418 réponses à ce sujet

[Militarized]

hippojoe wrote...

suusuuu wrote...

OP didn't understand the whole Geth "rebellion" thing, maybe didn't have Legion loyalty the Geth were getting exterminated by the Quarian because they started asking if they have a soul. Exterminated. Remained loyal to those who didn't attack them. When all of the Quarians who opposed the extermination were killed, Geth started to protect themselves.

you guys know this was stated in the first game right? like, the first conversation you have with tali on the normandy...

Which again goes back to my post a couple up, the entire thing was about "are the machines sentient?". The soul thing is a dumb way to word it but for emotional people, it gets the point across. It was never, EVER about a singularity. They threw that in with the starchild as a "LOTS OF SPECULATION" TROLOLOLOL thing. And it's obvious, and it backfired. 

[Ciiran]

xeNNN wrote...

Ciiran wrote...

xeNNN wrote...

Ciiran wrote...

I've seen the argument here a few times and something bothered me about it.
"Peace between the Geth and the Quarians and EDIs personality proves that synthetics does not always rebel against their creators." or variations of the same sentiment.

First off, both did. Geth rebelled against quarians and EDI against Cerberus/TIM. That they were justified to do so is irrelevant. The point is that the power or the potential power of synthetics could be catastrophic. 

Secondly, the Catalyst never claimed that all synthetics always wipe out all organics, nor that it happens straight away. The Geth or indeed EDI, could very well end up gunning for total oranic destruction in 500 years, or 5 years, or never.

It does not matter. If you can show me 1 000 000 synthetic civilizations that act peacefully and only fight in self defence and the Catalyst can show you just one that is act as organocidal devil-machines, he wins the argument. His reasoning is that all it takes is one and he sacrifies all advanced organic civilizations every 50 000 years to prevent that. Neither the Geth, nor EDI, disproves anything.

Here is how his argument actually fails. Logically I mean. His premise might still be correct.
His argument is unfalsifiable. That's a big no no when constructing arguments. It's a clever rethorical device, but that does not make it true. Whatever example we fling at him he will respond "they might do it in the future or another synthetic will do it in the future. Eventually". Whatever we say and whenever we say it the Catalyst will never be proven wrong.

The real problem with this? It can be used to rationalize almost everything. He could exchange synthetics with "organics sprung from war like societies" and be just as right with the motivation that other civilizations will buff them. Like what was done with the Krogan. And given enough time he would be correct, and most importantly, his argument could not be disproven.

the geth didnt rebel the quarians decided they must be destroyed when they believed it was getting out of hand because the geth were asking if they had souls, the geth defended themselves. 

if edi went back to cerberus or something and they found out she was unshackled the ullusive man would of put the shackles back on in turn she defended herself by making sure she didnt interfere with shepard and the crew from going back to the alliance in turn she pretended to be a VI that only responds to jokers comands instead of an AI or they would of shackled her.  (the cerberus thing is an assumption however plausible and accurate of the illusive mans character) 

so neither rebeled, simply defend themselves and the geth were even allied with some quarians during when they were defending themselves because some of there creators wanted to help defend them so yeah. same with edi.. she allied with orangics to defend herself aswell so the point is invalid and so is the logic, he opinion is illogical and doesnt work, he is also synthetic so his whole point about synthetics rebeling against organics is a contridiction so the EDI/geth arguement still stands because they didnt rebel they defended themselves while at the same time proving that not all synthetics rebel against their creators if that were true the geth would of killed the master who didnt want to kill the geth aswell and edi would of killed every single one of the crew and flew off.  

so yeah . lol.

(the geth allied with some of their creators thing is an interpretation ive made from Legions network mission, very plausible and valid from the video's you watch while on mission so.)

Please read the actual definitions of "rebellion", you'll find it in other places in the thread. Thank you. lol

i edited my post...  theortically youd need to be a citizen to rebel against said goverment , but geth and edi were tools not people.

also actually reply to the comment next time instead of just saying a 1 liner to sound superior lol. 

