2463 réponses à ce sujet

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

You have one unique scenario that is in itself an assumption of the events that transpired on that planet.

No. I have Eingana, I have the accounts of eezo exposure in humans, I have the description of Thessia, both of which support what happenedo n Eingana and lend credence to my theory of what could happen to Earth.

Your side has nothing, just faith in theoretical technology and optimistic assuptions about your ability to organize a world-wide clean-up in the aftermath of occupation and a huge space battle.

Your. Side. Has. NOTHING!

Nothing that you would be willing to accept,because you refuse to be reasonable,instead you prattle about with your superiority complex ,insulting everyone and saying everything they say is irrelevant because you don't agree.


Eigana is a theory,no one alive in the ME universe saw what happened on Eigana,so a theory is a theory as much as you would like to be hoisted up onto your high horse,you're still on the ground with us common folk.

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 15 août 2011 - 06:24 .

[TuringPoint]

Saphra.

Your side has absoluteness of thought, which could just as easily be absolutely wrong as absolutely right. From a strictly theoretical standpoint, although you are citing more known fact, your overall position has a higher chance of being absolutely wrong than absolutely right. Unless your argument is simply that we couldn't defeat them through mere effort of arms and technology, which I agree with. If I'm not mistaken that's the premise of Mass Effect 3.

Modifié par Alocormin, 15 août 2011 - 06:27 .

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

I see you fixed it.

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 15 août 2011 - 06:28 .

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

I am reasonable.

That is debatable.

Reasonable isn't throwing out what everyone says because you don't agree and then insulting them.

[Ben800000]

I don't throw out arguments because I disagree with them. I throw them out because they are crappy arguments with no factual basis and are put forth by people actively trying to throw out the supporting evidence for my own theories.

LOL.

Modifié par Ben800000, 15 août 2011 - 06:34 .

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Reasonable isn't throwing out what everyone says because you don't agree and then insulting them.

I don't throw out arguments because I disagree with them. I throw them out because they are crappy arguments with no factual basis and are put forth by people actively trying to throw out the supporting evidence for my own theories.

No one,I repeat no one has thrown out your evidence,we have disputed it,argued against it,disagreed with it,but we have not taken your route and said "That's  BS" and disregarded what was said,you have responded to walls of text with simple minded insults,and then when someone points it out to you,or finds a ****** in your "why are you even arguing with me I am infallable" armor,you say they are stupid and start ranting about how awesome you are.

Also,yet again theory=/= fact.

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 15 août 2011 - 06:36 .

[TuringPoint]

Honestly, I wish people credited you for what you were saying that is right. People will argue anything. It is so easy to get in fights on the internet. 

About your 'overall position' though, that we can't save the earth or beat the reapers, as quoted in your signature and seems to be the case in what you post.

That position is limited by reasonable evidence, but it is limited - it is limited to what we know. There is greater likelihood that there is much we don't know about the Reapers, than that what little we know - what little you have cited as clear, concrete evidence - is all there is to the issue.

The Reapers are not undefeatable.  There is no proof of this; we do not need proof for something that is impossible.  All we need to do is find a way to defeat them, and save ourselves in the process.  

It is also notably possible to lie about something in such a way that it is irrefutable.

Perhaps Eingana didn't have the means or technology to clean up Eezo spills, and perhaps we will after defeating the Reapers.

Absolute reality isn't what human beings, or any sentient species deals with, just as a matter of having the ability to use their environment and adapt.

Modifié par Alocormin, 15 août 2011 - 06:41 .

[Sisterofshane]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

To be fair, your arguments and theories are based upon assumptions as well.

No, they are not. Mine are based on evidence and examples put forth by the game. Don't confuse the nature of my arguments for yours. Mine are well structured and have a factual basis to them in the games. Yours have nothing to support them at all.

You've also said yourself that you have based your entire theory on the worst case scenario.  Not on the apparent likelihood, or upon any knowledge that any of your evidence is more then just hear-say and theories themselves.  To base it on the one planet, means that of all the planets which have seen major combat (let's assume half of the known planets in the universe have seen this kind of combat -- that is a VERY HIGH number) means that there is roughly a 1.4% chance that the Earth will be poisoned ( I also added your asari colony and added up the minor eezo exposures to roughly one planet to achieve this, although they don't really prove your theory that a planet would be poisoned by Eezo, bringing the total number of planets in your favor to 3).  Any tactician would tell you that the odds are not stacked in your favor.

It has been considered, and your plan of surrender has been shelved until further notice.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Alocormin wrote...

Honestly, I wish people credited you for what you were saying that is right. People will argue anything. It is so easy to get in fights on the internet.

Sisterofshane has given credit where credit is due,but it is very easy to not take what saphra has to say to heart when she presents it the way she does.

