238 réponses à ce sujet

[GodWood]

Arcian wrote...
@GodWood: The slaughter was not in aggression, but in self-defense. What you are suggesting is that the only way the geth could have earned their right to exist is if they willingly let the quarians exterminate them.

They killed those non-combatants in self defense did they?

When 50% of the ENTIRE quarian population were dead they were no longer a threat and despite this the geth continued killing.
This wasn't self defence, this was an extermination.

sponge56 wrote...

GodWood wrote...
I do not hate the geth. 
I simply believe they must be exterminated for slaughtering billions of non-combants, commiting wide scale genocide and killing anyone who came near them for 300 years.

So the punishment for attempted genocide is genocide? wow, your just as bad as the 'geth' you seem to hate

The punishment for murder is murder? hurp durr.

[ADLegend21]

The Geth should get their dyson sphere. SHould my Shepard's survive the war, they're helping out the Geth since they'' play a big part against the reapers since they cannot be indoctrinated.

[Saaziel]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Arcian wrote...

@GodWood: The slaughter was not in aggression, but in self-defense.

So if you can accept that then why can't you support at the very least the goals and aims of Cerberus?

Because the Goals and Aims of Cerberus are exactly the same goals and aims that lead to the Quarian Genocide; One specie establishing (And in the quarian case failing miserably ) dominance-over an other.

I can't fathom how you'd equate Self defence to Domination. The mental gymnastic necessary to link one to the other is beyond me. They are the polar opposite of one an other ; Orwell must be rolling in his grave.

If i'd try to establish my dominance over you , you'd (presumably) fight back; Any self determining entity would , whether biological or synthetic. And if i (to my own demise ) would kept trying , you'd escalate until the inevitable.

If the choices are ; Peaceful Cohabitation between equals or Domination by the strongest; Then , the Quarians are wrong in either case.

Modifié par Saaziel, 20 octobre 2011 - 08:51 .

[Dean_the_Young]

GodWood wrote...

]The punishment for murder is murder? hurp durr.

Only uncivilized peoples execute murderers.

[Dean_the_Young]

Arcian wrote...

GodWood wrote...

Arcian wrote...
@GodWood: The slaughter was not in aggression, but in self-defense. What you are suggesting is that the only way the geth could have earned their right to exist is if they willingly let the quarians exterminate them.

They killed those non-combatants in self defense did they?

When 50% of the ENTIRE quarian population were dead they were no longer a threat and despite this the geth continued killing.
This wasn't self defence, this was an extermination.

No. If you want to make sure your attacker doesn't return to finish the job, you don't just give it a paper cut and shower it with harsh words. That said, neutralizing your opponent is not necessarily the same thing as murder. If you inflict wounds severe enough that your opponent will require ample time to heal, you are ensuring a time of peace wherein you can grow/expand/gain strength to the point that, when your enemy returns healed, he is still powerless against you - a fact that will hopefully serve as a deterrent not only to the opponent, but everyone else as well.

And since when did non-genocidal occupation become ineffective at keeping a group from becoming a threat?

It's not like the Geth suffer from the political stresses that limit indefinite occupations by organics.

Also, I am not sure how you justify slaughter by saying slaughter is wrong. The "eye for an eye"-mentality you've got going will eventually leave everyone blind.

The premise of Justice is accountability to those who sin, however. The Geth had the justification to kill the Quarians who tried to kill them. The Quarians who were not guilty of such deserve to have their killers brought to justice by the same standard.

If every Geth would be guilty by that standard, then every Geth is guilty. If only those XYVNB Geth who made that consensus stand to be found guilty or if no Geth remain to be found guilty, the number is irrelevant. Responsibility goes to all those responsible, and none who weren't.

[Saaziel]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

And since when did non-genocidal occupation become ineffective at keeping a group from becoming a threat?

It's not like the Geth suffer from the political stresses that limit indefinite occupations by organics.

First : The details of the Morning war are virtually none-existent. Whether or not an occupation was , at the time, practical isn't possible to consider given the information at hand.

Second : Quarians were, at the time , a Council member. An occupation could have prompted (I would argue inevitably) retaliations on a naissant Geth; Weaken by said occupation.

Finally one could argue that the Intent of the Geth at the time wasn't Genocide , or that their (The Geth's) perception didn't leave other options. Much like a Child Superman or Hercules, they didn't know their strength or the full consequence of their actions.

Modifié par Saaziel, 20 octobre 2011 - 11:40 .

[aiDvEoN]

Saaziel wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

And since when did non-genocidal occupation become ineffective at keeping a group from becoming a threat?

It's not like the Geth suffer from the political stresses that limit indefinite occupations by organics.

First : The details of the Morning war are virtually none-existent. Whether or not an occupation was , at the time, practical isn't possible to consider given the information at hand.

Second : Quarians were, at the time , a Council member. An occupation could have prompted (I would argue inevitably) retaliations on a naissant Geth; Weaken by said occupation.

Finally one could argue that the Intent of the Geth at the time wasn't Genocide , or that their (The Geth's) perception didn't leave other options. Much like a Child Superman or Hercules, they didn't know their strength or the full consequence of their actions.

Yeah, because genocide provoked such a strong response.  Oh wait, no, the Council disenfranchised them when they asked for help.

