57139 réponses à ce sujet

[TheConstantOne]

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?

Reaper Bieiber says you "you will control us but you will lose everything you are." I took this to mean that Sheaprd's mind and being are essentially scanned but the Crucible and turned into an AI.  The Shepard AI is then transmitted by the Crucible to all of the Reapers via a command signal.

That's just MY interpretation.  I think it makes sense but it was never clearly explained in-game.  Much like synthesis, you just have to extrapolate something plausible if you're someone like me and doesn't believe IT is the way to go

[SS2Dante]

Simon_Says wrote...

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.

I said I'm done and I mean it, so I'm just pointing out one logical flaw in your argument in a general manner

" nothing the Catalyst says can be trusted or taken seriously, as its explanation and argument for the reaper cycle is inherently flawed.  "

We are arguing over whether his argument is flawed. You cannot include the thing you are trying to prove as proof. 

[Dwailing]

waldstr18 wrote...

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!

I would suggest looking it up on YouTube.  You sound like you need to laugh a bit more.  (Don't we all?)

[SS2Dante]

HellishFiend wrote...

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. 

No such thing as "good" logic since we organic creatures unfortunately take value judgements into consideration.

Not that I don't believe there is correct logic, just that we have too many biases to ever be able to see it too clearly/properly. Logic is mounted on perspective, alas.

[waldstr18]

i wouldnt even know what to look for. link?

[SS2Dante]

Right ok it's been cool debating guys Now I have to sleep Bye.

EDIT - actually gone  

Modifié par SS2Dante, 26 avril 2012 - 11:45 .

[paxxton]

HellishFiend wrote...

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. 

But can you really change perspective without understanding the logic of the target mindset?

[Dwailing]

waldstr18 wrote...

i wouldnt even know what to look for. link?

  Here you go!

[Simon_Says]

SS2Dante wrote...

I said I'm done and I mean it, so I'm just pointing out one logical flaw in your argument in a general manner

" nothing the Catalyst says can be trusted or taken seriously, as its explanation and argument for the reaper cycle is inherently flawed.  "

We are arguing over whether his argument is flawed. You cannot include the thing you are trying to prove as proof.

No, I'm not using it as proof. You brought it up and I took that opportunity to state that that was the thesis to my entire argument.
And I don't care if you're leaving, we can always come back and go at this again tommorow.

Modifié par Simon_Says, 26 avril 2012 - 11:36 .

[balance5050]

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.

*Hard Sigh* why would I need to see things from the point of view of the very thing that is killing me and everyone I know? An elk doesn't need to understand why the wolf hunts, it just know to try and survive no matter what.

The AI has been locked away for so long that what it thinks it knows is irrelevant to OUR problem, which is being killed every 50000 years.

What if they simply used us for food? You can agree with the logic then to, but it is completly irrelevant. 

[spotlessvoid]

Dwailing wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

waldstr18 wrote...

@dwailing

i actually left the first time i was here, cause someone called me troll out of the blue. but then a few days later i came back and someone actually posted hes glad to see me back here, cause he liked the points i made and he was afraid that the rude guy chased me off. i even got some personal messages from people saying i shouldnt take the inpolite posters serious.

so i figure even though some of you have nothing better to do than fight with me over whos a troll and who isnt, others just like to read the posts while contemplating about whether or not they should believe in the theory.

after awhile i of course gave up the arguing and just came in here asking if something has been proven and if you are still following the theory. that seemed to offend people the most, which i can actually understand. even though i didnt mean to offend anyone. but since ive been called a troll without reason the first time i came here, i dont see why i should be bothered by anyone calling me a troll now. its an over used word anyhow, so who cares?

now if you call someone else a troll while im here - that i dont care for. and since i liked getting defended by someone else, i have to defend my follow non believers as well, if they get teamed up on just for posting here. which then ends with everyone teaming up on me again, but i dont care, now im used to it and its just a online forum. you dont know me, i dont know you. who knows what kind of horrible troubles some of you have to deal with outside this thread.

oh, and i like to talk of course.

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.

OK that's ENOUGH.  I've had enough of hate on this thread.  Can we all just CALM THE FRAK DOWN!?  Thank you!

Seriously? Same logic used in the school system I grew up in. Both kids get suspended for fighting, doesn't matter if some bully comes up and punches you and all you do is defend yourself. Don't even frakin try to paint me in the same light as waldstr. I'm not the one making provocative comments and insulting people for fun. Like he admits.

