644 réponses à ce sujet

[mattp516]

The Irish Man wrote...

Adugan wrote...

Shepard killed all life in the galaxy by controlling the Reapers and continuing the cycle.

This is true but destroying all synthetics is not genocide.

Then you missed the entire point of the Geth subplot (not to mention EDI's) throughout the entirety of the 3 games. Sorry, but 'tis true. It's precisely BECAUSE the series spends so much time and energy convincing us that synthetics are sentient that we're so mad we have to kill all of them to kill the reapers.

[PsyrenY]

Religion AND politics. Fun!

And yes, killing the Geth is totally genocide. I'm surprised some people still refuse to see this 9 pages later.

[AnImpossibleGirl]

Riion wrote...

Poshible wrote...

Riion wrote...

Poshible wrote...

Elyiia wrote...

The Irish Man wrote...

SolidisusSnake1 wrote...

Mesmurae wrote...

Targeting a specific group for extinction = Genocide.

In this case, synthetics.

What he said.

Synthetics aren't naturally organic beings. Your killing off robots that have enough written code in them to make their own decisions.

Yeah, that's pretty much what Hitler said.
Synthetics are people, deal with it.

Hitler liked to call it eugenics. Also was not destroying machines. Those were organics. Geth were built. Like my computer I am sitting in front of and...I liked Legion too, doesn't make it harder on me to decide to eliminate them to rid the galaxy of Reapers. Because they are not people...

http://dictionary.re...m/browse/people

First flaw: We live in an anthropocentric world, the ME universe is much more varied (and I would argue some animals deserve some sort of recognition as self aware today, although not necessarily on the same level as people as they are not capable of living in our society). No, I agree there. But, they are ORGANIC. They reproduce and the end result is more organic beings. Geth and EDI lack reproductive organs as well as all other organs. The fact that we are in an anthropocentric environment means that we would not attribute personhood to beings we don't deem "sentient". And since we haven't officially agreed on any other species meeting that requirement... we define people as "human".

Second flaw: Technically, we are each "built" by our mothers, using a "blueprint" from both parents,Why yes, exactly, we have parents. We were reproduced, not mass produced for servitude. in the form of a "code" called DNA. Why should the fact that you were not "born" naturally automatically make you not a person? What about test tube babies? Technically, they are "built" in a lab. 

We are discussing the Mass Effect Universe. In that, Shepard tells Soveriegn that he is not alive, not really, he is just a machine. Reapers are more adavanced than Geth and the entire universe actually has them to thank for thier current technology. Is killing the Reapers, in your assessment, any different from killing Geth?

No flaw within my logic, just a different understanding. Such as "corporations are people my friend'. Well no, they are comprised of people. But, the Supreme Court disagrees with my opinion. Fair enough.

Organic life has value why? Well we all value different things and THAT makes us valuable as a whole. The Geth (Because they are machines) do not. All human life is 99.9% identical yet we vary greatly. Geth do not. We choose our own path, we chose to live and love and do so how and with whom we choose. Geth...do not. EDI...maybe, but I will not get into sexbot talk.

Killing the Reapers would be the same as killing the Geth which would be the same as killing organics. Whether it's morally right or not all depends on context, e.g. war, murder, etc. But if in the same context, then I would value each the same, e.g. war with Reapers vs war with Geth vs war with Organics, would all be interpreted as the same situation to me, morally. 

The Geth are individualized after the Reaper upgrade, and Reapers are just a big unknown. But even before the upgrade, I would have counted the Geth as synthetic life. You could even count them as one "consciousness", if you want. (I would, Legion refused to recognize himself as an individual, until the influence of...organics. Also, he states they are one)

Regarding organics and "choice", that's a common debate in philosophy, which I doubt anyone wants to partake in. However, if you accept that organics CAN have choice, what prevents synthetic life from doing so as well?

I woke up this morning. I had a cup of coffee and was irritated that it was not sunny. I thought "This is California, I should feel the sunshine on my face. Ugh and I am so white; I need a tan, where is my sunshine?". Then, I got over it and jogged 4 miles because I am organic and a female with pressure from society to stay thin, blonde and tan in California. 

