57139 réponses à ce sujet

[SS2Dante]

byne wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

All I can say about the Geth and the Quarians is this.  Remember that the QUARIANS struck first. The Geth didn't rebel, they were attacked first.  They only did what almost any being would do, they fought back to defend themselves.  The Geth also let the Quarians leave Rannoch rather than destroying them when they had the chance.  All this is explained in the Rannoch: Geth Figher Squadrons mission.  If you don't believe me, go back and replay the mission.  I know I'm going to be pretty soon.

Oh god, not this again!

I spent like 3 hours last night in /vg/ debating who was at fault for the Morning War...

Byne Byne Byyyyne they all started to talk about the starchilds logic agaaaaain, and for AGES I was good and kept quiet. You missed it!

Then I cracked. But I'm done now  

[paxxton]

DTKT wrote...

paxxton wrote...

To be specific, the Geth started to behave in a way that was unanticipated and unwanted by the Quarians. This can be considered a form of rebellion from the Quarians' point of view.

Yeah, the became sentient...

Does that justify a genocide?

No. I just wanted to show that to rebel doesn't necessarily mean to fire bullets.

[lex0r11]

SS2Dante wrote...

Byne Byne Byyyyne they all started to
talk about the starchilds logic agaaaaain, and for AGES I was good and
kept quiet. You missed it!

Then I cracked. But I'm done now  

You are hereby nominated for the custom motivational award for being civil.

Modifié par lex0r11, 26 avril 2012 - 11:13 .

[HellishFiend]

SS2Dante wrote...

byne wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

All I can say about the Geth and the Quarians is this.  Remember that the QUARIANS struck first. The Geth didn't rebel, they were attacked first.  They only did what almost any being would do, they fought back to defend themselves.  The Geth also let the Quarians leave Rannoch rather than destroying them when they had the chance.  All this is explained in the Rannoch: Geth Figher Squadrons mission.  If you don't believe me, go back and replay the mission.  I know I'm going to be pretty soon.

Oh god, not this again!

I spent like 3 hours last night in /vg/ debating who was at fault for the Morning War...

Byne Byne Byyyyne they all started to talk about the starchilds logic agaaaaain, and for AGES I was good and kept quiet. You missed it!

Then I cracked. But I'm done now  

Good, cuz you're wrong.  This isnt a theoretical discussion where there is no right and wrong. Logic can be right or wrong, and the Starbrat's is most definitely, unmistakably wrong. If I didnt prove that with my post on the last page, I dont know how else to spell it out. 

[UrgedDuke]

I thought of something a during my last playthrough of the ending:

spacebeiber tells you that he controls the reapers, and that they are his solution. However when he talks about the inevitable war between organics and synthetics, he says "we found a way to stop that from happening." who is the "we" he is referring to. If they reapers were his solution they wouldn't have existed before he found a solution. Also if each reaper is old life stored in that form, they couldn't have existed. Does this mean there are other spacebeibers? Another thing is that his mere presence refutes what sovereign said in ME1 when he said "each of us are a nation, independent" because he is the god of reapers.

[IronSabbath88]

So Tricia is doing new voice work huh?

Fantastic. If you ask me, this lends credibility to the fact that all may not have been what it seemed.

[Simon_Says]

SS2Dante wrote...

Well, several. One is that the entire theme of the game is the repeated cycle, in which we have been told several times that at some point there is a synthetic organic war.

The cycle is about the Reapers destroying organic civilizations. Yes, there were organic/synthetic conflicts in both the prothean and council cycles, but unless I'm very much mistaken, the protheans won the former and the quarians could have won the latter had the reapers not intervened.

SS2Dante wrote...

Second is the starchild. You can either believe everything he says, or nothing. There really isn't a middle ground, because then you're just picking and choosing the stuff you like, and you can debate about it forever without any answers. Without IT there isn't a serious, practical reason to disbelieve a being MUCH older than you, that has seen MUCH more than you.

The point of what I'm saying is that nothing the Catalyst says can be trusted or taken seriously, as its explanation and argument for the reaper cycle is inherently flawed. And there are practical reasons to distrust an ancient intelligence. It being active or complacent in the genocide of entire species being one of them. And being ancient and well experienced does not prevent anyone, anyone from having mistaken beliefs, assumptions, or being immune to good old fashioned insanity or malice. If the Catalyst survived so long then yes, I doubt that it's stupid. Doesn't mean that it's either lying or frelling paranoid.

