395 réponses à ce sujet

[GunMoth]

VaultingFrog wrote...

GunMoth wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

GunMoth wrote...
 They believe that their existence is beyond our comprehension. We also don't understand their purpose or agenda other than creating another reaper. But why? Why expand in numbers?

Do you have any idea what it's like to exist for millions of years? Do you know what their true purpose and agenda are?

The answers to both of those questions are beyond you. The Reapers are not incorrect in their assumptions, in this regard. Just as a gnat has no concept what it's like to be human.

Holy **** this thread moves FAST.

No - we cannot fully understand the way they perceive the world. Nor can we fully understand the Asari, or the Salarians. I cannot fully understand you. 

The way cognitive awareness and environmental psychology works all comes down to perception and our nervous systems. I could write a HUGE essay on why subjectivity will always be flawed - but I will avoid that.

By giving humans an objective reason as to why they need to harvest it could fill in a huge hole that this debate has. Its a shred of evidence and gives us insight on their existance. Dismissing evidence because of something as subjective as perception isn't a good thing. Hell, look at all of our technological advancements as of late. They're achieved by studying other life forms. 

But if that's your belief - that if nothing can be achieved because we will never understand things different from us - then thats your perogitive. 

I just want to point out that we do have a shred of insight into the Reapers motovation. Harbinger stated that they were our salvation not our distruction. Salvation from what is a big mystery but so is life.

I'm going to assume by "Salvation" he means we will become a part of something much greater. The idea of a reaper is pretty similar to some religious concepts. Beyond life we are one in the same  - or rather, that we are all a part of one thing. 

However, it depends on what their goal is. If it is simply reproduction for no reason - it is a paracitic existence. If there is an ultimate goal - then perhaps its worth death. Maybe there is an even larger threat. Maybe the reapers are the only things keeping the universe stable for some magical reason. We simply do not know. Any ethical debate on whether the reapers are good or bad ultimately comes down to their intentions. 

[VaultingFrog]

Marshalleck we can never truely understand any other being out there because we are always going to be different. Different modes of thinking...ect. So its all good.

Oh and I would have given your avatar a aphro and called him Hairrus

[VaultingFrog]

GunMoth wrote...
I'm going to assume by "Salvation" he means we will become a part of something much greater. The idea of a reaper is pretty similar to some religious concepts. Beyond life we are one in the same  - or rather, that we are all a part of one thing. 

However, it depends on what their goal is. If it is simply reproduction for no reason - it is a paracitic existence. If there is an ultimate goal - then perhaps its worth death. Maybe there is an even larger threat. Maybe the reapers are the only things keeping the universe stable for some magical reason. We simply do not know. Any ethical debate on whether the reapers are good or bad ultimately comes down to their intentions. 

Assumptions are dangerous. But you are right, it comes down to their intentions and we know almost nothing beond what Harbinger said.

[Killjoy Cutter]

VaultingFrog wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Indeed, I feel like I'm in a discussion with several appologists for Mr H and crew...

"Well, they thought they were doing the right thing, so you can't say they were evil!"

Actually this is more of an example of Godwin's Law than anything else if I am understanding the reference right...

"Godwin's law does not claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons. "Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to H***** or to N**** to think a bit harder about the Holocaust," Godwin has written."

There's no hyperboly, or no glibness, in comparing galaxy-spanning genocidal monster-ships to you-know-who. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

VaultingFrog wrote...

GunMoth wrote...
I'm going to assume by "Salvation" he means we will become a part of something much greater. The idea of a reaper is pretty similar to some religious concepts. Beyond life we are one in the same  - or rather, that we are all a part of one thing. 

However, it depends on what their goal is. If it is simply reproduction for no reason - it is a paracitic existence. If there is an ultimate goal - then perhaps its worth death. Maybe there is an even larger threat. Maybe the reapers are the only things keeping the universe stable for some magical reason. We simply do not know. Any ethical debate on whether the reapers are good or bad ultimately comes down to their intentions. 

Assumptions are dangerous. But you are right, it comes down to their intentions and we know almost nothing beond what Harbinger said.

And I don't care what their intentions are, their actions have been, are, and will be evil.

[GunMoth]

marshalleck wrote...

GunMoth wrote...

But if that's your belief - that if nothing can be achieved because we will never understand things different from us - then thats your perogitive. 