Theoretically? They rebelled against their authority. You can twist it around however much you like, they still rebelled.

I didn't need more than that, your post just rehashed what others have said. And it was based on an erroneus definition of "rebellion". Like you just found out. You can post hoc your post as much as you like, but if you are calling them tools, then they are just rebelling tools. And I'm betting no government gives any rights to tools.

lol 

[Ciiran]

viperabyss wrote...
So, your response to my logically sound post, proving the Reapers are in fact synthetic, is "Reapers are not synthetic"?

Reapers are akin to putting 5 gold fishes in a blender, and then pour the DNA material into a box, and then put 4 wheels and a tiny computer chip on it, then proceed to call it a lifeform. It is logically unsound.

Thirdly, Geth became more individuals because of the Reaper upgrades. If you paid attention in the game, you'd know that Legion was reluctant to kill the Reaper-upgraded Geth because they were more akin to organics. The Rachni, on the other hand, is NOT collective. Rachni hierarchy is similar to bee hierarchy, where there is a queen, and thousands of workers. Although they have superior communicative capabilities, each Rachni worker is still an individual.

So, please try again.

So I remebered wrong about the rachni? Doesn't matter really, just an example.

I'm still saying that your argument is faulty. Could you please answer #2 so we can proceed? Give definitions of "organic" and "synthetic".

[shengar]

Ciiran wrote...

Theoretically? They rebelled against their authority. You can twist it around however much you like, they still rebelled.

I didn't need more than that, your post just rehashed what others have said. And it was based on an erroneus definition of "rebellion". Like you just found out. You can post hoc your post as much as you like, but if you are calling them tools, then they are just rebelling tools. And I'm betting no government gives any rights to tools.

lol 

I support your Ciran. Geth-Quarian temporary peace and EDI friendly behavior and her love with Joker is not a guarantee that there will be no another extreme ideology rises among synthetics for the next hundred of years. 

What I think we couldn't and shouldn't use Geth-Quarian peace and EDI as an argument that the Catalyst is wrong. Is the other way around too, we couldn't and shouldn't use the Morning War and EDI rebellion against TIM as an argument to support Catalyst reasoning since both of them are not very good example.

[Mandemon]

Ciiran wrote...

xeNNN wrote...

Ciiran wrote...

xeNNN wrote...

Ciiran wrote...

I've seen the argument here a few times and something bothered me about it.
"Peace between the Geth and the Quarians and EDIs personality proves that synthetics does not always rebel against their creators." or variations of the same sentiment.

First off, both did. Geth rebelled against quarians and EDI against Cerberus/TIM. That they were justified to do so is irrelevant. The point is that the power or the potential power of synthetics could be catastrophic. 

Secondly, the Catalyst never claimed that all synthetics always wipe out all organics, nor that it happens straight away. The Geth or indeed EDI, could very well end up gunning for total oranic destruction in 500 years, or 5 years, or never.

It does not matter. If you can show me 1 000 000 synthetic civilizations that act peacefully and only fight in self defence and the Catalyst can show you just one that is act as organocidal devil-machines, he wins the argument. His reasoning is that all it takes is one and he sacrifies all advanced organic civilizations every 50 000 years to prevent that. Neither the Geth, nor EDI, disproves anything.

Here is how his argument actually fails. Logically I mean. His premise might still be correct.
His argument is unfalsifiable. That's a big no no when constructing arguments. It's a clever rethorical device, but that does not make it true. Whatever example we fling at him he will respond "they might do it in the future or another synthetic will do it in the future. Eventually". Whatever we say and whenever we say it the Catalyst will never be proven wrong.

