57139 réponses à ce sujet

[captainbob8383]

SS2Dante wrote...

@Rifneno Very well, counter arguments as to how Reapers can destroy synthetics without incurring the wrath of the galaxy.

@illboundyhunter But as we've said, by doing that function the Reapers are acting as a massive dictatorship. How many "free" civilisations will stop research on Ai's? The people will fight for their rights.This path is opression and will always lead to war. Even if the Reapers are completely right, they could never convince organics. Thus they'd have to either enslave all organics (difficult at best) or destroy them. All paths lead to war.

Police prevents you from doing things against society.
Do you start a riot against police? No.
Why? Because you've been explained police role, policemen have been part of you cultural environnement since you were born and they can use lethal forces to make you obey. That's it.
Same thing would work with Reapers if 'Being of lights' had explained their motives and Reapers had been protecting organics from the start.

Some people here have a real weird definition of logic. Overly convoluted and complex plan is the exact opposite of logic.

[SS2Dante]

Sammuthegreat wrote...

StElmo wrote...

Hey Lovely Chums!

Could someone please proof this idea?

Has anyone considered that Shepard makes it to the citadel, but his mind is half warped from indoctrination, therefore making it plausible that he fired the cruciable, but did so as a result of fighting within his own mind with starchild and the RGB metaphor?

So yes, shepard did defeat the reapers with the cruciable (like sleep walking/dazed/hullucinating type thing), but he only dreamed of starchild, normandy crash etc?

I think this would be idea

Yeah, it's been brought up - personally I don't like it, as it would suggest that the Crucible still fired Space Magic beams, and that it functions via completely nonsensical means (e.g. shooting a pole destroys all synthetics. You see the logical vacuum).

Plus the problem with that story wise is that it makes the ending so vague as to be meaningless. You can roll a dice to pick what parts of it actually happened or didn't. Both IT and literal at least have a firm understanding of what was happening. (...kind of, literal )

[llbountyhunter]

SS2Dante wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

@Rifneno Very well, counter arguments as to how Reapers can destroy synthetics without incurring the wrath of the galaxy.

@illboundyhunter But as we've said, by doing that function the Reapers are acting as a massive dictatorship. How many "free" civilisations will stop research on Ai's? The people will fight for their rights.This path is opression and will always lead to war. Even if the Reapers are completely right, they could never convince organics. Thus they'd have to either enslave all organics (difficult at best) or destroy them. All paths lead to war.

Like the quarians and the geth?

EDI and Normandy crew?

Edi: "I am willing to risk nonfunctionality for Jeff"

Would humanity have stopped research into EDI because the great space police told them to?

Also, once again, the geth/quarian thing. This keeps being given as evidence. How many countless cycles have the Reapers seen? And in each one (it is strongly suggested) the pattern is the same. It just so happened that in this cycle the AI developed was not strong or aggressive enough to destroy the creator race in the first war. Look at EDI. When brought online the first thing she did was go crazy and kill people, Glados style.

Even if every 9 out of 10 AI races are ok, you just need one to destroy the galaxy.

The problem is that organics try to kill AI's so they retaliate. The reapers are using the same flawed logic.

Shepard managed peace by talking.... are you saying Shepard is smarter than even the reapers?

[SS2Dante]

captainbob8383 wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

@Rifneno Very well, counter arguments as to how Reapers can destroy synthetics without incurring the wrath of the galaxy.

@illboundyhunter But as we've said, by doing that function the Reapers are acting as a massive dictatorship. How many "free" civilisations will stop research on Ai's? The people will fight for their rights.This path is opression and will always lead to war. Even if the Reapers are completely right, they could never convince organics. Thus they'd have to either enslave all organics (difficult at best) or destroy them. All paths lead to war.

Police prevents you from doing things against society.
Do you start a riot against police? No.
Why? Because you've been explained police role, policemen have been part of you cultural environnement since you were born and they can use lethal forces to make you obey. That's it.
Same thing would work with Reapers if 'Being of lights' had explained their motives and Reapers had been protecting organics from the start.

Some people here have a real weird definition of logic. Overly convoluted and complex plan is the exact opposite of logic.

You don't start a riot against police if you agree to the system they enforce. I argue that it's extremely unlikely that any organic civilisations would agree with the Reapers ban on AI development, simply because the Reapers have a hunch it won't work out. They'll suspect the Reapers of other motives, like trying to control the galaxy and being the most powerful synthetic being. All the things you are accusing them of right now (not you specifically, just people in general)

If you don't believe them, knowing far more than any being in the ME universe, why should an organic government believe them?