I am organic. I made choices within 5 minutes of being awake and had separate emotions and even complained that I could not feel something. In my dumb example (which quite sadly is true) I yearned for sunshine, because I wanted it. Geth will never feel the delight of sunshine. Everything underlined or highlighted--all things I, as an organic feel and do; Geth will never. In Mass Effect Universe all species do these such things, except Geth, the sexbot and Reapers.

Modifié par Poshible, 11 avril 2012 - 06:47 .

[pikey1969]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

M0keys wrote...

But nothing is worth the genocide of the Geth. Nothing. If you can not protect the Greatest Newest Symbol of The Evolution and Magic of Emergent Life in your efforts to save the galaxy, you might as well just walk away. Life isn't a vague concept, you see it all around you in Mass Effect. You're fighting for what they all are.

And remember Mordin's lesson. He made a mistake.

But this is one mistake for which Shepard will never be able to atone.

Assuming the Geth would not be destroyed, is it still right to genocide the Reapers?

In an act of self-defence against the reapers' intentions of wiping you out? Sure, I can see full moral justification in that.

When you bring in sacrifice of another race to achieve that into the equation, it gets super murky.

[shodiswe]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Poshible wrote...

Yet, you just referred to Legion as "itself" and "it".  Not himself or him.
I'm just saying, if the Geth are alive--then the reapers are alive. Harbinger tells Shepard "You are becoming an annoyance". To be annoyed, you feel. So killing the Reapers is no different. In the logic being presented to me anyway.

Shepard was not given the choice to save everybody. Shepard was handed bad choices and had to make one. 

I had actually originally written "he," but then I realized Legion has no sexual classification.  I don't think that that is a requirement for whether or not something is sentient though.  I also believe the Reapers are sentient.  Well, the Catalyst muddied that up...

The catalyst made it sound like the reapers are sentient AI's with partialy organicparts, somehow... But that they might be shackled like Legion on the geth dreadnaught? They are free to do things as long as it serves the catalysts whims.

[Elyiia]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Since they are trying to genocide you, I consider an act of self-defense equal to the severity of the attack, and therefore justifiable.

I agree.  And given the nature of the Reapers, I see no fault with exercising their genocide.  Especially within the context of the game.

The question has never been whether genocide was justified or not. The question was did Shepard commit genocide. He did, at least once during Arrival. He did it twice more (Does it count as two if you destroy two species at once?) if he picked destroy.

[M0keys]

Slash1667 wrote...

M0keys wrote...

TerraNomad wrote...

the key word is sentient. Not Organic or Synthetic. It's pretty much cannon in the Mass Effect story that the Geth are a sentient lifeform and therefore it does constitute genocide. That being said, this arguement is pointless. Given the stakes (the entire galaxy), the loss of a single race to secure the end to the war seems like an acceptable loss.

I believe that if you're Shepard, the hero of the galaxy and possibly a paragon, genocide unmakes you as the galaxy's guardian angel because now the blood is on your hands. When the chips were down, you lost your courage and sacrificed others in your stead.

At best, it makes you like The Operative from Serenity. Willing to murder countless innocents as long as you got your "perfect world" in the end. Complex, but most certainly still evil.

Cookie for Firefly reference:D

Browncoats unite! 

[CronoDragoon]

 

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Because if I decide to kill a friend of mine to save a million people, I sacrifice my friend.  I'm actually a bit shocked that you'd unequivocally declare it murder.  It becomes a slippery slope.

To be fair, although I don't know what the case precedent is in the US, according to the legal definition of murder it would seem to be the case...

[Zine2]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Because if I decide to kill a friend of mine to save a million people, I sacrifice my friend.  I'm actually a bit shocked that you'd unequivocally declare it murder.  It becomes a slippery slope.

Nope, I would say that you "killed your friend to save a million people". Again, why use a muddled word like "sacrifice" when you can actually just say what you actually meant to say?

By saying "I sacrificed my friend to save a million people", you imply that your friend may have been willing to give his life. Or that what we should focus on is the cost to YOU - you "sacrificed" a friend (a loss to YOU) to save a million people. Neither of those may be necessarily true.