SS2Dante wrote...

Third is the basic nature of warfare. All species fight. However, synthetics are generally better at physical tasks like warfare. So they will win wars (just as they did when they rebelled). Even if they had no statistical advantage, all it takes is one synthetic race to win by accident, and organic life is done. The probability of this on a long enough timeline is very high.

Like I said, even if the odds are tiny, from a galactic timeline view, it's going to happen.

Even if we can assume that this is indeed the case, and we still have no evidence that it is. Yes it's a realisitc possibility as Project Overlord showed. BUT... We never hear of the Catalyst or the reapers trying anything to prevent this cataclysm except to burn galactic civilizations to the ground. I asked earlier, why didn't the reapers communicate their objectives? Why don't the reapers take an active affair in galactic affairs to prevent any race, organic or synthetic, from taking over? Why whip out the hammer every few millenia when they obviously have the time and power to oversee the galaxy and steee it's development in non-destructive ways? Instead, Sovereign, Harbinger, and Rannochdude don't communicate anything but their arrogance and contempt for organic life. Yeah.

Doesn't matter how good your reasons are. You can't claim the ends justify the means without proving that all other means weren't attempted. Ultiamtely, if we could even believe that the Catalyst believes what it said, then I see no other interpretation than that the Catalyst and the reapers are the very devils they claim to prevent.

Modifié par Simon_Says, 26 avril 2012 - 11:28 .

[HellishFiend]

UrgedDuke wrote...

I thought of something a during my last playthrough of the ending:

spacebeiber tells you that he controls the reapers, and that they are his solution. However when he talks about the inevitable war between organics and synthetics, he says "we found a way to stop that from happening." who is the "we" he is referring to. If they reapers were his solution they wouldn't have existed before he found a solution. Also if each reaper is old life stored in that form, they couldn't have existed. Does this mean there are other spacebeibers? Another thing is that his mere presence refutes what sovereign said in ME1 when he said "each of us are a nation, independent" because he is the god of reapers.

Yep, one of the many, many inconsistencies in starbrat's dialog is the fact that he refers to himself as both a sole creator type individual and also part of some kind of collective. 

[waldstr18]

spotlessvoid wrote...

BUT YOU ADMIT YOU ARE GOING TO TROLL IF YOU'RE PROVEN RIGHT! YOU ARE TOTALLY DISINGENUOUS!

If someone threatens to harm you, should you remain civil until the crime is actually committed?
I'm not buying a damned thing coming out of your mouth.
You know what you're doing here, just because you bounce back and forth from antagonizing this thread to playing the innocent victim doesn't change anything. The regulars here know who and what you are.

You hate IDT and your disdain pours out from almost every post you make.

Maybe you really are delusional enough to think you aren't flaming, but you sir are a troll.

i like you, too.

i totally respect the guys who came up with the idt and i stated that a few times already. if you are offended by any of my previous posts, well, i dont care anymore. be offended. i dont win a cake either way. i also dont play the vicitm. how can i even do that when im openly admitting that im going to troll you once the idt is proven? as for that being a crime; thats a little harsh, isnt it? its not like im going to show up in your living room and stab you to death. also i dont lie. why should i? there is nothing to gain or to evade here. i dont hate the idt. i dont like people who are certain of things. those are the ones who i want to troll.

but i promise, once im done trolling the certainty guys, im going to troll the angry ones, and judging from your caps usage you might be one of their leaders.

also, thats mr. troll to you!

thanks for the new vocabulary though. "disingenuous" nice.

[paxxton]

HellishFiend wrote...

UrgedDuke wrote...

I thought of something a during my last playthrough of the ending:

spacebeiber tells you that he controls the reapers, and that they are his solution. However when he talks about the inevitable war between organics and synthetics, he says "we found a way to stop that from happening." who is the "we" he is referring to. If they reapers were his solution they wouldn't have existed before he found a solution. Also if each reaper is old life stored in that form, they couldn't have existed. Does this mean there are other spacebeibers? Another thing is that his mere presence refutes what sovereign said in ME1 when he said "each of us are a nation, independent" because he is the god of reapers.

Yep, one of the many, many inconsistencies in starbrat's dialog is the fact that he refers to himself as both a sole creator type individual and also part of some kind of collective. 

"We are the harbinger of your perfection."