I said no such thing, and you're doing yourself no favors by suggesting it. While we may understand their motive if they would simply tell us (which they won't in the first and second chapters, since this is a game trilogy and the big spoiler has to be saved for the finale), we'll never comprehend what it's like to consciously exist for millions of years uninterrupted. In that sense, Sovereign was not wrong when it suggested Shepard was ignorant.

Then that entire paragraph you wrote is moot. 
You're trying to argue, yet you aren't understanding my point. Like I said in my previous post - the reaper's intentions define their existance. We cannot claim the reapers ultimate intentions are good or bad without knowing what their plans are. Living for x amount of time has nothing to do with what I said. 

That would be like saying "o hey there's this ancient paracitic lifeform - but its rly old so you have no idea what its been through man. It must be good since we cannot understand what its like to live that long."

[marshalleck]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

There's no hyperboly, or no glibness, in comparing galaxy-spanning genocidal monster-ships to you-know-who. 

Mr H was totally a galaxy-spanning genocidal moster ship. Yep, nothing inappropriate about that comparison. 

[marshalleck]

GunMoth wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

GunMoth wrote...

But if that's your belief - that if nothing can be achieved because we will never understand things different from us - then thats your perogitive. 

I said no such thing, and you're doing yourself no favors by suggesting it. While we may understand their motive if they would simply tell us (which they won't in the first and second chapters, since this is a game trilogy and the big spoiler has to be saved for the finale), we'll never comprehend what it's like to consciously exist for millions of years uninterrupted. In that sense, Sovereign was not wrong when it suggested Shepard was ignorant.

Then that entire paragraph you wrote is moot. 
You're trying to argue, yet you aren't understanding my point. Like I said in my previous post - the reaper's intentions define their existance. We cannot claim the reapers ultimate intentions are good or bad without knowing what their plans are. Living for x amount of time has nothing to do with what I said. 

That would be like saying "o hey there's this ancient paracitic lifeform - but its rly old so you have no idea what its been through man. It must be good since we cannot understand what its like to live that long."

Re: bold, proof?

Modifié par marshalleck, 25 août 2011 - 08:05 .

[VaultingFrog]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

VaultingFrog wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Indeed, I feel like I'm in a discussion with several appologists for Mr H and crew...

"Well, they thought they were doing the right thing, so you can't say they were evil!"

Actually this is more of an example of Godwin's Law than anything else if I am understanding the reference right...

"Godwin's law does not claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons. "Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to H***** or to N**** to think a bit harder about the Holocaust," Godwin has written."

There's no hyperboly, or no glibness, in comparing galaxy-spanning genocidal monster-ships to you-know-who. 

That law also refers to having a conversation of any meaningful length on the internet such as the one going on here inadvertantly and abruptly involving Hitler and or the **** party. That is what I was refering to. Its not a perfect fit however a far better fit than the previous suggestion.

Oh and I do not enjoy being placed in the **** sympathy party because I detest what they did. Please do not do it again.

[VaultingFrog]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

VaultingFrog wrote...

GunMoth wrote...
I'm going to assume by "Salvation" he means we will become a part of something much greater. The idea of a reaper is pretty similar to some religious concepts. Beyond life we are one in the same  - or rather, that we are all a part of one thing. 

However, it depends on what their goal is. If it is simply reproduction for no reason - it is a paracitic existence. If there is an ultimate goal - then perhaps its worth death. Maybe there is an even larger threat. Maybe the reapers are the only things keeping the universe stable for some magical reason. We simply do not know. Any ethical debate on whether the reapers are good or bad ultimately comes down to their intentions. 

Assumptions are dangerous. But you are right, it comes down to their intentions and we know almost nothing beond what Harbinger said.

And I don't care what their intentions are, their actions have been, are, and will be evil.

Sigh... they are evil from your perspective yes. We have been over this for several pages now i think....

[GunMoth]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

VaultingFrog wrote...

GunMoth wrote...
I'm going to assume by "Salvation" he means we will become a part of something much greater. The idea of a reaper is pretty similar to some religious concepts. Beyond life we are one in the same  - or rather, that we are all a part of one thing. 

However, it depends on what their goal is. If it is simply reproduction for no reason - it is a paracitic existence. If there is an ultimate goal - then perhaps its worth death. Maybe there is an even larger threat. Maybe the reapers are the only things keeping the universe stable for some magical reason. We simply do not know. Any ethical debate on whether the reapers are good or bad ultimately comes down to their intentions. 

Assumptions are dangerous. But you are right, it comes down to their intentions and we know almost nothing beond what Harbinger said.