Whereas simply saying "I killed a friend to save a million people" leaves very little room for ambiguity. You commited an action - killing a friend - to save a million people.

In the case of the Geth - they were murdered. They had no idea it was coming. They trusted Shepard. Maybe they would have said yes if Shepard asked, but the point is that they were never asked. You can use other words to describe the situation - "Kill", "Genocide", "Wiped out". But "sacrifice" is not one of them, for it adds a level of ambiguity and in some definitions this is clearly NOT what happened.

It really more seems like you're refusing to allow the usage of the word because you feel people are using it as a scape goat and your perception of the event should be applied to others.  Especially when I have not found a single definition that actually supports your rigid definition of the term sacrifice.  In fact, when presented with one that didn't have it, you were casually dismissive of it.

I'm refusing the usage of words because I'm pretty damn tired of people who can't call a spade a spade. You killed your friend to save a million people. Why should your argument be "I didn't kill him, I sacrificed him!". That adds nothing to the discussion, because it's playing with a Thesaurus.

The question should be on the moral act of killing your friend to save a million people. Do the needs of the few need to give way to the needs of the many? Or is killing a friend to save many always unacceptable?

These are the real issues, not arguing between "sacrifice" and "murder" and "killing".

[Allan Schumacher]

I am not denying sacrifice has multiple meanings. But throwing a girl down a volcano is simply murder. Calling it "sacrifice" is simply an attempt at positive spin.

Calling it sacrifice is to use a very deliberate definition of the word, which includes "the offering of animal, plant, or human life or of some material possession to a deity, as in propitiation or homage." It doesn't provide a positive spin at all.


Anyways, this is starting to derail the thread. I'm going to have to agree to disagree with the usage of the word sacrifice.

[Grasich]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I am not denying sacrifice has multiple meanings. But throwing a girl down a volcano is simply murder. Calling it "sacrifice" is simply an attempt at positive spin.

Calling it sacrifice is to use a very deliberate definition of the word, which includes "the offering of animal, plant, or human life or of some material possession to a deity, as in propitiation or homage." It doesn't provide a positive spin at all.


Anyways, this is starting to derail the thread. I'm going to have to agree to disagree with the usage of the word sacrifice.

Heh, discussions on semantics are always tricky and rarely fruitful.

[shepard1038]

Elyiia wrote...

You can't compare murder to genocide. Genocide doesn't have to have a negative reason behind it, it is simply the deliberate act of wiping out a part or a whole of a group. You can commit genocide for a good reason. Arrival can be used as an example of this.

Murder on the other hand requires malicious afterthought.

Yes, because you were saying that Shepard deliberately destroys the Geth because in the process it destroys the
reapers. Making it sound that Shepard's intent was to kil the geth, when the guardian says that destroy will kill the
reapers but it will destroy the geth in the process. You don't think that the geth being fighting wtih you at the end
to destroy the reapers, when they know that they could die.

It might not have been his intent, but by deliberately choosing destroy, he commited genocide against the Geth because he knew it was going to happen. It does not matter whether the Geth accepted it or not.

The geth and all species that were on the final battle knew and accepted that they could die and that they was a good chance that they could fail, yet they were fighting alongside with Shepard to defeat the reapers.

[M0keys]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I am not denying sacrifice has multiple meanings. But throwing a girl down a volcano is simply murder. Calling it "sacrifice" is simply an attempt at positive spin.

Calling it sacrifice is to use a very deliberate definition of the word, which includes "the offering of animal, plant, or human life or of some material possession to a deity, as in propitiation or homage." It doesn't provide a positive spin at all.


Anyways, this is starting to derail the thread. I'm going to have to agree to disagree with the usage of the word sacrifice.

No, darn you! I responded to your post and I demand further argument! 

[CronoDragoon]

Poshible wrote...


I woke up this morning. I had a cup of coffee and was irritated that it was not sunny. I thought "This is California, I should feel the sunshine on my face. Ugh and I am so white; I need a tan, where is my sunshine?". Then, I got over it and jogged 4 miles because I am organic and a female with pressure from society to stay thin, blonde and tan in California. 