[dreamgazer]

SS2Dante wrote...

Sammuthegreat wrote...

StElmo wrote...

Hey Lovely Chums!

Could someone please proof this idea?

Has anyone considered that Shepard makes it to the citadel, but his mind is half warped from indoctrination, therefore making it plausible that he fired the cruciable, but did so as a result of fighting within his own mind with starchild and the RGB metaphor?

So yes, shepard did defeat the reapers with the cruciable (like sleep walking/dazed/hullucinating type thing), but he only dreamed of starchild, normandy crash etc?

I think this would be idea

Yeah, it's been brought up - personally I don't like it, as it would suggest that the Crucible still fired Space Magic beams, and that it functions via completely nonsensical means (e.g. shooting a pole destroys all synthetics. You see the logical vacuum).

Plus the problem with that story wise is that it makes the ending so vague as to be meaningless. You can roll a dice to pick what parts of it actually happened or didn't. Both IT and literal at least have a firm understanding of what was happening. (...kind of, literal )

Exactly. It'd need a few more hooks/hints to shift it from plausibility to confidently explainable territory.

[spotlessvoid]

paxxton wrote...

captainbob8383 wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Most people point out that making synthetics to kill everyone so they won't wind up getting killed by synthetics is brainmeltingly retarded. And they're right, it is, but starprick's foul mockery of logic goes far deeper than that. For instance the two other biggest problems with it IMO are:

The starchild's logic makes perfect sense if you actually listen to what he explicitly states. The Reapers do not kill every organic lifeform but only ADVANCED ENOUGH civilizations. This means that the galaxy with 12 simple civs + 4 advanced civs (a total of 16 civs) is left with 12 simple civs (a total of 12 civs) after the purge to develop for the next Reaper invasion.

It still makes no sense at all.
If the starChild's goal is to protect organic life from synthetics, then the most obvious solution is to tell Reapers to kill synthetics, not evolved organics.
Reapers could stay in the galaxy, act as protectors and kill dangerous synthetics.That's all.
Starchild logic makes zero sense.

What you are talking about is morality, not logic.

No he is talking about the logic of his morality. There apparently is none.

[SS2Dante]

llbountyhunter wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

@Rifneno Very well, counter arguments as to how Reapers can destroy synthetics without incurring the wrath of the galaxy.

@illboundyhunter But as we've said, by doing that function the Reapers are acting as a massive dictatorship. How many "free" civilisations will stop research on Ai's? The people will fight for their rights.This path is opression and will always lead to war. Even if the Reapers are completely right, they could never convince organics. Thus they'd have to either enslave all organics (difficult at best) or destroy them. All paths lead to war.

Like the quarians and the geth?

EDI and Normandy crew?

Edi: "I am willing to risk nonfunctionality for Jeff"

Would humanity have stopped research into EDI because the great space police told them to?

Also, once again, the geth/quarian thing. This keeps being given as evidence. How many countless cycles have the Reapers seen? And in each one (it is strongly suggested) the pattern is the same. It just so happened that in this cycle the AI developed was not strong or aggressive enough to destroy the creator race in the first war. Look at EDI. When brought online the first thing she did was go crazy and kill people, Glados style.

Even if every 9 out of 10 AI races are ok, you just need one to destroy the galaxy.

The problem is that organics try to kill AI's so they retaliate. The reapers are using the same flawed logic.

Shepard managed peace by talking.... are you saying Shepard is smarter than even the reapers?

As I said, the first thing EDI did when brought online was to kill people. She wasn't provoked.

And yes, talking might solve the issue. But this argument is based on the idea that talking works every time. All it takes for this to end is one AI, just one, to develop and rebel (whatever the reason, innocent or not). You might have a hundered nice sythetics, but if just one goes rogue then you have a war that can quickly spill out of control.

The reapers live forever, for all practical pruposes. They do not view time the way we do. As an analogy, if humans lived to the age of 1000, noone would ever cross the road. Why? Because the odds of being runover go past the tipping point in that lifespan. If you live to a thousand, you will probably be runover and killed, if you cross the road just once a day. The Reapers face a similar choice. They can take a chance, knowing that EVENTUALLY things must go wrong, or they can do the cycle. The cycle is far less risky, and from their standpoint (where lives are expendable) no less effective or morally wrong.

