2463 réponses à ce sujet

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

If you are no longer arguing that we are facing certain doom, then you can conceded the point.

I said long ago that the title and wording of my first post was intended to provoke debate. I commented early on that victory for was was improbable, but not literally impossible.

So you admit that you were wrong in your original post.  Oh.  Then what was the point of this thread?

She actually said we shouldn't surrender...

[ThePwener]

Why are people even discussing this? It's a damn game and we all know we win. BW already dropped the ball and said "ME3 won't have an ending where you beat the Reapers and move to a celebration. No, no celebration, but you beat Reapers" and "ME3 has post-ending gameplay!".

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

So you admit that you were wrong in your original post.  Oh.  Then what was the point of this thread?

You don't have much in the way of reading comprehension do you, honey?

What grade are you in? You're probably too young to be paying Mass Effect 2.

Ok I didn't want to be the first to do this but...UMAD?
You completely ignore the post and resort to insults.

[SandTrout]

Just move out? Uh, no, we can't. The logistics of moving out over 10 billion people are mind boggling. Granted the cancers and birth defects (among other things) will reduce the number of people that need to be moved. We can try to clean up Earth but by the time we finish the damage will have been done.

Just because your limited mind cannot comprehend the logistics in moving that number of people, especially when the action does not require any centralized control in order to occur (People will get their own butts off planet, if necessary), only means that you fail to understand the principals of scale.

So I'm not wrong, I'm just not right? One or the other, kid.

We do not know who is right or wrong right now. We are trying to predict the future. Any conclusion is an educated guess at best. You're trying to state absolutely something that is currently impossible to know absolutely with available data.

I repeat. If AT ANY POINT the Reapers realize they are losing they can flee and we cannot stop them. That is the nature of war in space.

And you are assuming that we will not be able to inflict any casualties on them before that point, and that space-battles do not result in the loss of ships based on the codex statement about them being indecisive. This is a false premise. Just because a battle is indecisive does not mean that neither side takes casualties, it means that neither side was completely wiped out/crippled.

As I have stated, we do not need any decisive engagements in order to defeat the Reapers because any casualties they take are permanent. Ours are not. Even then, they still must engage our fleets that are defending those worlds that they wish to devastate, and those conflicts are the best places to deal significant casualties upon the Reapers.

[pablodurando]

Wait, this thread is still going on? I thought the argument was defeated like on page 20 something.

[Jademoon121]

It's a game. We'll win. Done.

[Shimmer_Gloom]

Reposting my argument because Saphra would rather respond to my snark than legitimate points:

"What are the Reapers trying to do.... I think I remember it somewhere.... Oh yeah. Harbinger says it.

FACE YOUR ANNIHALATION.

The Reapers want us gone. So our alternative to victory is death.

I like the first option. As long as the chance for the first option stays at greater than zero I'm sticking with it. "

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

pablodurando wrote...

Wait, this thread is still going on? I thought the argument was defeated like on page 20 something.

We are aiming for 50,some think we can even hit 51.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Saphra Deden wrote...
Salvation through destruction. Our species as it is currently exists will disappear, but something new will rise to take its place.

Would you be so kind as to give your opinion on salvation?

[Sisterofshane]

Saphra Deden wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

1) An Eingana scenario would not cause human extinction(a point that you have acknowleged), and therefor is not a valid argument for surrender.

It doesn't need to cause human exinction. I never argued that it would. However the debilitation of Earth will leave humanity weak on the galactic stage and thus vulnerable to being overtaken by other species. Species which will be mastering Reaper technology.

Yes, we will be taken out by the species, who by your very own admission, will be too busy staging their own salvage and clean-up operations to help us.  However, they will find the resources to wipe us out.

Hey TIM, the point of the war is not to secure human dominance, but to ensure the survival of organic civilization.

The protheans understood this.

Saphra Deden wrote...

SandTroute wrote...

2) Eezo is not a life form that is capable of reproducing itself. Its contamination levels are static, at worst, therefor you example of the cholrine-based bacteria does not apply.

That wasn't the point of that example. The point was that clearly there are catastrophes (on a much smaller scale even) that the advanced society present in Mass Effect cannot clean up. The chlorine incident is an example of such.

But you've already decided that the "scale" of the disaster is the be all end all of any evidence considered to be relevant. You've already told me (ad nasuem) that all of my examples don't count because they were "too small", but yours does, specifically because it was small?

Double Standards.

Also, the Asari did manage to contain the microbe.  It was only at that point they decided to abandon their colony.
Illustrating our point that we should at least try.