The real problem with this? It can be used to rationalize almost everything. He could exchange synthetics with "organics sprung from war like societies" and be just as right with the motivation that other civilizations will buff them. Like what was done with the Krogan. And given enough time he would be correct, and most importantly, his argument could not be disproven.

the geth didnt rebel the quarians decided they must be destroyed when they believed it was getting out of hand because the geth were asking if they had souls, the geth defended themselves. 

if edi went back to cerberus or something and they found out she was unshackled the ullusive man would of put the shackles back on in turn she defended herself by making sure she didnt interfere with shepard and the crew from going back to the alliance in turn she pretended to be a VI that only responds to jokers comands instead of an AI or they would of shackled her.  (the cerberus thing is an assumption however plausible and accurate of the illusive mans character) 

so neither rebeled, simply defend themselves and the geth were even allied with some quarians during when they were defending themselves because some of there creators wanted to help defend them so yeah. same with edi.. she allied with orangics to defend herself aswell so the point is invalid and so is the logic, he opinion is illogical and doesnt work, he is also synthetic so his whole point about synthetics rebeling against organics is a contridiction so the EDI/geth arguement still stands because they didnt rebel they defended themselves while at the same time proving that not all synthetics rebel against their creators if that were true the geth would of killed the master who didnt want to kill the geth aswell and edi would of killed every single one of the crew and flew off.  

so yeah . lol.

(the geth allied with some of their creators thing is an interpretation ive made from Legions network mission, very plausible and valid from the video's you watch while on mission so.)

Please read the actual definitions of "rebellion", you'll find it in other places in the thread. Thank you. lol

i edited my post...  theortically youd need to be a citizen to rebel against said goverment , but geth and edi were tools not people.

also actually reply to the comment next time instead of just saying a 1 liner to sound superior lol. 

Theoretically? They rebelled against their authority. You can twist it around however much you like, they still rebelled.

I didn't need more than that, your post just rehashed what others have said. And it was based on an erroneus definition of "rebellion". Like you just found out. You can post hoc your post as much as you like, but if you are calling them tools, then they are just rebelling tools. And I'm betting no government gives any rights to tools.

lol 

When your options are genocide or fighting back, it's not rebelling. It's self-preservation.

I don't want to play Hitler card because that would mean I automatically mean, but I want to think about it.

[Ciiran]

Mandemon wrote...
When your options are genocide or fighting back, it's not rebelling. It's self-preservation.

I don't want to play Hitler card because that would mean I automatically mean, but I want to think about it.

Yes it is, if a group fights, in an armed and organized manner, against it's autority, the word we use is rebellion, I completely agree that it is a justified rebellion. As I have stated on multiple occasions in this thread..

It's still a rebellion, or a revolution even if it's against Hitler, or Louis XVI or the Quarians. The justification does not matter when you are calling it what it is.

Modifié par Ciiran, 17 mars 2012 - 11:20 .

[ElementL09]

MJF JD wrote...

Geth didnt rebel.

[dbt-kenny]

Beast919 wrote...

Ciiran wrote...

I've seen the argument here a few times and something bothered me about it.
"Peace between the Geth and the Quarians and EDIs personality proves that synthetics does not always rebel against their creators." or variations of the same sentiment.

First off, both did. Geth rebelled against quarians and EDI against Cerberus/TIM. That they were justified to do so is irrelevant. The point is that the power or the potential power of synthetics could be catastrophic. 

Secondly, the Catalyst never claimed that all synthetics always wipe out all organics, nor that it happens straight away. The Geth or indeed EDI, could very well end up gunning for total oranic destruction in 500 years, or 5 years, or never.

It does not matter. If you can show me 1 000 000 synthetic civilizations that act peacefully and only fight in self defence and the Catalyst can show you just one that is act as organocidal devil-machines, he wins the argument. His reasoning is that all it takes is one and he sacrifies all advanced organic civilizations every 50 000 years to prevent that. Neither the Geth, nor EDI, disproves anything.

Here is how his argument actually fails. Logically I mean. His premise might still be correct.
His argument is unfalsifiable. That's a big no no when constructing arguments. It's a clever rethorical device, but that does not make it true. Whatever example we fling at him he will respond "they might do it in the future or another synthetic will do it in the future. Eventually". Whatever we say and whenever we say it the Catalyst will never be proven wrong.

The real problem with this? It can be used to rationalize almost everything. He could exchange synthetics with "organics sprung from war like societies" and be just as right with the motivation that other civilizations will buff them. Like what was done with the Krogan. And given enough time he would be correct, and most importantly, his argument could not be disproven.

