270 réponses à ce sujet

[humes spork]

The Reapers attach no inherent value in an individual organic being's existence, full stop. Further justification is irrelevant.

You're attempting to use moral relativism as a philosophical staging ground to argue that your own normative position is a series of objective maxims. Of course, moral relativism is a double-bladed sword in that regard, since by doing such you're doing nothing but demonstrating facially your own bias and inability to understand it as such. If you want to play the moral relativism home game, judge Reaper motives by Reaper perceptions.

Stop being a pedant.

Modifié par humes spork, 16 avril 2012 - 05:23 .

[Zine2]

joiushdfoubsndpovn wrote...


This.  You've proven yourself to be a troll or a mentally unstable human being with the inability to form new thought processes that do not organically  come to your mind.  

LOL.

Again, the depths of delusions that the moral relativists have to dig astound me.

I am completely correct because I refuse to create imaginary constructs. I refuse to play semantic word games.

I am showing you an Apple. I am explaining to you how it cannot be an Orange. That you insist it's an Orange when it's clearly an Apple only demonstrates that you are lying.

[joiushdfoubsndpovn]

Zine2 wrote...

mmmpollo wrote...

You are really being overly literal with the catalyst/reaper statements. When he said "we are YOUR salvation through destruction", "your" is not an individual, it is the species as a collective. Yes, nuking kills people, as does liquifying them. But killing and saving in the reapers' sense aren't mutually exclusive.

Attempting to dismiss the argument as "overly literal" while completely failing to address the facts only further demonstrates the levels of denial and willful ignorance one must subject oneself to in order to justify the ending.

Again, until you actually swallow your pride and actually look at it from a factual level, you will never see why 92% of the polled folks hated the ending.

Honestly dude, are you really arguing this cause you believe the reapers are really telling us they are saving our LIVES by killing us are you arguing to argue? Because this post seems really silly...

I'm saying that anyone who uses that argument is either clinically insane or lying. Go ahead and try to prove me wrong with actual facts, because so far all I'm seeing is opinions about things that are literally never shown (i.e. Human minds are stored in a Reaper where they enjoy pretty flowers).

Also, you miss the fact once again, that they are not saving INDIVIDUAL races, the catalyst makes it clear they are saving ORGANICS!  And so far, if they have been doing this for millions upon millions of years, and organics are still around, they are right, whether or not they assumptions are wrong.  Which they can be.  But no where does anyone in game talk about the reapers saving individual people, races, or civilizations.  Theya re saving Organics as a whole.  Can you show how THAT is wrong?

[Zine2]

humes spork wrote...

The Reapers attach no inherent value in an individual organic being's existence, full stop. Further justification is irrelevant.

You're attempting to use moral relativism as a philosophical staging ground to argue that your own normative position is a series of objective maxims. Of course, moral relativism is a double-bladed sword in that regard, since by doing such you're doing nothing but demonstrating facially your own bias and inability to understand it as such. If you want to play the moral relativism home game, judge Reaper motives by Reaper perceptions.

Stop being a pedant.

Again, those who insist that I am using moral relativism are not reading the OP, and they are engaging in deliberate lying.

I have shown that the Reapers can be judged on a FACTUAL basis as either lying or clinically insane. Not from a moral standpoint, a FACTUAL standpoint.

Any further (FALSE) accusations that I am proposing a moral argument will simply be referred back to the OP. Again: "An Apple is an Apple NO MATTER Your Perspective". This is not the domain of moral relativists: It explicitly REJECTS moral relativism as a valid defense, because it is NOT a valid defense in this case.

[Zine2]

joiushdfoubsndpovn wrote...
Also, you miss the fact once again, that they are not saving INDIVIDUAL races, the catalyst makes it clear they are saving ORGANICS!  

First: Define "saving", "organics".
 
Then, differentiate "Individual races" with "Organics".

And then show how this is still consistent with "We are your salvation through your destruction".

===

And then I will show you how it was all just a lie.

Modifié par Zine2, 16 avril 2012 - 05:28 .

[Sisterofshane]

HiddenKING wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

JShepppp wrote...
EDI/Legion say Reapers DO upload human minds. Compare this with Kelly screaming. Then we get horrible physical pain with mental upload. 

Script check said they "process humans". They did not say "upload" human minds.

Try again.

Also, Shep's upload did not involve screaming, probably because he wasn't being chopped to little pieces.

Transcended flesh. Billions of organic minds, uploaded and conjoined within immortal machine bodies. "Each a nation."

Here's the problem I have with this - whose word do we take?  Because up until ME3, it would seem that Sovereign (and Legion's assessment after) would have appeared to be correct - that the reapers were made up of billions of minds, each conscious and aware.