I am organic. I made choices within 5 minutes of being awake and had separate emotions and even complained that I could not feel something. In my dumb example (which quite sadly is true) I yearned for sunshine, because I wanted it. Geth will never feel the delight of sunshine. Everything underlined or highlighted--all things I, as an organic feel and do; Geth will never. In Mass Effect Universe all species do these such things, except Geth, the sexbot and Reapers.

The geth have a goal in mind, both for their species and once they become individuals (to help the quarians readjust to Rannoch). They feel emotion (Legion says he admires Shepard/humans/organics, the geth feared for their destruction twice and reacted out of fear). I am sure they can have a chip capable of registering sunshine on their metal bodies.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 11 avril 2012 - 06:51 .

[shodiswe]

Riion wrote...

Poshible wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Organic life has value why? Well we all value different things and THAT makes us valuable as a whole. The Geth (Because they are machines) do not. All human life is 99.9% identical yet we vary greatly. Geth do not. We choose our own path, we chose to live and love and do so how and with whom we choose. Geth...do not

I'm not sure the Geth do not value different things. Legion refers to itself in the first person (which he never does) by the end of the sequence on Rannoch. It also demonstrates the ability to have compassion and empathy when he says "Keelah Se'lai" to Tali.

It seems to me that last bit of uncertainty of how sentient the Geth were disappears at the end of Rannoch.

Yet, you just referred to Legion as "itself" and "it".  Not himself or him.
I'm just saying, if the Geth are alive--then the reapers are alive. Harbinger tells Shepard "You are becoming an annoyance". To be annoyed, you feel. So killing the Reapers is no different. In the logic being presented to me anyway.

Shepard was not given the choice to save everybody. Shepard was handed bad choices and had to make one. 

I'm not sure Legion would have a definable gender, in our sense of the word. 
Killing the Reapers may be technically the same as killing the Geth, but morals and ethics are such iffy things, unless you're Immanuel Kant. 

There is one big difference here, in my play through the Geth were allied with Shepard fighting to save all life and the selfdetermination of all life. The Reapers and their catalyst overlord was taking that away from "us". Murdering trillions for millions of years.
Killing the reapers would be an act of selfdefence, if the reapers wanted a peaceful solution or for Shepard to no destroy them they they could have surrendered before shepard blew them up shooting that powerconduit. The reapers choose to fight till their death or untill they were forced to do otherwise. It was the reapers choice to get wiped out for their crimes.

[Elyiia]

shepard1038 wrote...

Elyiia wrote...

You can't compare murder to genocide. Genocide doesn't have to have a negative reason behind it, it is simply the deliberate act of wiping out a part or a whole of a group. You can commit genocide for a good reason. Arrival can be used as an example of this.

Murder on the other hand requires malicious afterthought.

Yes, because you were saying that Shepard deliberately destroys the Geth because in the process it destroys the
reapers. Making it sound that Shepard's intent was to kil the geth, when the guardian says that destroy will kill the
reapers but it will destroy the geth in the process. You don't think that the geth being fighting wtih you at the end
to destroy the reapers, when they know that they could die.

It might not have been his intent, but by deliberately choosing destroy, he commited genocide against the Geth because he knew it was going to happen. It does not matter whether the Geth accepted it or not.

The geth and all species that were on the final battle knew and accepted that they could die and that they was a good chance that they could fail, yet they were fighting alongside with Shepard to defeat the reapers.

But this doesn't have any relevance to whether or not Shepard commited genocide. It does not matter if they were prepared to die, by defintion Shepard has commited genocide once during the arrival and twice more if you pick destroy.

[M0keys]

shepard1038 wrote...

Elyiia wrote...

You can't compare murder to genocide. Genocide doesn't have to have a negative reason behind it, it is simply the deliberate act of wiping out a part or a whole of a group. You can commit genocide for a good reason. Arrival can be used as an example of this.

Murder on the other hand requires malicious afterthought.