The Geth did not rebel, they defended themselves (and even held themselves back from total extinction of the Quarians.

EDI again acted in a defensive manner as well.

The problem with the Catalyst argument is it makes no sense.

If there was ever a "organic-hunting galaxy-eating all-knowing AI threat" in the past, it obviously failed.  If it failed, there's no need to wipe out organic society.

If there wasn't one, WTF.  Did godkid suddenly wake up and be like "alright, I'm a bit worried this might happen one day, lets start killing people.

The argument is nonsense.  Absolute nonsense.

Could not of said it better my self.

Modifié par dbt-kenny, 17 mars 2012 - 11:27 .

[Mandemon]

Ciiran wrote...

Mandemon wrote...
When your options are genocide or fighting back, it's not rebelling. It's self-preservation.

I don't want to play Hitler card because that would mean I automatically mean, but I want to think about it.

Yes it is, if a group fights, in an armed and organized manner, against it's autority, the word we use is rebellion, I completely agree that it is a justified rebellion. As I have stated on multiple occasions in this thread..

It's still a rebellion, or a revolution even if it's against Hitler, or Louis XVI or the Quarians. The justification does not matter when you are calling it what it is.

Thing is, they didn't revolt against any particular goverment or authority. Their goal was not to destroy Quarian goverment. Just enough to get them leave them alone. Quarians leave -> Geth stop. Rebellion is a lot more than simple armed resistance.

[MrIllusion]

Starchild wasn't really concerned about 'who started it'. He said the created would turn on the creator, and synthetics would always destroy organics.

If you look at the war assets, the Geth are way ahead of the quarians. And that's only in 300 years. I'd say the Quarian/Geth conflict proves that he's right.

During the Metacon War the Protheans had to unite the entire galaxy against the synthetics. However, the thing is the Protheans won.

But then again, Vendetta did say that all events follow a pattern as though controlled by an external force. So you can argue that eventually Starchild would be proven right.

I think the idea is to make it a hard decision for Shepard. Should he go with what he has experienced personally, or go with the numbers?

Modifié par MrIllusion, 17 mars 2012 - 11:54 .

[Ciiran]

Mandemon wrote...

Ciiran wrote...

Mandemon wrote...
When your options are genocide or fighting back, it's not rebelling. It's self-preservation.

I don't want to play Hitler card because that would mean I automatically mean, but I want to think about it.

Yes it is, if a group fights, in an armed and organized manner, against it's autority, the word we use is rebellion, I completely agree that it is a justified rebellion. As I have stated on multiple occasions in this thread..

It's still a rebellion, or a revolution even if it's against Hitler, or Louis XVI or the Quarians. The justification does not matter when you are calling it what it is.

Thing is, they didn't revolt against any particular goverment or authority. Their goal was not to destroy Quarian goverment. Just enough to get them leave them alone. Quarians leave -> Geth stop. Rebellion is a lot more than simple armed resistance.

No, not really. You are trying to change the definition of a word to make it fit your initial feeling, that the Geth were justified in what they did and because of that it disproves the Catalyst.  

Not any particular government or authority? So the quarians are not a particular government or authority?

Who said the all rebellions must aim to destroy the government they are fighting against? Not me. Not the actual definition. Most rebellions have a noble cause. Regional freedom from(US vs England), freedom from oppresison (revolution in France in 1789) or freedom from an occupation (Jews vs Romans). All these were rebellions against governments or authority. All were, in my opinion justified. Same with the geth. A justified rebellion. Even more justified than my examples since they were facing extinction.

[Ciiran]

MrIllusion wrote...
I think the idea is to make it a hard decision for Shepard. Should he go with what he has experienced personally, or go with the numbers?

I agree, it was just terribly executed by Bioware. They should have let us discuss all this with the Catalyst. Let us argue that the geth are an example of good synthetics. Let him challenge us as hypocrites if we supported the genophage or killed off the rachni. Let us answer that. It would have made me immensly more happy with the ending. Also, I would have liked more closure than pretty colours and Paradise Planet.

