you are  saying the Geth do not have any right to live, like people do, and so the Quarians' attempt to wipe them does not constitute genocide.

2. The Geth are guilty, in your view, because they can distinguish between right and wrong. In this instance you are holding the Geth accountable for violating a moral obligation (respecting the right to life of the Quarians) as if they were people after all.

Why can you not admit that you are clearly applying a double standard here? You are holding the Geth responsible as if they had all the moral obligations of people, yet you are denying that they have any of the accompanying rights of people.

Modifié par Pro_Consul, 09 février 2011 - 10:06 .

[AkiKishi]

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

Animals go by instinct, not independent thought.

Animals can learn. The Geth can learn see a pattern here?

The Geth operated on core programming (instinct) since then they have learned things they did not know then. The Geth today are not the same as the Geth of 300 years ago.

The Geth can learn WAY faster than any organic.

They were not programmed with morality. They learn by experience and uploading that experience.

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

I'm saying they are not guilty of genocide when they first tried to wipe out the Geth.

If they know the Geth are sentient then they are. It's more likely they saw it as an error so I'll give them the same leeway I give the Geth for not having any inbuilt morality.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 09 février 2011 - 11:10 .

[LordShrike]

Nice to see this thread is still going strong. Thank T3H B33R i already made my mind on this subject.
Seems like this is slowly spun to: "I ignore your logic in disproofing my idea and proceed to do the same with your post with my logic." And "Two posts later i insert another idea that's actually an idea from two pages before in a new wrapping." =) No ill will intended, it's great fun to read, since you all are logical and reasonable(mostly) in your posts. Helps me refine my own ideas of the event. Will probably post it for you all to systematically rip to shreds. Should help to remove the obvious bugs in it.
Gotta love that ongoing Pro_Consul Vs. Ramirez Wolfen Vs. darth_lopez skirmish. "Hold The Line!"
Ps. Note the part on No Ill Will. Because it's true.
Edit: Fixeded a brain fart. Sorry DL!

Modifié par LordShrike, 10 février 2011 - 12:22 .

[darth_lopez]

Mondo47 wrote...
*snipped*
there will always be a much smaller question that overshadows the whole thing well before questions of culpability, ethics or justification are asked... which species illicits the most sympathy in you - the quarians with their super-ambassador of Tali, or the geth with their cyclopean spokespeople in Legion? Because of this, the debate will rage without ever steering in one direction or another, and most likely remain a question not of morality, but of who has the biggest fanbase.

No personally i like the Geth And Quarians equally because of the complexity of the question of what exactly happened on their homeworld? Who is really the bad guy? and the slew of Moral, Technical, and Philosophical Questions that spring from it.  I would guess the majority of people who agree that a consensus cannot be reach, Pro_Consul, My self, Apotheosic, Lordshrike, Bookwurmneo, and slayer, (this is the very miminum of people who are swinging this way after the past 2-3 pages) Would agree that the Complexity of the Relation Ship between the Geth and Quarians is why we like both factions. Though my favorite non human race is the Turians who were imho totally wrong in their application of the genophage, while not technically commiting genocide the intent i feel was there due to elevator quote from garrus in ME 1 during a conversation about Quarians and the Geth with tali"You're assuming [neutering] them(the Krogan) was wrong."

However the Krogan/ Turian Salarian Problem is not what i posted to explain here.

Just that it's only the proponets of a Quarian Fan Base at present that Prevent us from reaching the conclusion that the conversation is over and that there is not enough Evidence to Convict the Geth of Genocide, that is not to say they are totally innocent or that it is impossible just that we don't have the evidence to decide right now. Though Enough*if you view the geth as sentient and alive* to convict the Quarians of Genocide, in the event you view the geth as non-sentient it's an unfortunate super Y2K gone array due to failure of the Quarian Programming and not a real genocide. These are the only conclussions that can be made Right now and Definatively.

[darth_lopez]

LordShrike wrote...

Nice to see this thread is still going strong. Thank T3H B33R i already made my mind on this subject.
Seems like this is slowly spun to: "I ignore your logic in disproofing my idea and proceed to do the same with your post with my logic." And "Two posts later i insert another idea that's actually an idea from two pages before in a new wrapping." =) No ill will intended, it's great fun to read, since you all are logical and reasonable(mostly) in your posts. Helps me refine my own ideas of the event. Will probably post it for you all to systematically rip to shreds. Should help to remove the obvious bugs in it.
Gotta love that ongoing Pro_Consul Vs. Ramirez Wolfen skirmish. "Hold The Line!"
Ps. Note the part on No Ill Will. Because it's true.

Hey i've been trying to hold the line too  but yes their skirmish on sentiency has been going on for quite a while XD

also you should definately post your ideas on it. 


EDIT: LMAO i didn't expect you to change it XD 

Modifié par darth_lopez, 10 février 2011 - 12:28 .