Yes, because you were saying that Shepard deliberately destroys the Geth because in the process it destroys the
reapers. Making it sound that Shepard's intent was to kil the geth, when the guardian says that destroy will kill the
reapers but it will destroy the geth in the process. You don't think that the geth being fighting wtih you at the end
to destroy the reapers, when they know that they could die.

It might not have been his intent, but by deliberately choosing destroy, he commited genocide against the Geth because he knew it was going to happen. It does not matter whether the Geth accepted it or not.

The geth and all species that were on the final battle knew and accepted that they could die and that they was a good chance that they could fail, yet they were fighting alongside with Shepard to defeat the reapers.

Yes, they were in it knowing full well that they might die at the hands of the Reapers.

So if that's still your stance, then we must contemplate the possibility that when Shepard makes his choice, he has suddenly allied himself with the Reapers and, while the Reapers are now gone, they've also won the war on a very "haha I made you kill someone, Batman" sort of level. And that's the battle heroes must never lose, less they become villains.

[Allan Schumacher]

Elyiia wrote...

The question has never been whether genocide was justified or not. The question was did Shepard commit genocide. He did, at least once during Arrival. He did it twice more (Does it count as two if you destroy two species at once?) if he picked destroy.

I actually did ask if the genocide of the Reapers is justifiable earlier.  Not precisely on topic.  Just an aside.

[Zine2]

Grasich wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I am not denying sacrifice has multiple meanings. But throwing a girl down a volcano is simply murder. Calling it "sacrifice" is simply an attempt at positive spin.

Calling it sacrifice is to use a very deliberate definition of the word, which includes "the offering of animal, plant, or human life or of some material possession to a deity, as in propitiation or homage." It doesn't provide a positive spin at all.


Anyways, this is starting to derail the thread. I'm going to have to agree to disagree with the usage of the word sacrifice.

Heh, discussions on semantics are always tricky and rarely fruitful.

Yep. Which is why I refuse arguments which boil down to "It's not Word A, it's actually Word B that happened!"

Sacrifice again has multiple meanings. Someone may have meant a very deliberate definition of the word, but the fact that other definitions exist can make it ambiguous. Was it a willing sacrifice? An unwilling one?

Use words that are not ambiguous, even if it makes you feel queasy. They killed her to appease their imaginary Gods. That doesn't put the act in a very positive light, but it's more useful because it's closer to actual reality.

[shepard1038]

Elyiia wrote...

shepard1038 wrote...

Elyiia wrote...

You can't compare murder to genocide. Genocide doesn't have to have a negative reason behind it, it is simply the deliberate act of wiping out a part or a whole of a group. You can commit genocide for a good reason. Arrival can be used as an example of this.

Murder on the other hand requires malicious afterthought.

Yes, because you were saying that Shepard deliberately destroys the Geth because in the process it destroys the
reapers. Making it sound that Shepard's intent was to kil the geth, when the guardian says that destroy will kill the
reapers but it will destroy the geth in the process. You don't think that the geth being fighting wtih you at the end
to destroy the reapers, when they know that they could die.

It might not have been his intent, but by deliberately choosing destroy, he commited genocide against the Geth because he knew it was going to happen. It does not matter whether the Geth accepted it or not.

The geth and all species that were on the final battle knew and accepted that they could die and that they was a good chance that they could fail, yet they were fighting alongside with Shepard to defeat the reapers.

But this doesn't have any relevance to whether or not Shepard commited genocide. It does not matter if they were prepared to die, by defintion Shepard has commited genocide once during the arrival and twice more if you pick destroy.

Yes it has relevance, because they were on the final battle and they were prepared to die to defeat the reapers.
So you honored there sacrifice by killing the reapers.

Modifié par shepard1038, 11 avril 2012 - 07:00 .

[CronoDragoon]

I am fine with calling the destruction of the geth genocide if we can also admit there is a clear moral difference between what Shepard chose to do and what Hitler did. That does not mean it was morally admirable, but it was not as morally heinous as the examples of genocide we have in history.

[PsyrenY]

Whatever you call it, my Shepard wouldn't do it. The Geth deserve a chance; Destroy is not an option for me.