[balance5050]

SS2Dante wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

MadRabbit999 wrote...

I cannot believe people are still talking about the logic of the Catalyst and still missing the simple key points... It's like that stupid joke "Arrow in the knee" no actually.. that is a wrong quote, the original is "Arrow to the knee".

Catalyst NEVER says he will kill advanced civilisations, he says he wants to ascend them and change their form into reapers (To which Shepard says "we want to keep our own form"), which by their logic if the genetic material is kept alive then it is still considerate "alive", disagree or not to their logic, but it still makes sense.

Kill =/= "ascend"

This.

This is the same bad reason a mad scientist gives....

Why does everyone keep approaching this as if the Reapers think like us, or have the same values as us, or are in any way similar to us in thinking process? Go back a few pages and read the extract from a book where the character is describing the Reapers trying to indoctrinate her. It's as if they don't know how to frame their arguments so that we will understand. Mad or  not to us, it obviously makes sense to them. We're simply too different to understand their way of thinking, especially if we assign a "mode" of thought to them.

The problem with this is that the Reapers are ultimately slaves. The reapers themselves make more slaves from husks and indoctrination. It's a vicious "cycle" of slavery that won't be broken until some one succesfully rebels.

No matter how you look at the logic of the reapers they are taking away free will, (which is the right of every living thing) When you reach the starchild he basically tries to buy you off by giving you his slaves in return for not killing them. The slaves have done nothing but create more slaves for their entire existence.

He's justifying being a slave to you.

Why aren't old synthetics "preserved"? because they are only competition, the reapers don't gain any power from them because they are not organics. The reapers use synthetics the same way that we do; as tools, and they are tossed aside just the same aswell.

No matter whether you think "preservation" is a good or bad thing it's still how the reapers survive and it's where their energy comes from.

Modifié par balance5050, 20 avril 2012 - 04:09 .

[llbountyhunter]

SS2Dante wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

@Rifneno Very well, counter arguments as to how Reapers can destroy synthetics without incurring the wrath of the galaxy.

@illboundyhunter But as we've said, by doing that function the Reapers are acting as a massive dictatorship. How many "free" civilisations will stop research on Ai's? The people will fight for their rights.This path is opression and will always lead to war. Even if the Reapers are completely right, they could never convince organics. Thus they'd have to either enslave all organics (difficult at best) or destroy them. All paths lead to war.

Like the quarians and the geth?

EDI and Normandy crew?

Edi: "I am willing to risk nonfunctionality for Jeff"

Would humanity have stopped research into EDI because the great space police told them to?

Also, once again, the geth/quarian thing. This keeps being given as evidence. How many countless cycles have the Reapers seen? And in each one (it is strongly suggested) the pattern is the same. It just so happened that in this cycle the AI developed was not strong or aggressive enough to destroy the creator race in the first war. Look at EDI. When brought online the first thing she did was go crazy and kill people, Glados style.

Even if every 9 out of 10 AI races are ok, you just need one to destroy the galaxy.

The problem is that organics try to kill AI's so they retaliate. The reapers are using the same flawed logic.

Shepard managed peace by talking.... are you saying Shepard is smarter than even the reapers?

As I said, the first thing EDI did when brought online was to kill people. She wasn't provoked.

And yes, talking might solve the issue. But this argument is based on the idea that talking works every time. All it takes for this to end is one AI, just one, to develop and rebel (whatever the reason, innocent or not). You might have a hundered nice sythetics, but if just one goes rogue then you have a war that can quickly spill out of control.

The reapers live forever, for all practical pruposes. They do not view time the way we do. As an analogy, if humans lived to the age of 1000, noone would ever cross the road. Why? Because the odds of being runover go past the tipping point in that lifespan. If you live to a thousand, you will probably be runover and killed, if you cross the road just once a day. The Reapers face a similar choice. They can take a chance, knowing that EVENTUALLY things must go wrong, or they can do the cycle. The cycle is far less risky, and from their standpoint (where lives are expendable) no less effective or morally wrong.

Now your borrowing some flawed logic from the salarion leader. Condemning and entire species based on "might" happen.

[18 Brains]

I don't know about you guys, but was anyone else disappointed by the dream sequences?  If Shepard was slowly being indoctrinated and his dreams were amplifying it, couldn't more have been done to show it?