Modifié par paxxton, 26 avril 2012 - 11:22 .

[ExtendedCut]

Uncle Jo wrote...

Synthesis is (bad) hidden form of totalitarianism... It might sound nice and all but it's a trap...  Making people/species evolve in the way YOU want with no other alternative... About control, I know Shep can do many things, but is a mere human, so control the Reapers ? The Starchild ? No way in hell...
I'm not really the IT person, but I can't take the face-value ending as plausible...
Same here. I enjoy reading this thread and eventually conversations with nice people

I have a question about what you touched on here with Control.  I apologize if this has been mentioned - actually, I'm sure it probably has.

Anyway, the question:  What exactly does Control mean in terms of the "Controller"?  Is Shepard the Controller?  If so, what happens when he gets old and dies?  Considering that he DOES die, then is humanity the Controller of the Reapers?  Or are all the races supposed to find some politically-governed way of controlling the Reapers?

Is there ANY kind of explanation that I haven't heard about what really happens in Control?

Am I clueless or is this another one of those very-poorly-explained (one out of many) parts of the ending?

[Gormane01]

DTKT wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

Your entire argument is based on emotional and moral grounds, not calculations of likelihood. 

SS2Dante wrote...

...and the odds of synthetics destroying everything on a large enough timeline are practically 100%

What data do we even have to use for the calculations of likelihood?

That's right, practically none. The starbrat claims that the created will always rebel against their creators, eventually leading to destruction. No evidence to back this up, despite some (not plenty, honestly) to the contrary. So we can't take this statement to be a conclusion derived from fact. It's an assumption. A possibly false one at that.

The problem with the Catalyst is that, with the information presented, there are simply too many unanswered questions and too few answers from this character to safely assume it even knows what the hell it's talking about, or what it's real intentions are.

Well, several. One is that the entire theme of the game is the repeated cycle, in which we have been told several times that at some point there is a synthetic organic war.

Second is the starchild. You can either believe everything he says, or nothing. There really isn't a middle ground, because then you're just picking and choosing the stuff you like, and you can debate about it forever without any answers. Without IT there isn't a serious, practical reason to disbelieve a being MUCH older than you, that has seen MUCH more than you.

Third is the basic nature of warfare. All species fight. However, synthetics are generally better at physical tasks like warfare. So they will win wars (just as the Geth did when they rebelled). Even if they had no statistical advantage, all it takes is one synthetic race to win by accident, and organic life is done. The probability of this on a long enough timeline is very high.

Like I said, even if the odds are tiny, from a galactic timeline view, it's going to happen.

Anyway, repeating myself now from earler debates and since we're into speculation I'm leaving it (I know I said that last post but this time I MEAN IT )

All I can say about the Geth and the Quarians is this.  Remember that the QUARIANS struck first. The Geth didn't rebel, they were attacked first.  They only did what almost any being would do, they fought back to defend themselves.  The Geth also let the Quarians leave Rannoch rather than destroying them when they had the chance.  All this is explained in the Rannoch: Geth Figher Squadrons mission.  If you don't believe me, go back and replay the mission.  I know I'm going to be pretty soon.

To be specific, the Geth started to behave in a way that was unanticipated and unwanted by the Quarians. This can be considered a form of rebellion from the Quarians' point of view.

Yeah, the became sentient...

Does that justify a genocide?

You just asked a question that cannot be answered, A Tech Singularity is compelling for just this reason. We can't predict what could happen if one does occur. The Quarians realised they had created an AI. They tried to switch it off to prevent it being a problem . It created a bigger one. Neither side was really at fault...

[balance5050]

No infighting!

But... logic where you have to put yourself in the mindset of any abstract thing is not good logic.

If I were a hamster it would make sense to fill my cheeks up with food pellets... but I'm not a hamster.

I guess if I was some old AI program who hasn't seen the light of day (figuratively) for hundreds of thousands of years, but somehow immediately sees into Shepard's mind when he sees him, but conveniently ignores all of the memories that would render his logic invalid, I could see how endless cycles of evolutionary reboots could see like a good idea, I'm not a star brat. Blatant fallacies, and his new "solutions" make less sense then his old "solutions".... except destroy.

Modifié par balance5050, 26 avril 2012 - 11:25 .

[HellishFiend]

balance5050 wrote...


But... logic where you have to put yourself in the mindset of any abstract thing is not good logic.