And then the catalyst says he controls them.  This is in direct contradiction of every Sovereign told us - each a nation, independent.  This cannot possibly be, for I have a hard time believing that each and every harvested civilization would then agree with the catalysts logic and follow along blindly continuing this cycle.  So now we have to ask ourselves, really, exactly how much of our consciousness is retained?  I don't think enough to still be considered as "ourselves".

[deakka562]

"Murder is wrong" is a logical fallacy. "Murder" is already defined as an unjust killing. Ergo "Murder is wrong" is a double negative. Philosophers then debate what defines an unjust killing.

Gotta love going through topics with the socratic method, even the ME3 ending. It all rests on our definitions of what the Mass Effect universe is. The biggest disconnect is that (for the ending at least) the writers see this perfectly envisioned ending while the players are having problems connecting the dots (due to lack of information, or rather information that contradicts what was previously defined in the universe). Open ended endings are fine, as long as you don't leave your audience scratching their heads. You can debate "Well here's what I think happened after...", yet you can't really debate "Ok that didn't make any sense at all". It's a lack of information and clarity.

Personally I stopped trying to understand the out of nowhere choices after the "space magic" green ending was "explained". The synthesis choice would have at least fit better with "creation of a new consciousness" as opposed to a "new DNA". I actually think I had pain laughter after hearing that line

[Zany Jedi]

Zine2 wrote...

joiushdfoubsndpovn wrote...


This.  You've proven yourself to be a troll or a mentally unstable human being with the inability to form new thought processes that do not organically  come to your mind.  

LOL.

Again, the depths of delusions that the moral relativists have to dig astound me.

I am completely correct because I refuse to create imaginary constructs. I refuse to play semantic word games.

I am showing you an Apple. I am explaining to you how it cannot be an Orange. That you insist it's an Orange when it's clearly an Apple only demonstrates that you are lying.

I fail to see how you can prove anything you experience is objective reality.

[Zine2]

deakka562 wrote...

"Murder is wrong" is a logical fallacy. "Murder" is already defined as an unjust killing. Ergo "Murder is wrong" is a double negative. Philosophers then debate what defines an unjust killing.

Gotta love going through topics with the socratic method, even the ME3 ending. It all rests on our definitions of what the Mass Effect universe is. The biggest disconnect is that (for the ending at least) the writers see this perfectly envisioned ending while the players are having problems connecting the dots (due to lack of information, or rather information that contradicts what was previously defined in the universe). Open ended endings are fine, as long as you don't leave your audience scratching their heads. You can debate "Well here's what I think happened after...", yet you can't really debate "Ok that didn't make any sense at all". It's a lack of information and clarity.

Personally I stopped trying to understand the out of nowhere choices after the "space magic" green ending was "explained". The synthesis choice would have at least fit better with "creation of a new consciousness" as opposed to a "new DNA". I actually think I had pain laughter after hearing that line

Funnily, I never even used the murder is wrong argument but the ending defenders (predictably) keep accusing me of this. Really shows you the depths of denial one has to subject oneself to in order to justify the ending.

[humes spork]

Zine2 wrote...

I have shown that the Reapers can be judged on a FACTUAL basis as either lying or clinically insane. Not from a moral standpoint, a FACTUAL standpoint.

Any further (FALSE) accusations that I am proposing a moral argument will simply be referred back to the OP. Again: "An Apple is an Apple NO MATTER Your Perspective". This is not the domain of moral relativists: It explicitly REJECTS moral relativism as a valid defense, because it is NOT a valid defense in this case.

Then answer this: do you believe killing a chicken, since it has been mentioned in this thread prior is as morally condemnable as killing a human?

[Zine2]

HiddenKING wrote...
Transcended flesh. Billions of organic minds, uploaded and conjoined within immortal machine bodies. "Each a nation."

Again: The claim is that minds are uploaded. Show the quote, or accept that the idea that Reapers "upload" the minds of their victims is nothing more than a fairy tale.

We have already shown the "ascendance" is just codename for killing.

[Zine2]

humes spork wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

I have shown that the Reapers can be judged on a FACTUAL basis as either lying or clinically insane. Not from a moral standpoint, a FACTUAL standpoint.

Any further (FALSE) accusations that I am proposing a moral argument will simply be referred back to the OP. Again: "An Apple is an Apple NO MATTER Your Perspective". This is not the domain of moral relativists: It explicitly REJECTS moral relativism as a valid defense, because it is NOT a valid defense in this case.

Then answer this: do you believe killing a chicken, since it has been mentioned in this thread prior is as morally condemnable as killing a human?

Again, I refer to the OP. Morality has nothing to do with it.

If I kill a chicken, I killed a chicken. An Apple is an Apple.

But go ahead and keep up with the lies about moral relativism.

[humes spork]

Zine2 wrote...

Again, I refer to the OP. Morality has nothing to do with it.

If I kill a chicken, I killed a chicken. An Apple is an Apple.

But go ahead and keep up with the lies about moral relativism.