When I heard there were "dream sequences" in the game, I thought they might deal with Shepard's past actions in terms of his background (like a "Gears of War 3 nightmare" when he/she was fighting off Batarians during the Skyllian Blitz, for example) or with a character's death (Ashley/Kaidan asking why Shepard left them, the crew being dragged away by the Collector's, Harbinger haunting his/her dreams with Reapers destroying the Normandy, killing their LI, so many things that could have been done!)

Instead, we get a child running through the forest, and while there are voices from the past, they are not the focus.  I just felt that it would make a far greater emotional impact if the nightmares were about the characters you cared about, rather than a child in the beginning of the game that you see for a little more than a minute and have fewer than ten lines of dialogue with (until the ending, when you have fourteen ).

Modifié par 18 Brains, 20 avril 2012 - 04:12 .

[Big Bad]

The only aggressive AI in this cycle were taking orders directly from the Reapers! They created the problem that they were allegedly trying to solve! How do we know that the same thing did not happen in other cycles?

[DirtyPhoenix]

SS2Dante wrote...

MadRabbit999 wrote...

I cannot believe people are still talking about the logic of the Catalyst and still missing the simple key points... It's like that stupid joke "Arrow in the knee" no actually.. that is a wrong quote, the original is "Arrow to the knee".

Catalyst NEVER says he will kill advanced civilisations, he says he wants to ascend them and change their form into reapers (To which Shepard says "we want to keep our own form"), which by their logic if the genetic material is kept alive then it is still considerate "alive", disagree or not to their logic, but it still makes sense.

Kill =/= "ascend"

This.

This x 2. Clearly to starchild exterminating organics =/= killing them. He thinks he is helping them "ascend" which giving the lesser developed species a chance to evolve.

[SS2Dante]

llbountyhunter wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

@Rifneno Very well, counter arguments as to how Reapers can destroy synthetics without incurring the wrath of the galaxy.

@illboundyhunter But as we've said, by doing that function the Reapers are acting as a massive dictatorship. How many "free" civilisations will stop research on Ai's? The people will fight for their rights.This path is opression and will always lead to war. Even if the Reapers are completely right, they could never convince organics. Thus they'd have to either enslave all organics (difficult at best) or destroy them. All paths lead to war.

Like the quarians and the geth?

EDI and Normandy crew?

Edi: "I am willing to risk nonfunctionality for Jeff"

Would humanity have stopped research into EDI because the great space police told them to?

Also, once again, the geth/quarian thing. This keeps being given as evidence. How many countless cycles have the Reapers seen? And in each one (it is strongly suggested) the pattern is the same. It just so happened that in this cycle the AI developed was not strong or aggressive enough to destroy the creator race in the first war. Look at EDI. When brought online the first thing she did was go crazy and kill people, Glados style.

Even if every 9 out of 10 AI races are ok, you just need one to destroy the galaxy.

The problem is that organics try to kill AI's so they retaliate. The reapers are using the same flawed logic.

Shepard managed peace by talking.... are you saying Shepard is smarter than even the reapers?

As I said, the first thing EDI did when brought online was to kill people. She wasn't provoked.

And yes, talking might solve the issue. But this argument is based on the idea that talking works every time. All it takes for this to end is one AI, just one, to develop and rebel (whatever the reason, innocent or not). You might have a hundered nice sythetics, but if just one goes rogue then you have a war that can quickly spill out of control.

The reapers live forever, for all practical pruposes. They do not view time the way we do. As an analogy, if humans lived to the age of 1000, noone would ever cross the road. Why? Because the odds of being runover go past the tipping point in that lifespan. If you live to a thousand, you will probably be runover and killed, if you cross the road just once a day. The Reapers face a similar choice. They can take a chance, knowing that EVENTUALLY things must go wrong, or they can do the cycle. The cycle is far less risky, and from their standpoint (where lives are expendable) no less effective or morally wrong.

Now your borrowing some flawed logic from the salarion leader. Condemning and entire species based on "might" happen.

Actually I was always pro-genophage. Wrex's leadership was a step in the right direction but it was still far too risky. I'm not going to risk half the galaxy just so I can feel like I'm a "nice guy". You are allowing morality to slip into your judgement of the situation.

Also, the salarians are know for being the most logical race. The Reapers are half machine. So...yeah. I can see how they will think alike.