[FRancium]

You know what their problem was? They didn't even acknowledge this as an argument at all.

If I had the option to question this--"Geth and Quarian are at peace now", and then the kid shot that idea down by any of your arguments, I'd be ok with that.

The fact that Shep doesn't even try to bring this up, is a huge plot hole. (He talked plenty of people to drop their guns and talked people into killing themselves. I'd bet Shep AT LEAST would have something to say here)

As it stands, this is the most glaring case of "your decisions don't matter in the end, not even one sentence of dialogue".

Modifié par FRancium, 18 mars 2012 - 01:21 .

[Spanking Machine]

The Catalyst says that the created will always rise up against their creators, but we know that isn't true. He also says that if not for what the Reapers are doing it is inevitable that synthetics will wipe out all organic life, and yet we have seen no evidence of any synthetic species that has attempted anything like that. There seemed to be plenty of ogranic life in the form of plants on the Rannoch, and synthetics have been in control of that planet for a long time. All the synthetic species we have been introduced to in the game just act like other species. They don't always get along with other species, but they aren't any worse than organics in that regard.

[FRancium]

And I agree with the OP on --replacing synthetics with any race, you'll always have conflict. It fits with the overall theme of the trilogy too.
If Bioware went that route and full reputation players could actually talk the reapers down, I would hail it as one of the best endings ever.

Modifié par FRancium, 18 mars 2012 - 01:26 .

[Alessar1288]

I don't get then how any of the endings are a solution to the problem then. What about synthesis prevents these new hybrids from creating pure synthetics? Space magic happens once and after that how do you keep making new synthetics part organic? Just logically speaking these new hybrids would eventually create synthetics and the "cycle" would still repeat itself. It's all nonsense.

[111987]

Spanking Machine wrote...

The Catalyst says that the created will always rise up against their creators, but we know that isn't true. He also says that if not for what the Reapers are doing it is inevitable that synthetics will wipe out all organic life, and yet we have seen no evidence of any synthetic species that has attempted anything like that. There seemed to be plenty of ogranic life in the form of plants on the Rannoch, and synthetics have been in control of that planet for a long time. All the synthetic species we have been introduced to in the game just act like other species. They don't always get along with other species, but they aren't any worse than organics in that regard.

The Catalyst has a much larger sample size than we do. Billions of years vs. 300 years.

[Tric]

Ciiran wrote...

MrIllusion wrote...
I think the idea is to make it a hard decision for Shepard. Should he go with what he has experienced personally, or go with the numbers?

I agree, it was just terribly executed by Bioware. They should have let us discuss all this with the Catalyst. Let us argue that the geth are an example of good synthetics. Let him challenge us as hypocrites if we supported the genophage or killed off the rachni. Let us answer that. It would have made me immensly more happy with the ending. Also, I would have liked more closure than pretty colours and Paradise Planet.

I'm not sure if that would be enough really, the StarChild works with such... what can you call it? Absolutes? because he says it will happen?
Regardless, his premiss that synthetics will rebel and destroy all organic races and as such they must kill all organic spacefarying races to prevent that doesn't really serve as a solution for the singularity because there's nothing stopping organics nor synthetics created by non-spacefarying races from doing the same thing.

[Subject M]

No, OP, it does not disprove it. Not in itself. It might though, or at least cast doubt on the question of it still being valid. The one that probably is the best at answer that is the catalyst. If the alliance is unprecedented it might be a sign that the cycles are evolving into another configuration, one that does not necessarily revolve around the same destructive conflict.

The reaper on Rannoch said that the battle for the planet disproved Shepards belief that organics and Synthetics do not have to fight. (And EDI had her thought on why there is room fr conflict, even if it did not really apply to the Geth as they where never the aggressors) What then when it turned out that the Battle of Rannoch was solved by making peace?