All SandTrout was trying to say was that and Eezo spill would not be handled the same way a microbe would.  Which is why this piece of evidence supporting your argument is very weak.

Saphra Deden wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

3) The battle of the citadel proved that we will take casualties against the Reapers...

Unacceptable casualities that we cannot sustain for long.

Christ, Sovereign was able to literally fly through the ships that opposed it. Let us hope that the next time the Reapers are kind enough to use their guns and not just fly into us.

Why were the causalities caused by Sovereign considered "unacceptable"?  I would need some concrete facts to back up that subjective term.

And yes, one of the Reapers' battle tactics will be to ram every ship head on until they are all obliterated!  At least until Lucy learns how to move the football out of the way, Charlie Brown.

An object large enough, going at sufficient velocity, will destroy smaller objects.  That doesn't exactly mean that it was a better object then the one it destroyed.

Case in point, the Project asteroid from "The Arrival".  It was was less technologically advanced then the Relay, but still managed to destroy it, based upon size and velocity alone.

Saphra Deden wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

4) Your premise is that the Reapers can supposedly lay waste to our worlds without significant risk of defeat is counter to our understanding of their objectives.

No, it isn't. As long as they value their own survival more than they do processing humans they can wipe us out if they so wish.

Yes it is.  They wouldn't risk breaking the cycle of organic civilizations rising up.  They apparently gain SOMETHING from allowing us to advance technologically to a certain point, and THEN obliterating us.  Otherwise they would just decimate all the planets to the point that organic life would never return.
If, by destroying us (and Reaping humanity), it would mean the end of organic life for the rest of eternity, then that would be counter to whatever there reason is to keeping planets alive enough to support the recreation of an advanced galactic civilization.

That, and say if for every reaping cycle, two of them were destroyed, but only one was created.  Wouldn't that mean an eventual extinction for the Reapers themselves?


EDIT: coding failure, fixed

Modifié par Sisterofshane, 03 août 2011 - 04:42 .

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Would you be so kind as to give your opinion on salvation?

I already have. Go read the thread over again.

Ah,excellent,should have expected that.

[Shimmer_Gloom]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

Reposting my argument because Saphra would rather respond to my snark than legitimate points:

"What are the Reapers trying to do.... I think I remember it somewhere.... Oh yeah. Harbinger says it.

FACE YOUR ANNIHALATION.

The Reapers want us gone. So our alternative to victory is death.

I like the first option. As long as the chance for the first option stays at greater than zero I'm sticking with it. "

Salvation through destruction. Our species as it is currently exists will disappear, but something new will rise to take its place.

'Salvation through destruction' is exactly the same as jumping off a bridge and having your family build a bird house of your corpse.

Either way, you are dead.

Shoud we, you know, shoot the bastards until we die a firery death or wait in line to be turned into goo?  And if the FORMER has a chance of success... well... its starting to look pretty atractive don't you agree?

Modifié par Shimmer_Gloom, 03 août 2011 - 04:29 .

[SandTrout]

I'm making the best educated guess that can be made with the available data.

And we have our reasons that our guesses differ from yours, and that your conclusion does not provide adequate data to justify surrender.

Saphra Deden wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

And you are assuming that we will not be able to inflict any casualties on them before that point...

No I'm not. What even gave you that impression? Killing a few Reapers isn't enough. If we kill enough of them they'll realize, "Oh crap, we're gonna lose!" Then they just run and start the planet eradication compaign I talked about.

LOL I love how you snip out the other part of my quote because it counters your whole 'planetary eradication' campaign! You are just ignoring arguments, I'm done now. Everyone realizes that you're not just drinking your own kool-aid, your swimming in it.

You lose, Saphra, and you don't even realize that you have admitted defeat.

[Shimmer_Gloom]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

pablodurando wrote...

Wait, this thread is still going on? I thought the argument was defeated like on page 20 something.

We are aiming for 50,some think we can even hit 51.

That was me!  I said that!

[ShepardTheMetalhead]

LET THIS THREAD DIE!!! Wait till the damn game comes out, then whoever has the winning theory can stroke their ego for a bit and finally stfu about it.

[SJK93]

Hmm...fight, possibly to the death, against an enormous threat to everything that lives...or die for certain and become a threat to everything that lives myself. I don't know about you guys, but the choice is pretty obvious to me.

[Praetor Knight]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

pablodurando wrote...

Wait, this thread is still going on? I thought the argument was defeated like on page 20 something.

We are aiming for 50,some think we can even hit 51.

Gah, this is my last post here then.