[SS2Dante]

Big Bad wrote...

The only aggressive AI in this cycle were taking orders directly from the Reapers! They created the problem that they were allegedly trying to solve! How do we know that the same thing did not happen in other cycles?

No they weren't. The geth rebellion we caused ourselves.

[llbountyhunter]

pirate1802 wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

MadRabbit999 wrote...

I cannot believe people are still talking about the logic of the Catalyst and still missing the simple key points... It's like that stupid joke "Arrow in the knee" no actually.. that is a wrong quote, the original is "Arrow to the knee".

Catalyst NEVER says he will kill advanced civilisations, he says he wants to ascend them and change their form into reapers (To which Shepard says "we want to keep our own form"), which by their logic if the genetic material is kept alive then it is still considerate "alive", disagree or not to their logic, but it still makes sense.

Kill =/= "ascend"

This.

This x 2. Clearly to starchild exterminating organics =/= killing them. He thinks he is helping them "ascend" which giving the lesser developed species a chance to evolve.

Is in common practice to kill entire planets of the species your trying to "ascend"? I was not aware that guns are needed tool in helping people "evolve "

[SS2Dante]

18 Brains wrote...

I don't know about you guys, but was anyone else disappointed by the dream sequences?  If Shepard was slowly being indoctrinated and his dreams were amplifying it, couldn't more have been done to show it?

When I heard there were "dream sequences" in the game, I thought they might deal with Shepard's past actions in terms of his background (like a "Gears of War 3 nightmare" when he/she was fighting off Batarians during the Skyllian Blitz, for example) or with a character's death (Ashley/Kaidan asking why Shepard left them, the crew being dragged away by the Collector's, Harbinger haunting his/her dreams with Reapers destroying the Normandy, killing their LI, so many things that could have been done!)

Instead, we get a child running through the forest, and while there are voices from the past, they are not the focus.  I just felt that it would make a far greater emotional impact if the nightmares were about the characters you cared about, rather than a child in the beginning of the game that you see for a little more than a minute and have fewer than ten lines of dialogue with (until the ending, when you have fourteen ).

I don't think the dreams were amplifying it, I think they WERE visual representations of the indoctrination.

[SS2Dante]

llbountyhunter wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

MadRabbit999 wrote...

I cannot believe people are still talking about the logic of the Catalyst and still missing the simple key points... It's like that stupid joke "Arrow in the knee" no actually.. that is a wrong quote, the original is "Arrow to the knee".

Catalyst NEVER says he will kill advanced civilisations, he says he wants to ascend them and change their form into reapers (To which Shepard says "we want to keep our own form"), which by their logic if the genetic material is kept alive then it is still considerate "alive", disagree or not to their logic, but it still makes sense.

Kill =/= "ascend"

This.

This x 2. Clearly to starchild exterminating organics =/= killing them. He thinks he is helping them "ascend" which giving the lesser developed species a chance to evolve.

Is in common practice to kill entire planets of the species your trying to "ascend"? I was not aware that guns are needed tool in helping people "evolve "

Once again; you are thinking like a human. You can't argue apples and oranges here.

EDIT - also, you're completely ignoring the argument given. Ascending is NOT EQUAL TO killing in the Reapers eyes, so your gun comparison is not only false but shows a complete lack of regard for the argument you are countering.

Modifié par SS2Dante, 20 avril 2012 - 04:17 .

[Big Bad]

@Dante - right. and then the geth backed off...until the reapers started manipulating them.

[balance5050]

SS2Dante wrote...


Actually I was always pro-genophage. Wrex's leadership was a step in the right direction but it was still far too risky. I'm not going to risk half the galaxy just so I can feel like I'm a "nice guy". You are allowing morality to slip into your judgement of the situation.

Also, the salarians are know for being the most logical race. The Reapers are half machine. So...yeah. I can see how they will think alike.

Sigh, but the Salarians lifted the Krogans in the first place to help with Rachni. There shouldn't be any "morality" to curing them again because they are an ally verses the greater threat. Even Mordin knows this dude, he created the dam genophage.

[balance5050]

SS2Dante wrote...

Once again; you are thinking like a human. You can't argue apples and oranges here.

EDIT - also, you're completely ignoring the argument given. Ascending is NOT EQUAL TO killing in the Reapers eyes, so your gun comparison is not only false but shows a complete lack of regard for the argument you are countering.