This thread had turned for the worse, and it sure isn't because of the regulars. Don't you find it curious that most of the users who contribute the most, the ones who have basically made this thread what it is, have the biggest problem with him?

But going forward, i'm going to take DJBares advice to me and just completely stay out of it

[ExtendedCut]

HellishFiend wrote...

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. 

Your interpretation makes sense to me, but, since Starbrat supposedly (according to himself) controls the Reapers, then wouldn't that mean that Shepard would somehow become the new, improved Starbrat? 

I agree that the only way that the Control ending would work, is if Shepard somehow turned into some kind of "immortal" (especially considering that his body dies almost immediately), although there is absolutely no precedent for "Ascension" or anything like that is the Mass Effect Universe.  Is there?

More support for IT, I guess.

[waldstr18]

thats very nice of you, thanks.

oh, disingenuous! i never punched her, like i said. but if thats proof for you that i havent played 2.. ok.

[HellishFiend]

SS2Dante wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

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. 

No such thing as "good" logic since we organic creatures unfortunately take value judgements into consideration.

Not that I don't believe there is correct logic, just that we have too many biases to ever be able to see it too clearly/properly. Logic is mounted on perspective, alas.

No, it's not. Dante, as a fellow IT supporter, I love you, but the more this goes on, the more I'm convinced that you really dont know what logic is, or how it works. You really should read up on it, because it seems like you have a genuine desire to understand it and use it. As it stands though, you really dont.... 

[HellishFiend]

paxxton wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

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. 

But can you really change perspective without understanding the logic of the target mindset?

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. 

[Gormane01]

UrgedDuke wrote...

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

Bloody good point, I never noticed that before. Doesn't he always using a first person, i.e. 'I am the Catalyst', when does he switch to 3'rd???

Surely Bioware just don't make mistakes like this, I can't decide if IT is right or not but there is sssoooo many errors in the ending they couldn't have done it on mistake.

[balance5050]

SS2Dante wrote...

No such thing as "good" logic since we organic creatures unfortunately take value judgements into consideration.

Not that I don't believe there is correct logic, just that we have too many biases to ever be able to see it too clearly/properly. Logic is mounted on perspective, alas.

Ok, so now you fail to see the logic of your own race;
 "we organic creatures unfortunately take value judgements into consideration."

What value judgements are involved with wanting to destroy the reapers? Is it not logical to want to destroy the thing that is trying to destroy you?

[Uncle Jo]

ExtendedCut wrote...


Your interpretation makes sense to me, but, since Starbrat supposedly (according to himself) controls the Reapers, then wouldn't that mean that Shepard would somehow become the new, improved Starbrat? 

I agree that the only way that the Control ending would work, is if Shepard somehow turned into some kind of "immortal" (especially considering that his body dies almost immediately), although there is absolutely no precedent for "Ascension" or anything like that is the Mass Effect Universe.  Is there?

More support for IT, I guess.

This^^^. I loved it.

Edit: Hellishfiend I owe you one again...

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 26 avril 2012 - 11:42 .

[HellishFiend]

ExtendedCut wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

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. 

Your interpretation makes sense to me, but, since Starbrat supposedly (according to himself) controls the Reapers, then wouldn't that mean that Shepard would somehow become the new, improved Starbrat? 

I agree that the only way that the Control ending would work, is if Shepard somehow turned into some kind of "immortal" (especially considering that his body dies almost immediately), although there is absolutely no precedent for "Ascension" or anything like that is the Mass Effect Universe.  Is there?

More support for IT, I guess.

Agreed. If Shepard is absorbed into the Citadel, he, for all intents and purposes, becomes the new starbrat. 

[waldstr18]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Seriously? Same logic used in the school system I grew up in. Both kids get suspended for fighting, doesn't matter if some bully comes up and punches you and all you do is defend yourself. Don't even frakin try to paint me in the same light as waldstr. I'm not the one making provocative comments and insulting people for fun. Like he admits.

This thread had turned for the worse, and it sure isn't because of the regulars. Don't you find it curious that most of the users who contribute the most, the ones who have basically made this thread what it is, have the biggest problem with him?

But going forward, i'm going to take DJBares advice to me and just completely stay out of it

like i admit? you are the one with the delusions, i think. i admitted that im going to do that in the future. as in im not doing it now. dont make stuff up and call me a liar.

[balance5050]

waldstr18 wrote...

thats very nice of you, thanks.

oh, disingenuous! i never punched her, like i said. but if thats proof for you that i havent played 2.. ok.

It's just proof that we are working with more information then you (obviously).

[Dwailing]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

waldstr18 wrote...