[M0keys]

CronoDragoon wrote...

I am fine with calling the destruction of the geth genocide if we can also admit there is a clear moral difference between what Shepard chose to do and what Hitler did. That does not mean it was morally admirable, but it was not as morally heinous as the examples of genocide we have in history.

There were different core reasons, but I believe they still loose equal amounts of evil upon the world, and it's why I'd never pick destroy in a million years.

[AnImpossibleGirl]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Poshible wrote...

Yet, you just referred to Legion as "itself" and "it".  Not himself or him.
I'm just saying, if the Geth are alive--then the reapers are alive. Harbinger tells Shepard "You are becoming an annoyance". To be annoyed, you feel. So killing the Reapers is no different. In the logic being presented to me anyway.

Shepard was not given the choice to save everybody. Shepard was handed bad choices and had to make one. 

I had actually originally written "he," but then I realized Legion has no sexual classification.  I don't think that that is a requirement for whether or not something is sentient though.  I also believe the Reapers are sentient.  Well, the Catalyst muddied that up...

He muddied a lot up. That is another issue entirely. 
I do not think gender a requirement, but I do think to be classified as something more than a machine reproduction is neccesary (That's just my opinion, not need to go spreading it around ). But that is what we are discussing, opinions. Feeling are just as neccesary. Human emotions are hard enough to define without every living being giving a definition of what emotion is. We can't define it the human process. We can not even account for every last bit of DNA we do have. Back to "feelings", lets start with desire; they lack it. The "emotions" both the Geth and EDI have are influenced by organics, namely Shepard. Geth can be hacked, we can be tricked. However similar it is not that same.

[Riion]

[quote]Poshible wrote...

[quote]Riion wrote...

[quote]Poshible wrote...

[quote]Riion wrote...

[quote]Poshible wrote...

[quote]Elyiia wrote...

[quote]The Irish Man wrote...

[quote]SolidisusSnake1 wrote...

[quote]Mesmurae wrote...

Targeting a specific group for extinction = Genocide.

In this case, synthetics.[/quote]

What he said.

[/quote]

Synthetics aren't naturally organic beings. Your killing off robots that have enough written code in them to make their own decisions.

[/quote]

Yeah, that's pretty much what Hitler said.
Synthetics are people, deal with it.

[/quote]
Hitler liked to call it eugenics. Also was not destroying machines. Those were organics. Geth were built. Like my computer I am sitting in front of and...I liked Legion too, doesn't make it harder on me to decide to eliminate them to rid the galaxy of Reapers. Because they are not people...

http://dictionary.re...m/browse/people

[/quote]

First flaw: We live in an anthropocentric world, the ME universe is much more varied (and I would argue some animals deserve some sort of recognition as self aware today, although not necessarily on the same level as people as they are not capable of living in our society). No, I agree there. But, they are ORGANIC. They reproduce and the end result is more organic beings. Geth and EDI lack reproductive organs as well as all other organs. The fact that we are in an anthropocentric environment means that we would not attribute personhood to beings we don't deem "sentient". And since we haven't officially agreed on any other species meeting that requirement... we define people as "human".

Second flaw: Technically, we are each "built" by our mothers, using a "blueprint" from both parents,Why yes, exactly, we have parents. We were reproduced, not mass produced for servitude. in the form of a "code" called DNA. Why should the fact that you were not "born" naturally automatically make you not a person? What about test tube babies? Technically, they are "built" in a lab. 

[/quote]
We are discussing the Mass Effect Universe. In that, Shepard tells Soveriegn that he is not alive, not really, he is just a machine. Reapers are more adavanced than Geth and the entire universe actually has them to thank for thier current technology. Is killing the Reapers, in your assessment, any different from killing Geth?

No flaw within my logic, just a different understanding. Such as "corporations are people my friend'. Well no, they are comprised of people. But, the Supreme Court disagrees with my opinion. Fair enough.