You're right, ascending= enslavement.

[SS2Dante]

Big Bad wrote...

@Dante - right. and then the geth backed off...until the reapers started manipulating them.

They did, I'm not arguing that. All I'm arguing is that in the (essentially) infinite time the Reapers live, if just ONE AI that's developed wins the war, then organic life is gone FOREVER. Biiiig chance to take for no real reason, if you don't view killing as evil.

(in the geth case, if the quarians HADN'T fled the system Rannoch is in, they would be extinct. That's an example of wrong it can go)

[byne]

SS2Dante wrote...

Big Bad wrote...

The only aggressive AI in this cycle were taking orders directly from the Reapers! They created the problem that they were allegedly trying to solve! How do we know that the same thing did not happen in other cycles?

No they weren't. The geth rebellion we caused ourselves.

So what about the fact that in ME3, when the quarians finally found something that would allow them to finally destroy all the geth, thus removing them as a threat to organics, the Reapers werent like 'Yeah, that seems like a good idea, after all, synthetics are bad!' they instead decided to upgrade the geth and thus give them the power to wipe out their creators, which they didnt actually have before?

'Synthetics will always turn on their creators. Thats why we upgrade them to make sure not only do they turn on their creators, but also have the power to wipe them out. Clearly you can see we do this to protect organics, because synthetics are worse than the devil!'

The godchild - and by extension, the Reapers - are either lying about their motives, or completely retarded.

[llbountyhunter]

SS2Dante wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

MadRabbit999 wrote...

I cannot believe people are still talking about the logic of the Catalyst and still missing the simple key points... It's like that stupid joke "Arrow in the knee" no actually.. that is a wrong quote, the original is "Arrow to the knee".

Catalyst NEVER says he will kill advanced civilisations, he says he wants to ascend them and change their form into reapers (To which Shepard says "we want to keep our own form"), which by their logic if the genetic material is kept alive then it is still considerate "alive", disagree or not to their logic, but it still makes sense.

Kill =/= "ascend"

This.

This x 2. Clearly to starchild exterminating organics =/= killing them. He thinks he is helping them "ascend" which giving the lesser developed species a chance to evolve.

Is in common practice to kill entire planets of the species your trying to "ascend"? I was not aware that guns are needed tool in helping people "evolve "

Once again; you are thinking like a human. You can't argue apples and oranges here.

EDIT - also, you're completely ignoring the argument given. Ascending is NOT EQUAL TO killing in the Reapers eyes, so your gun comparison is not only false but shows a complete lack of regard for the argument you are countering.

No, they often kill colonies without harvesting.....I don't see how that helps the species evolve...

[DirtyPhoenix]

llbountyhunter wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

MadRabbit999 wrote...

I cannot believe people are still talking about the logic of the Catalyst and still missing the simple key points... It's like that stupid joke "Arrow in the knee" no actually.. that is a wrong quote, the original is "Arrow to the knee".

Catalyst NEVER says he will kill advanced civilisations, he says he wants to ascend them and change their form into reapers (To which Shepard says "we want to keep our own form"), which by their logic if the genetic material is kept alive then it is still considerate "alive", disagree or not to their logic, but it still makes sense.

Kill =/= "ascend"

This.

This x 2. Clearly to starchild exterminating organics =/= killing them. He thinks he is helping them "ascend" which giving the lesser developed species a chance to evolve.

Is in common practice to kill entire planets of the species your trying to "ascend"? I was not aware that guns are needed tool in helping people "evolve "

An AI (or whatever the starchild is) may not view organics as we do. they may have different moral standards. To them storing organics in reaper form might be a perfect way to save them while ensuring they don't create dangerous synthetics.

Mad AI logic is just that: mad AI logic.

[SS2Dante]

balance5050 wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

Once again; you are thinking like a human. You can't argue apples and oranges here.

EDIT - also, you're completely ignoring the argument given. Ascending is NOT EQUAL TO killing in the Reapers eyes, so your gun comparison is not only false but shows a complete lack of regard for the argument you are countering.

You're right, ascending= enslavement.

*shrug* enslavement with brainwashing. I'd draw a parallel to religion but I don't wanna start a big argument P

Also, if you're a Reaper you're not "enslaving" them. You're making them better than they were, showing them a higher state of existence. Making them happier than they ever could have been as a mere human/krogan/blueskinnedhotalienchick