And I don't care what their intentions are, their actions have been, are, and will be evil.

It really comes down to your stance on ethics as well. Sounds like you side with Kant. :0 Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm a bit of a utilitarianist - not fully though. I definitely agree that some sacrifices are too much - regardless of the cause or future gain/potential loss.

But I think that - if the reapers do have some motive that will benefit the universe in some way - then yes. It will be easier to empathize with them. I may disagree, but I can empathize. 

[GunMoth]

marshalleck wrote...

GunMoth wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

GunMoth wrote...

But if that's your belief - that if nothing can be achieved because we will never understand things different from us - then thats your perogitive. 

I said no such thing, and you're doing yourself no favors by suggesting it. While we may understand their motive if they would simply tell us (which they won't in the first and second chapters, since this is a game trilogy and the big spoiler has to be saved for the finale), we'll never comprehend what it's like to consciously exist for millions of years uninterrupted. In that sense, Sovereign was not wrong when it suggested Shepard was ignorant.

Then that entire paragraph you wrote is moot. 
You're trying to argue, yet you aren't understanding my point. Like I said in my previous post - the reaper's intentions define their existance. We cannot claim the reapers ultimate intentions are good or bad without knowing what their plans are. Living for x amount of time has nothing to do with what I said. 

That would be like saying "o hey there's this ancient paracitic lifeform - but its rly old so you have no idea what its been through man. It must be good since we cannot understand what its like to live that long."

Re: bold, proof?

We don't know their intentions though. :/

[Killjoy Cutter]

VaultingFrog wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

VaultingFrog wrote...

GunMoth wrote...
I'm going to assume by "Salvation" he means we will become a part of something much greater. The idea of a reaper is pretty similar to some religious concepts. Beyond life we are one in the same  - or rather, that we are all a part of one thing. 

However, it depends on what their goal is. If it is simply reproduction for no reason - it is a paracitic existence. If there is an ultimate goal - then perhaps its worth death. Maybe there is an even larger threat. Maybe the reapers are the only things keeping the universe stable for some magical reason. We simply do not know. Any ethical debate on whether the reapers are good or bad ultimately comes down to their intentions. 

Assumptions are dangerous. But you are right, it comes down to their intentions and we know almost nothing beond what Harbinger said.

And I don't care what their intentions are, their actions have been, are, and will be evil.

Sigh... they are evil from your perspective yes. We have been over this for several pages now i think....

No, they're just evil. 

All this dancing around wondering about motivations and intentions and perspectives is ignoring the real issue:  the Reapers act to destroy or assimilate all non-Reaper thinking beings, and will do absolutely anything to achieve that end.  This makes them evil.  End of story.  There is no justification for their ends or their means. 

We wouldn't be having this discussion at all if we were talking about real people doing the kinds of things the Reapers do, in real life, to other real people.  The only question would be "what are we doing to stop them:?

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 25 août 2011 - 08:13 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

GunMoth wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

VaultingFrog wrote...

GunMoth wrote...
I'm going to assume by "Salvation" he means we will become a part of something much greater. The idea of a reaper is pretty similar to some religious concepts. Beyond life we are one in the same  - or rather, that we are all a part of one thing. 

However, it depends on what their goal is. If it is simply reproduction for no reason - it is a paracitic existence. If there is an ultimate goal - then perhaps its worth death. Maybe there is an even larger threat. Maybe the reapers are the only things keeping the universe stable for some magical reason. We simply do not know. Any ethical debate on whether the reapers are good or bad ultimately comes down to their intentions. 

Assumptions are dangerous. But you are right, it comes down to their intentions and we know almost nothing beond what Harbinger said.

And I don't care what their intentions are, their actions have been, are, and will be evil.

It really comes down to your stance on ethics as well. Sounds like you side with Kant. :0 Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm a bit of a utilitarianist - not fully though. I definitely agree that some sacrifices are too much - regardless of the cause or future gain/potential loss.

But I think that - if the reapers do have some motive that will benefit the universe in some way - then yes. It will be easier to empathize with them. I may disagree, but I can empathize. 

Don't much care about Kant or other philosophers, I've never had much patience for navel-gazing.  You know the chair is real because your butt isn't on the floor. 