That was the point of my edit on the previous page. My post pointed out a flaw in the logic of just one of starbrat's assertions, but I also felt it necessary to point out that the assumptions and premises of that flawed logic were also....you guessed it, flawed logic. 

[Gormane01]

ExtendedCut wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

Synthesis is (bad) hidden form of totalitarianism... It might sound nice and all but it's a trap...  Making people/species evolve in the way YOU want with no other alternative... About control, I know Shep can do many things, but is a mere human, so control the Reapers ? The Starchild ? No way in hell...
I'm not really the IT person, but I can't take the face-value ending as plausible...
Same here. I enjoy reading this thread and eventually conversations with nice people

I have a question about what you touched on here with Control.  I apologize if this has been mentioned - actually, I'm sure it probably has.

Anyway, the question:  What exactly does Control mean in terms of the "Controller"?  Is Shepard the Controller?  If so, what happens when he gets old and dies?  Considering that he DOES die, then is humanity the Controller of the Reapers?  Or are all the races supposed to find some politically-governed way of controlling the Reapers?

Is there ANY kind of explanation that I haven't heard about what really happens in Control?

Am I clueless or is this another one of those very-poorly-explained (one out of many) parts of the ending?

Noone really knows, we can't understand this as no explaination is given. Shep does burn up though, so natural to assume that they will live on eternally through some unexplained means and continue controlling the Reapers (presuming that IT isn't correct) additional ReaperBeiber's logic is that Shep will see the error in their initial choice and return to continue the cycle when Sythetics threaten organics again.

Modifié par Gormane01, 26 avril 2012 - 11:25 .

[Dwailing]

waldstr18 wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

BUT YOU ADMIT YOU ARE GOING TO TROLL IF YOU'RE PROVEN RIGHT! YOU ARE TOTALLY DISINGENUOUS!

If someone threatens to harm you, should you remain civil until the crime is actually committed?
I'm not buying a damned thing coming out of your mouth.
You know what you're doing here, just because you bounce back and forth from antagonizing this thread to playing the innocent victim doesn't change anything. The regulars here know who and what you are.

You hate IDT and your disdain pours out from almost every post you make.

Maybe you really are delusional enough to think you aren't flaming, but you sir are a troll.

i like you, too.

i totally respect the guys who came up with the idt and i stated that a few times already. if you are offended by any of my previous posts, well, i dont care anymore. be offended. i dont win a cake either way. i also dont play the vicitm. how can i even do that when im openly admitting that im going to troll you once the idt is proven? as for that being a crime; thats a little harsh, isnt it? its not like im going to show up in your living room and stab you to death. also i dont lie. why should i? there is nothing to gain or to evade here. i dont hate the idt. i dont like people who are certain of things. those are the ones who i want to troll.

but i promise, once im done trolling the certainty guys, im going to troll the angry ones, and judging from your caps usage you might be one of their leaders.

also, thats mr. troll to you!

thanks for the new vocabulary though. "disingenuous" nice.

You just proved once an for all that you've never played ME2.  I mean, I knew that you probably hadn't since it wasn't listed under your image, but this confirms it, because if you had, no matter if you're Paragon or Renegade, you would have had to have punched the reporter at LEAST once just to say you did.

[SS2Dante]

HellishFiend wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

byne wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

All I can say about the Geth and the Quarians is this.  Remember that the QUARIANS struck first. The Geth didn't rebel, they were attacked first.  They only did what almost any being would do, they fought back to defend themselves.  The Geth also let the Quarians leave Rannoch rather than destroying them when they had the chance.  All this is explained in the Rannoch: Geth Figher Squadrons mission.  If you don't believe me, go back and replay the mission.  I know I'm going to be pretty soon.

Oh god, not this again!

I spent like 3 hours last night in /vg/ debating who was at fault for the Morning War...

Byne Byne Byyyyne they all started to talk about the starchilds logic agaaaaain, and for AGES I was good and kept quiet. You missed it!

Then I cracked. But I'm done now  

Good, cuz you're wrong.  This isnt a theoretical discussion where there is no right and wrong. Logic can be right or wrong, and the Starbrat's is most definitely, unmistakably wrong. If I didnt prove that with my post on the last page, I dont know how else to spell it out. 