@dwailing

i actually left the first time i was here, cause someone called me troll out of the blue. but then a few days later i came back and someone actually posted hes glad to see me back here, cause he liked the points i made and he was afraid that the rude guy chased me off. i even got some personal messages from people saying i shouldnt take the inpolite posters serious.

so i figure even though some of you have nothing better to do than fight with me over whos a troll and who isnt, others just like to read the posts while contemplating about whether or not they should believe in the theory.

after awhile i of course gave up the arguing and just came in here asking if something has been proven and if you are still following the theory. that seemed to offend people the most, which i can actually understand. even though i didnt mean to offend anyone. but since ive been called a troll without reason the first time i came here, i dont see why i should be bothered by anyone calling me a troll now. its an over used word anyhow, so who cares?

now if you call someone else a troll while im here - that i dont care for. and since i liked getting defended by someone else, i have to defend my follow non believers as well, if they get teamed up on just for posting here. which then ends with everyone teaming up on me again, but i dont care, now im used to it and its just a online forum. you dont know me, i dont know you. who knows what kind of horrible troubles some of you have to deal with outside this thread.

oh, and i like to talk of course.

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.

OK that's ENOUGH.  I've had enough of hate on this thread.  Can we all just CALM THE FRAK DOWN!?  Thank you!

Seriously? Same logic used in the school system I grew up in. Both kids get suspended for fighting, doesn't matter if some bully comes up and punches you and all you do is defend yourself. Don't even frakin try to paint me in the same light as waldstr. I'm not the one making provocative comments and insulting people for fun. Like he admits.

This thread had turned for the worse, and it sure isn't because of the regulars. Don't you find it curious that most of the users who contribute the most, the ones who have basically made this thread what it is, have the biggest problem with him?

But going forward, i'm going to take DJBares advice to me and just completely stay out of it

Excuse me?  I've been here for a while now, or at least, I like to think so.  Also, I think the best idea with waldstr18 is to just ignore him.  Don't feed the troll, as the line goes.  Look, I don't really like him either.  I don't hate him, I just don't like him.  But, I think we've gotten way too angry on this thread and we all need to take a step back and breathe.  Also, I'm not trying to paint you in the same light.  I understand that you are just responding to what he said.  However, there is a big difference between an insult and a punch.  The punch you have to respond to, the insult, not so much.  I just think we all need to calm down a little.  

[waldstr18]

thats nothing new. i posted a while back that ive never played renegade. doesnt make your theory less false, though, sorry.

[TheConstantOne]

Uncle Jo wrote...

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...

Hehe yeah, I don't think we'll ever come to an agreement on this topic and will only achieve large walls of text.  There are good and bad examples of forced change in history but...we'll have to agree to disagree. 

Anderson blowing up the tubes is coherent...the irony I referred to was my mentioning him to *discourage* destroy haha.

And to address your last game point, peaceful coexistence with the Reapers pre-ending is definitely not going to happen. My belief was that, with synthesis, the justification they're been forced to adhere to is no longer valid and they won't feel the need to destroy us.  If they are in the same mindset as the geth, they won't attack unless they feel threatened, once the synthesis occurs.  And if they were indeed forced to follow such bizarre logic by a programming constraint, perhaps they can reveal what race created the cycle, why they did so, and where they are now.  But that's speculation for ME 4 and it's waaaaaaaaayyyyyy too early for that.

It is a shame that more anti-IT people can't have civil discussions.  I'm sure some ITers are guilty of this crime as well but its hard to see them in this thread where they are the ones being attacked.  Hell, its rare to see two non-ITers like us to have a civil discussion over ending ethics.  Kudos to you sir.  

[SS2Dante]

HellishFiend wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

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. 

No such thing as "good" logic since we organic creatures unfortunately take value judgements into consideration.

Not that I don't believe there is correct logic, just that we have too many biases to ever be able to see it too clearly/properly. Logic is mounted on perspective, alas.

No, it's not. Dante, as a fellow IT supporter, I love you, but the more this goes on, the more I'm convinced that you really dont know what logic is, or how it works. You really should read up on it, because it seems like you have a genuine desire to understand it and use it. As it stands though, you really dont.... 

Mathematical logic? Logical equivalances, tautologies, implication, stuff like that? (good old de morgan ) Mathematically we're set, yes, but you can't break down a sufficiently complex real world situation like this into the correct model to really reflect it accurately, was all I meant. In doing so you will inevitably make a mistake based on a value judgement you don't know you're making. The actual logic will be sound, but the initial conditions will be wrong.