[Mr.Pink]

This topic is completely opinion, no right or wrong. But, if the Reapers weren't really evil, that would defeat the purpose of the game, so I think it's safe to assume that the Reapers are SUPPOSED to be evil, even if you do not believe so. (Joker in a fake voice) "Oh ya, lets go kill a whole bunch o' mini us, just cause we god-damn feel like it." (A few years later) "Now that that's done, what do we need at the store?"
 BTW,  thats supposed to be him imitating a Reaper, in case it "went over your head."

Modifié par Mr.Pink, 25 août 2011 - 08:17 .

[GunMoth]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

GunMoth wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

VaultingFrog wrote...

GunMoth wrote...
I'm going to assume by "Salvation" he means we will become a part of something much greater. The idea of a reaper is pretty similar to some religious concepts. Beyond life we are one in the same  - or rather, that we are all a part of one thing. 

However, it depends on what their goal is. If it is simply reproduction for no reason - it is a paracitic existence. If there is an ultimate goal - then perhaps its worth death. Maybe there is an even larger threat. Maybe the reapers are the only things keeping the universe stable for some magical reason. We simply do not know. Any ethical debate on whether the reapers are good or bad ultimately comes down to their intentions. 

Assumptions are dangerous. But you are right, it comes down to their intentions and we know almost nothing beond what Harbinger said.

And I don't care what their intentions are, their actions have been, are, and will be evil.

It really comes down to your stance on ethics as well. Sounds like you side with Kant. :0 Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm a bit of a utilitarianist - not fully though. I definitely agree that some sacrifices are too much - regardless of the cause or future gain/potential loss.

But I think that - if the reapers do have some motive that will benefit the universe in some way - then yes. It will be easier to empathize with them. I may disagree, but I can empathize. 

Don't much care about Kant or other philosophers, I've never had much patience for navel-gazing.  You know the chair is real because your butt isn't on the floor. 

There are different branches of philosophy. Not all are about metaphysics. I don't have patience with metaphysics either. So don't worry - this isn't about that. Ethical philosophy kind of teaches people to agree to disagree. Everyone has different outlooks on what is just. Some are realistic, some are more idealistic. 
Kant pretty much believes that no sacrifice should be made if it  it is at the expense of innocent lives. Another example would be: If a starving person on the street is dying, and you have no money or no other means of obtaining food, would you steal it? Kant would say no. Good and evil is very black and white. Stealing is bad. 

Ultilitarianists believe that you should pick the outcome that would make the most amount of people happy. Say if the reapers ultimate goal was to save the universe by making more reapers and therefore, harvesting us. A ultilitarianist would say yes because without the reapers - there would be no chance for life to exist in the first place.

Which is why - from my point of view - it comes down to intent. However, if the party doesn't wish to share their intentions then I will be forced to stop them since - from my point of view - they seek to ruin the lives out countless people in order to make 1 being. So in this situation a ultilitarianist would say no. Comes down to numbers. 

Modifié par GunMoth, 25 août 2011 - 08:34 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

VaultingFrog wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

VaultingFrog wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Indeed, I feel like I'm in a discussion with several appologists for Mr H and crew...

"Well, they thought they were doing the right thing, so you can't say they were evil!"

Actually this is more of an example of Godwin's Law than anything else if I am understanding the reference right...

"Godwin's law does not claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons. "Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to H***** or to N**** to think a bit harder about the Holocaust," Godwin has written."

There's no hyperboly, or no glibness, in comparing galaxy-spanning genocidal monster-ships to you-know-who. 

That law also refers to having a conversation of any meaningful length on the internet such as the one going on here inadvertantly and abruptly involving Hitler and or the **** party. That is what I was refering to. Its not a perfect fit however a far better fit than the previous suggestion.

Oh and I do not enjoy being placed in the **** sympathy party because I detest what they did. Please do not do it again.

More detailed:


"Godwin's law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with ****s. The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics or racial superiority, nor, more debatably, to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies, since a **** comparison in those circumstances may be appropriate. In effect committing the fallacist's fallacy. Whether it applies to humorous use or references to oneself is open to interpretation, since this would not be a fallacious attack against a debate opponent."

Comparing the Reapers to Those Guys is entirely kosher under Godwin's Law as explained by Godwin. 

No one called you One of Those Guys.  The statement was that making excuses for the Reapers is a lot like making excuses for Those Guys -- because The Reapers and Those Guys are quite similar.

[GunMoth]

Aiynn wrote...

GunMoth wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

VaultingFrog wrote...