And the quarians were a citadel species, not Council.

[Saaziel]

For starters , the council's response couldn't have been anticipated by the Geth; As far as they knew ,occupying the Quarian territory could have mustered sympathy amongst the general public and force the Council's hand . Moreover ,They (the council) didn't intervene because what had happen to the Quarians probably scared them , and they wouldn't risk escalation over a remnant Quarian people and a few devastated planets & outposts.

But again , this is pure speculation over speculation. We could do this a thousand years and be none the wiser. This line of investigation is utterly useless.

Modifié par Saaziel, 21 octobre 2011 - 01:12 .

[Saaziel]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Saaziel wrote...

I can't fathom how you'd equate Self defence to Domination.

I wish I was the gymnast you are.

Once you start slaughtering defenseless people in the billions it has long since ceased being "self defense".

If i were the aggressor , i would think you'd say it was the best defence.

Edit : Also ,next time,  you should try to quote the broad notion you're trying to tackle. A third party may not understand why you are referring to me as a "gymnast" .

Modifié par Saaziel, 21 octobre 2011 - 02:16 .

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Saaziel wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Saaziel wrote...

I can't fathom how you'd equate Self defence to Domination.

I wish I was the gymnast you are.

Once you start slaughtering defenseless people in the billions it has long since ceased being "self defense".

If i were the aggressor , i would think you'd say it was the best defence.

They defended themselves to the point that they felt the Quarians would no longer be a threat.

[rikimeru420]

if someone tries to exterminate your race, you dont just kill a few of them then walk away, you make sure they are never able to try again.

[Saaziel]

Saphra Deden wrote...
Or are they wrong purely because they struck first rather than waiting for the enemy to make the first move?

BAM! you nailed it , right there.

[Seboist]

Geth's fate in ME3? My pro-Cerberus Talimancer will get Xen to combine Rael'Zorah's research with Dr. Gavin Archer's and then after the Geth are smashed/controlled he'll be drinking a six pack of bud lite with Han'Gerrel on Rannoch in celebration.

[SnowHeart1]

Saphra Deden wrote...

...You are taking a simplistic moral stance and not trying to see it from their perspective...

Hi, Pot? This is Kettle. Yeah... you know what color you are.

sponge56 wrote...
...I was just wondering whether if given the option people would choose to preserve the geth or destroy them...

It will depend on my playthrough and whether I have the option based on whether my previous decisions give me the choice (it's possible previous choices may predetermine whether the Geth are friendly or not), but yes, I would save them. Personally, for my canon playthrough (which is as close to what I would choose IRL), I think that whatever risk they may have posed in their "infancy", they have evolved to a certain point where they are more predictable. Just like with humans, there may be factions, and just like organics they have a sense of self-awareness and a desire to live, apparently without a locust-like desire to spread throughout the galaxy. When it comes to the "true Geth" (assuming one believes Legion, which I do), I trust them enough to give them the chance.

On the otherhand, my pro-humanity above-all-else playthrough will opt to fry every last one of them (including the Quarians if given the option).

Modifié par SnowHeart1, 21 octobre 2011 - 03:02 .

[Saaziel]

Saphra Deden wrote...

...but that's not logical. You are taking a simplistic moral stance and not trying to see it from their perspective. You essentially asking them to be willing to lay down and die, their entire race, just to maintain the moral highground.

Exactly; Its a moral dilemma , not a logical one.

Saphra Deden wrote...

If the geth had struck first and been able to wipe the quarians out what would you then say to the quarians? Oh, nevermind, they'd be dead so you wouldn't say anything. Well, what would you write on their memorial?

They died with Honour.

Saphra Deden wrote...

Why should the quarians stand there and risk death just to play "fair" with the geth?

Because death is inevitable.

Saphra Deden wrote...

Do you acknowledge the inherent danger in artificial intelligence?

No.

Saphra Deden wrote...
Do you then acknowledge that A.I. spontaneously developing on a massive scale and beyond any organic control is a grave threat to a civilization?

No. A.I. have little need of space and are easily provided with sustenance; They present no intrinsic threat since our (Biological & Synthetics) requirements for survival do not overlap with each other.

Saphra Deden wrote...
The quarians could not know the geths' intent, only their capability to do harm.

Then they should have asked.

Saphra Deden wrote...
Why do you ask them to stand there and be at the geths' mercy?

I have no sympathies for slackers. If the Quarians would have work for themselves instead of having the Geth provide an easy remedy to all their decadent fancies (and more importantly their military needs) , then they wouldn't have degenerated into a foible race of hedonistic fools.

They paid dearly for their (and their ancestors) mistakes ; I would hope they'd at least learn something for it .

I don't want the Quarians to die. If i can, My Sheps will try to broker a deal for their safe return. Beyond that , there is nothing more to say.

Edit: Removed the Logical /Moral commonality ; I'm reconsidering my earlier statement.

Modifié par Saaziel, 22 octobre 2011 - 05:20 .

[aiDvEoN]

@ Saaziel
Like so many geth sympathizers, you're ignoring the rules of the ME verse. AIs are considered to be inherently hostile and dangerous, hence their being illegal. This fact underpins the panicked response of the quarians. To ignore that element is to miss the point.