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 15 août 2011 - 06:40 .

[TuringPoint]

Saphra Deden wrote...


The best anyone can say right now is that "With what we know our chances of winning are nil. Let's hope we learn something useful come Reaper Invasion time."

Yes.  That is the premise of ME3.

From a perspective of debate, your argument would win.  From a general perspective, the statement we can't save the Earth, we can't beat the reapers is bound to fail, although not because of evidence we already have.  Although we have to get there first, to the point where we can defeat them and save the Earth.  

The best way to get there is to start with what we know.

Modifié par Alocormin, 15 août 2011 - 06:47 .

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Alocormin wrote...

Perhaps Eingana didn't have the means or technology to clean up Eezo spills, and perhaps we will after defeating the Reapers.

Since the planet wasn't colonized and both species went extinct,there wasn't any effort to clean up the planet,which is one of the counter arguments.

[TuringPoint]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Alocormin wrote...

Perhaps Eingana didn't have the means or technology to clean up Eezo spills, and perhaps we will after defeating the Reapers.

Since the planet wasn't colonized and both species went extinct,there wasn't any effort to clean up the planet,which is one of the counter arguments.

That's a very sound argument.  I've been in and out of this thread, guess I missed that.


Still, we would have the immediate effects of eezo exposure to contend with.  Assuming we come back and shoot down the Reapers while in our atmosphere.

We haven't even discussed the problem of people on Earth being indoctrinated after all this, have we?

Modifié par Alocormin, 15 août 2011 - 06:49 .

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Alocormin wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Alocormin wrote...

Perhaps Eingana didn't have the means or technology to clean up Eezo spills, and perhaps we will after defeating the Reapers.

Since the planet wasn't colonized and both species went extinct,there wasn't any effort to clean up the planet,which is one of the counter arguments.

That's a very sound argument.  I've been in and out of this thread, guess I missed that.

78 pages long,few of us have been in it the whole time.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Since the planet wasn't colonized and both species went extinct,there wasn't any effort to clean up the planet,which is one of the counter arguments.

My argument for Earth is that the scale of the mess you'll have to clean up is just too big to manage.

We have established this is your point,what we are trying to convey is that it is an assumption,and therefore cannot be enforced as fact.

No one said Earth won't get contaminated,no one,just that it won't be the giant clusterfrak you predict.

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 15 août 2011 - 06:52 .

[Sisterofshane]

Alocormin wrote...

Saphra.

Your side has absoluteness of thought, which could just as easily be absolutely wrong as absolutely right. From a strictly theoretical standpoint, although you are citing more known fact, your overall position has a higher chance of being absolutely wrong than absolutely right. Unless your argument is simply that we couldn't defeat them through mere effort of arms and technology, which I agree with. If I'm not mistaken that's the premise of Mass Effect 3.

I don't mean to sound cranky, but read through all of my arguments very carefully.  I cited real world evidence (Cherynobl, for at least one specific instance), went through statistical data points, and even used numbers within Saphra's own evidence to back up my argument (especially the numbers relating to actual die-off rates in the number of fetuses exposed to Eezo, and in some of those arguments I gave Saphra the benefit of the doubt and applied them to my data in a manner which would suggest that Eezo is immediately and lethally toxic to adults, of which we have ZERO evidence to suggest this as a truth).

Then read Saphra's counterpoints.  After awhile, you fell like you're being run around in circles.  And, it is not because of me.

[Sisterofshane]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Since the planet wasn't colonized and both species went extinct,there wasn't any effort to clean up the planet,which is one of the counter arguments.

My argument for Earth is that the scale of the mess you'll have to clean up is just too big to manage.

We have established this is your point,what we are trying to convey is that it is an assumption,and therefore cannot be enforced as fact.

So how come decades after the development of eezo drives the debris and junk left over from boot-strap space development hasn't been cleared from Earth's immediate vicinity? Kinetic barriers are needed just to prevent ships from being seriously damage.

Why hasn't it been cleaned up?

Hasn't been deemed to be an immediate threat to Earth's surface.

If the day ever came that it was, you bet there would be some sort of cleanup effort established.

[TuringPoint]

In any case, would you mind if I offer an analogy?

Worst case scenario is, basically, the Reapers have a gun to our head. They have us, our homeworld, and probably many other worlds, hostage. How do we fight back? Or do we give in to their demands, let them whisk us away and do with us what they will?

I think I know what I'd do. It's not simply a matter of evidence, but also what we want.

However, evidence suggests we don't want them to take us and do with us what they will.

Sisterofshane, specifically, has good evidence.  I'm not trying to take any sides...

However, everyone's evidence is supporting speculative positions.  I hope Saphra can recognize that.  

Modifié par Alocormin, 15 août 2011 - 07:02 .