Organic life has value why? Well we all value different things and THAT makes us valuable as a whole. The Geth (Because they are machines) do not. All human life is 99.9% identical yet we vary greatly. Geth do not. We choose our own path, we chose to live and love and do so how and with whom we choose. Geth...do not. EDI...maybe, but I will not get into sexbot talk.


[/quote]

Killing the Reapers would be the same as killing the Geth which would be the same as killing organics. Whether it's morally right or not all depends on context, e.g. war, murder, etc. But if in the same context, then I would value each the same, e.g. war with Reapers vs war with Geth vs war with Organics, would all be interpreted as the same situation to me, morally. 

The Geth are individualized after the Reaper upgrade, and Reapers are just a big unknown. But even before the upgrade, I would have counted the Geth as synthetic life. You could even count them as one "consciousness", if you want. (I would, Legion refused to recognize himself as an individual, until the influence of...organics. Also, he states they are one)

Regarding organics and "choice", that's a common debate in philosophy, which I doubt anyone wants to partake in. However, if you accept that organics CAN have choice, what prevents synthetic life from doing so as well?

[/quote]
I woke up this morning. I had a cup of coffee and was irritated that it was not sunny. I thought "This is California, I should feel the sunshine on my face. Ugh and I am so white; I need a tan, where is my sunshine?". Then, I got over it and jogged 4 miles because I am organic and a female with pressure from society to stay thin, blonde and tan in California. 

I am organic. I made choices within 5 minutes of being awake and had separate emotions and even complained that I could not feel something. In my dumb example (which quite sadly is true) I yearned for sunshine, because I wanted it. Geth will never feel the delight of sunshine. Everything underlined or highlighted--all things I, as an organic feel and do; Geth will never. In Mass Effect Universe all species do these such things, except Geth, the sexbot and Reapers.

[/quote]

I'm not sure how waking up, having a cup of coffee, or jogging proves anything. Thinking that you should -insert something- or need -something- is not mutally exclusive to organics. Perhaps the subjects of those emotions would differ, but the Geth can just as well believe they should have the right to live, or decide on the need to ally with the Reapers. Legion himself believes his race should be allowed to live, decides to upload the Reaper code anyways, because he believes that the Geth need it to survive the next ten minutes. And feeling emotion... like you said, Reapers can be annoyed, EDI is pretty emotional sometimes, and the Geth display feelings (e.g. gratitude). 

[quote]Poshible wrote...

[quote]Allan Schumacher wrote...

[quote]Poshible wrote...

Yet, you just referred to Legion as "itself" and "it".  Not himself or him.
I'm just saying, if the Geth are alive--then the reapers are alive. Harbinger tells Shepard "You are becoming an annoyance". To be annoyed, you feel. So killing the Reapers is no different. In the logic being presented to me anyway.

Shepard was not given the choice to save everybody. Shepard was handed bad choices and had to make one. 

[/quote]

I had actually originally written "he," but then I realized Legion has no sexual classification.  I don't think that that is a requirement for whether or not something is sentient though.  I also believe the Reapers are sentient.  Well, the Catalyst muddied that up...

[/quote]
He muddied a lot up. That is another issue entirely. 
I do not think gender a requirement, but I do think to be classified as something more than a machine reproduction is neccesary (That's just my opinion, not need to go spreading it around [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/whistling.png[/smilie]). But that is what we are discussing, opinions. Feeling are just as neccesary. Human emotions are hard enough to define without every living being giving a definition of what emotion is. We can't define it the human process. We can not even account for every last bit of DNA we do have. Back to "feelings", lets start with desire; they lack it. The "emotions" both the Geth and EDI have are influenced by organics, namely Shepard. Geth can be hacked, we can be tricked. However similar it is not that same.

[/quote] 

Infertile people would like to have a word with you 
I don't think you can objectively claim that they lack desire, feelings or emotion (unless you have experienced them yourself). I could also argue that human emotions are influenced very heavily by their environment, including the people around them. And I believe it is also possible to "hack" an organic mind; I believe there was one experiment involving the memories of mice, and how they can be manipulated through particular neurons. No reason this concept can't be applied in higher orders of complexity.

Modifié par Riion, 11 avril 2012 - 07:02 .