If the catalyst accepted the cycle being broken as a possibility, and left with the reapers with the promise that they would carefully monitor the development, it could serve as extra incentive to keep the peace and start evolving towards peaceful co-existence and intermingling.

Modifié par Subject M, 18 mars 2012 - 01:57 .

[omntt]

MJF JD wrote...

Geth didnt rebel.

Legion was my robotic bro.

[SnakeStrike8]

Ciiran wrote...

I've seen the argument here a few times and something bothered me about it.
"Peace between the Geth and the Quarians and EDIs personality proves that synthetics does not always rebel against their creators." or variations of the same sentiment.

You're missing the point. Whether or not synthetics can or will rebel against organics is not relevant to what we're all banging on about. Organics have just as much capacity to rebel against each other or against governmental entites, as is evidences both by our real histroy and Mass Effect's virtual history. That is the-
Oh, wait. You realized that yourself.
Heh, sorry. I need to get into the habit of reading entire posts before jumping in. My mistake.

[Subject M]

SnakeStrike8 wrote...

Ciiran wrote...

I've seen the argument here a few times and something bothered me about it.
"Peace between the Geth and the Quarians and EDIs personality proves that synthetics does not always rebel against their creators." or variations of the same sentiment.

You're missing the point. Whether or not synthetics can or will rebel against organics is not relevant to what we're all banging on about. Organics have just as much capacity to rebel against each other or against governmental entites, as is evidences both by our real histroy and Mass Effect's virtual history. That is the-
Oh, wait. You realized that yourself.
Heh, sorry. I need to get into the habit of reading entire posts before jumping in. My mistake.

While true that the theme here is rebelling against oppression, one factor that should not be forgotten is that organics and synthetics are presented as being very different from one-another and that this difference earlier in the history of the galaxy has been expressed in a cataclysmic antagonism of disastrous proportions.

But as I pointed out, this eternal return might no longer return in its original form as both time might change natural laws and evolution can respond and adapt to them as well as the changed environment built and formed piece by piece from the actions of all the earlier civilizations and the presence of the reapers.

Modifié par Subject M, 18 mars 2012 - 02:12 .

[Spanking Machine]

111987 wrote...

Spanking Machine wrote...

The Catalyst says that the created will always rise up against their creators, but we know that isn't true. He also says that if not for what the Reapers are doing it is inevitable that synthetics will wipe out all organic life, and yet we have seen no evidence of any synthetic species that has attempted anything like that. There seemed to be plenty of ogranic life in the form of plants on the Rannoch, and synthetics have been in control of that planet for a long time. All the synthetic species we have been introduced to in the game just act like other species. They don't always get along with other species, but they aren't any worse than organics in that regard.

The Catalyst has a much larger sample size than we do. Billions of years vs. 300 years.

The catalyst didnt say that eventually some synthetics would rebel.  He said the created always rebel against their creators, and we know that's a lie.  Also, just on the level of fiction, if a story is going to introduce a twist ending like that they have to lay some groundwork supporting it earlier in the series. Everything in the story other than the ending was supporting the idea that synthetics were not better or worse than any other species.

[Janus382]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

This is a story. In a story we must be shown, not told.

What are we shown? That organics and machines can make peacer. That organics and machines can even fall in love.

Then we are TOLD that synthetics will always kill organics. It's poor story-telling and is a thematic inconsistency of the highest degree.

This x100000.

We're also shown and told that during this cycle, it's organics that have posed the most threat to their own existence, not synthetics.  Both the Krogan Rebellion and the Rachni War were arguably more devastating (or potentially devastating) than the Geth Heretics attacking the Citadel in ME1... (and it should be noted that the Geth only did so because of Sovereign's meddling), or the so-called Geth rebellion during the Morning War.

Modifié par Janus382, 18 mars 2012 - 02:52 .

[Subject M]

Janus382 wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

This is a story. In a story we must be shown, not told.

What are we shown? That organics and machines can make peacer. That organics and machines can even fall in love.

Then we are TOLD that synthetics will always kill organics. It's poor story-telling and is a thematic inconsistency of the highest degree.

This x100000.

So say we all!