Actually your argument was based on one sentence of the childs statement, in which the word "hope" is interchangeable with the word "choice" in the dialogue

http://www.youtube.c...czhHtqgY#t=953s

Besides which, I interpreted the starchild "hope" as referring to the hope generated by...you know...surviving the cycle. Not a solid platform for a proof.

Anyway DAMMIT I said I'm done

EDIT - also, something the starchild says is not really relevent to deciding whether or not exterminating organics every 50000 years prevents their destruction by synthetics. 

Modifié par SS2Dante, 26 avril 2012 - 11:38 .

[HellishFiend]

ExtendedCut wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

Synthesis is (bad) hidden form of totalitarianism... It might sound nice and all but it's a trap...  Making people/species evolve in the way YOU want with no other alternative... About control, I know Shep can do many things, but is a mere human, so control the Reapers ? The Starchild ? No way in hell...
I'm not really the IT person, but I can't take the face-value ending as plausible...
Same here. I enjoy reading this thread and eventually conversations with nice people

I have a question about what you touched on here with Control.  I apologize if this has been mentioned - actually, I'm sure it probably has.

Anyway, the question:  What exactly does Control mean in terms of the "Controller"?  Is Shepard the Controller?  If so, what happens when he gets old and dies?  Considering that he DOES die, then is humanity the Controller of the Reapers?  Or are all the races supposed to find some politically-governed way of controlling the Reapers?

Is there ANY kind of explanation that I haven't heard about what really happens in Control?

Am I clueless or is this another one of those very-poorly-explained (one out of many) parts of the ending?

The face value interpretation can ONLY infer the two following possibilities:

• Shepard gave orders or otherwise imprinted some force of will or decision making onto all reapers upon his connection to the terminal and prior to his death.
• Shepard's consciousness was absorbed into the Citadel, allowing him ongoing, continuous, and/or real-time control over the reapers. 

In my mind, there are no other possibilities that can be inferred or implied by the control ending. 

[balance5050]

Dwailing wrote...

waldstr18 wrote...


thanks for the new vocabulary though. "disingenuous" nice.

You just proved once an for all that you've never played ME2.  I mean, I knew that you probably hadn't since it wasn't listed under your image, but this confirms it, because if you had, no matter if you're Paragon or Renegade, you would have had to have punched the reporter at LEAST once just to say you did.

I know, he completetly fails at references.

Modifié par balance5050, 26 avril 2012 - 11:28 .

[UrgedDuke]

paxxton wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

UrgedDuke wrote...

I thought of something a during my last playthrough of the ending:

spacebeiber tells you that he controls the reapers, and that they are his solution. However when he talks about the inevitable war between organics and synthetics, he says "we found a way to stop that from happening." who is the "we" he is referring to. If they reapers were his solution they wouldn't have existed before he found a solution. Also if each reaper is old life stored in that form, they couldn't have existed. Does this mean there are other spacebeibers? Another thing is that his mere presence refutes what sovereign said in ME1 when he said "each of us are a nation, independent" because he is the god of reapers.

Yep, one of the many, many inconsistencies in starbrat's dialog is the fact that he refers to himself as both a sole creator type individual and also part of some kind of collective. 

"We are the harbinger of your perfection."

he also says "without us synthetics will destroy all organics." Now first of all how does he know this, it obviously hasn't happened yet. Also who is this us he is refering to... the reapers? if they are his pawns why does he view them as equals

Modifié par UrgedDuke, 26 avril 2012 - 11:29 .

[paxxton]

balance5050 wrote...

But... logic where you have to put yourself in the mindset of any abstract thing is not good logic.

On the contrary, it is very preferrable in order to widen one's views on things. Actually humans do it all the time.

[Uncle Jo]

TheConstantOne wrote...


On synthesis: I can't deny that it does give everyone an upgrade without their consent.  But you can't always wait around for someone's permission.  Sometimes a definite course for everyone has to be decided for the greater good particularly when the alternative is killing a large number of synthetic lifefroms (which I consider to be genuine life in its own right) and taking control of killing machines that might overpower my mind. 

On control: My last sentence clearly illustrates that I agree with you here   However, this doesn't invalidate my interpretation of what Reaper Bieiber is trying to present here.  Nor does it invalidate your line of thought.

On destroy: Anderson quote "There's always...another way." The irony here is you see the image of him blowing up the tubes.