GunMoth wrote...
I'm going to assume by "Salvation" he means we will become a part of something much greater. The idea of a reaper is pretty similar to some religious concepts. Beyond life we are one in the same  - or rather, that we are all a part of one thing. 

However, it depends on what their goal is. If it is simply reproduction for no reason - it is a paracitic existence. If there is an ultimate goal - then perhaps its worth death. Maybe there is an even larger threat. Maybe the reapers are the only things keeping the universe stable for some magical reason. We simply do not know. Any ethical debate on whether the reapers are good or bad ultimately comes down to their intentions. 

Assumptions are dangerous. But you are right, it comes down to their intentions and we know almost nothing beond what Harbinger said.

And I don't care what their intentions are, their actions have been, are, and will be evil.

It really comes down to your stance on ethics as well. Sounds like you side with Kant. :0 Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm a bit of a utilitarianist - not fully though. I definitely agree that some sacrifices are too much - regardless of the cause or future gain/potential loss.

But I think that - if the reapers do have some motive that will benefit the universe in some way - then yes. It will be easier to empathize with them. I may disagree, but I can empathize. 

Genuine inquiry: Would their motive have to benefit the entire universe, or would you emphasize with them if it just benefitted your race? Say, for example, that they were doing something to benefit you because they did the same thing to themselves, and you could see why they did it.

It would have to benefit the entire universe. If I understand correctly (and please correct me if I'm wrong because I feel like I'm misunderstanding the benefitting of my race) - you mean that they are doing something that humans would do?? Like the treatment of animals as a means to an end, or the concept of survival? 

[Sundance31us]

If the Reapers are so benevolent why are they destroying escape shuttles when they attack Earth?

[GunMoth]

@Aiynn:
I'll start by saying that freedom is extremely important to me.

Personally, no. But that's because I think death is extremely important. Immortality or the preservation of a life form without giving it the ability to adapt, change, and live freely is important to me. (This very much depends. And this is where I side with Kant. By freely - I mean that their relationships have to be symbiotic, or mutually beneficial. In other words, I don't think rapists should run wild) Simply the concept of the cycle of life and death. The way cultural ideologies recycle.

For the people who want to be immortal or become a part of something else, it should be their choice to do so. Trying to force several people to obtain a specific goal is a crime against that freedom.

[Killjoy Cutter]

GunMoth wrote...

@Aiynn:
I'll start by saying that freedom is extremely important to me.

Personally, no. But that's because I think death is extremely important. Immortality or the preservation of a life form without giving it the ability to adapt, change, and live freely is important to me. (This very much depends. And this is where I side with Kant. By freely - I mean that their relationships have to be symbiotic, or mutually beneficial. In other words, I don't think rapists should run wild) Simply the concept of the cycle of life and death. The way cultural ideologies recycle.

For the people who want to be immortal or become a part of something else, it should be their choice to do so. Trying to force several people to obtain a specific goal is a crime against that freedom.

Well said. 

(And part of why it's the Reapers who are attempting to restrict choice/will/freedom, and why it's so bloody ironic for someone calling the Reapers evil to be accused of that attempt to restrict.)

[GunMoth]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

GunMoth wrote...

@Aiynn:
I'll start by saying that freedom is extremely important to me.

Personally, no. But that's because I think death is extremely important. Immortality or the preservation of a life form without giving it the ability to adapt, change, and live freely is important to me. (This very much depends. And this is where I side with Kant. By freely - I mean that their relationships have to be symbiotic, or mutually beneficial. In other words, I don't think rapists should run wild) Simply the concept of the cycle of life and death. The way cultural ideologies recycle.

For the people who want to be immortal or become a part of something else, it should be their choice to do so. Trying to force several people to obtain a specific goal is a crime against that freedom.

Well said. 

(And part of why it's the Reapers who are attempting to restrict choice/will/freedom, and why it's so bloody ironic for someone calling the Reapers evil to be accused of that attempt to restrict.)

But see, that's where you and I split. :C If the reaper's ultimate goal is to irradicate a threat with numbers by harvesting life forms - then I would much rather they do so in order to protect the galaxy's endless cycle of life. Sure - we will cease to exist, but if it protects the future of organic life forms and the patterns of the universe - then I'm all for it. Its kind of similar to the environmentalist debate: Should we sacrifice our standard of living to protect the very thing that we live on? Or do we want to preserve our standards and numbers? 

The home comes before life. Life will always find a way - but without a home it wont. 

But like I said before, the fact that they kept their intentions from Shepard is reason enough for any player to want to fight back.