In short, while I personally think synthesis forced on everyone in such a manner is morally ambiguous (I like the idea but I'm sure many don't) I considered it to have the least negative impact for everyone.  Again just my opinion.  As for the ending being taken at face-value, I don't think it's entirely real either. I mean... a magic elevator?  I think it's a hallucination caused by the Crucible to explain to Shep how to use the control panel but, until EC, I don't think any of us have an answer to this

I know we can discuss about it for hours. But I had to react when I read this (the sentence that is underlined). You don't have the right to change someone without their consent. Never ever. If you start something like that, there is no ending  and it always get worse. Hell is paved wiht good intents. The human history is full of these examples of forcibly changing people for the greater good...

The Reapers play by their own rules not ours, thus they represent a threat for us. They don't want to coexist with us (remember, one of the main themes in Mass effect is peaceful coexistence between different species).

Anderson said "there is another way" when TIM was convinced the only solution was to control the Reapers, so what he did (destroying the Tank) was coherent...

Yeah the IT is not officially approved by BioWare and till the DLC there are only speculations... But good and coherent ones. The most of the anti-IT who come here, (Thanks God there are some exceptions) just post a pile of c**p, dont bring counterarguments and then go eventually. There is one of them actually here...That saddens me...

[HellishFiend]

SS2Dante wrote...

Actually your argument was based on one sentence of the childs statement, in which the word "hope" is interchangeable with the word "choice" in the dialogue

http://www.youtube.c...czhHtqgY#t=953s

Besides which, I interpreted the starchild "hope" as referring to the hope generated by...you know...surviving the cycle. Not a solid platform for a proof.

Anyway DAMMIT I said I'm done

Logic can be picked apart at any level, including but not limited to "one sentence of the child's statement". As I said, Logic is not something that is up for interpretation, its, at its core, a form of math that is either correct or incorrect. The mere fact that starbrat's logic is based on unverifiable assertions and unproven assumptions is grounds for writing off nearly every word that comes out of his mouth. His logic can be destroyed on any level, from his most basic postulations to his overall conclusions. 

[waldstr18]

Dwailing wrote...

waldstr18 wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

BUT YOU ADMIT YOU ARE GOING TO TROLL IF YOU'RE PROVEN RIGHT! YOU ARE TOTALLY DISINGENUOUS!

If someone threatens to harm you, should you remain civil until the crime is actually committed?
I'm not buying a damned thing coming out of your mouth.
You know what you're doing here, just because you bounce back and forth from antagonizing this thread to playing the innocent victim doesn't change anything. The regulars here know who and what you are.

You hate IDT and your disdain pours out from almost every post you make.

Maybe you really are delusional enough to think you aren't flaming, but you sir are a troll.

i like you, too.

i totally respect the guys who came up with the idt and i stated that a few times already. if you are offended by any of my previous posts, well, i dont care anymore. be offended. i dont win a cake either way. i also dont play the vicitm. how can i even do that when im openly admitting that im going to troll you once the idt is proven? as for that being a crime; thats a little harsh, isnt it? its not like im going to show up in your living room and stab you to death. also i dont lie. why should i? there is nothing to gain or to evade here. i dont hate the idt. i dont like people who are certain of things. those are the ones who i want to troll.

but i promise, once im done trolling the certainty guys, im going to troll the angry ones, and judging from your caps usage you might be one of their leaders.

also, thats mr. troll to you!

thanks for the new vocabulary though. "disingenuous" nice.

You just proved once an for all that you've never played ME2.  I mean, I knew that you probably hadn't since it wasn't listed under your image, but this confirms it, because if you had, no matter if you're Paragon or Renegade, you would have had to have punched the reporter at LEAST once just to say you did.

its been a few month but, what? 

let me think. me2, reporter. yes, there was one. but i think not the one from the first. but im not sure. and ... the reporters are always girls. im not in the habbit of punching girls. didnt punch anyone in me2. oh, wait, not true, me2 had melee combat. so i punshed a lot of guys, but never during dialog.

but i dont get what you mean? did i say i have punched a reporter? are you talking to me at all? whats going on here? who are you anyhow and what are you doing here? i want my lawyer!

[HellishFiend]

paxxton wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

But... logic where you have to put yourself in the mindset of any abstract thing is not good logic.

On the contrary, it is very preferrable in order to widen one's views on things. Actually humans do it all the time.

Actually, you are confusing perspective with logic. Putting yourself in the mindset of an abstract is all well and good for your perspective, as you say, but it is most definitely NOT good logic.