I cannot help but notice you did not answer my question. And yes, it is entirely relevant to the issue at heart, here. Nothing could be more relevant, really.

Do you believe killing a chicken is morally equivalent to killing a human being?

Modifié par humes spork, 16 avril 2012 - 05:34 .

[Zine2]

Zany Jedi wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

joiushdfoubsndpovn wrote...


This.  You've proven yourself to be a troll or a mentally unstable human being with the inability to form new thought processes that do not organically  come to your mind.  

LOL.

Again, the depths of delusions that the moral relativists have to dig astound me.

I am completely correct because I refuse to create imaginary constructs. I refuse to play semantic word games.

I am showing you an Apple. I am explaining to you how it cannot be an Orange. That you insist it's an Orange when it's clearly an Apple only demonstrates that you are lying.

I fail to see how you can prove anything you experience is objective reality.

I fail to see how you get this conclusion. I refuse to lie and say that an Apple is an Orange. It's that simple.

[Zine2]

humes spork wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

Again, I refer to the OP. Morality has nothing to do with it.

If I kill a chicken, I killed a chicken. An Apple is an Apple.

But go ahead and keep up with the lies about moral relativism.

I cannot help but notice you did not answer my question.

Do you believe killing a chicken is morally equivalent to killing a human being?

Tell me, when did you murder your wife?

You are a charlatan who asked a loaded question, over a point I never made. So again, I refer you to the OP. An apple is an apple.

[humes spork]

Zine2 wrote...

Tell me, when did you murder your wife?

You are a charlatan who asked a loaded question, over a point I never made. So again, I refer you to the OP. An apple is an apple.

And you're very noticably dodging the question. You're the one who argues moral relativism has no application here, and I'm asking you to defend that notion. I'm not asking you to justify killing a chicken, or suggesting you have killed chickens.

For the third time, is killing a chicken morally equivalent to killing a human?

Modifié par humes spork, 16 avril 2012 - 05:36 .

[Zany Jedi]

Zine2 wrote...

Zany Jedi wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

joiushdfoubsndpovn wrote...


This.  You've proven yourself to be a troll or a mentally unstable human being with the inability to form new thought processes that do not organically  come to your mind.  

LOL.

Again, the depths of delusions that the moral relativists have to dig astound me.

I am completely correct because I refuse to create imaginary constructs. I refuse to play semantic word games.

I am showing you an Apple. I am explaining to you how it cannot be an Orange. That you insist it's an Orange when it's clearly an Apple only demonstrates that you are lying.

I fail to see how you can prove anything you experience is objective reality.

I fail to see how you get this conclusion. I refuse to lie and say that an Apple is an Orange. It's that simple.

You say you are completely correct because you refuse to create imaginary constructs and yet you can't prove to me what is and isn't created by the mind, brain, or both.

Modifié par Zany Jedi, 16 avril 2012 - 05:36 .

[deakka562]

Zine2 wrote...

deakka562 wrote...

"Murder is wrong" is a logical fallacy. "Murder" is already defined as an unjust killing. Ergo "Murder is wrong" is a double negative. Philosophers then debate what defines an unjust killing.

Gotta love going through topics with the socratic method, even the ME3 ending. It all rests on our definitions of what the Mass Effect universe is. The biggest disconnect is that (for the ending at least) the writers see this perfectly envisioned ending while the players are having problems connecting the dots (due to lack of information, or rather information that contradicts what was previously defined in the universe). Open ended endings are fine, as long as you don't leave your audience scratching their heads. You can debate "Well here's what I think happened after...", yet you can't really debate "Ok that didn't make any sense at all". It's a lack of information and clarity.

Personally I stopped trying to understand the out of nowhere choices after the "space magic" green ending was "explained". The synthesis choice would have at least fit better with "creation of a new consciousness" as opposed to a "new DNA". I actually think I had pain laughter after hearing that line

Funnily, I never even used the murder is wrong argument but the ending defenders (predictably) keep accusing me of this. Really shows you the depths of denial one has to subject oneself to in order to justify the ending.

Was referring to the classic example most philosophy professors use when teaching the socratic method .  Notice how it was used in it's own context, in fact I never once referred to you at all, just the thread in general

[Sisterofshane]

Zine2 wrote...

humes spork wrote...

Zine2 wrote...

I have shown that the Reapers can be judged on a FACTUAL basis as either lying or clinically insane. Not from a moral standpoint, a FACTUAL standpoint.

Any further (FALSE) accusations that I am proposing a moral argument will simply be referred back to the OP. Again: "An Apple is an Apple NO MATTER Your Perspective". This is not the domain of moral relativists: It explicitly REJECTS moral relativism as a valid defense, because it is NOT a valid defense in this case.

Then answer this: do you believe killing a chicken, since it has been mentioned in this thread prior is as morally condemnable as killing a human?

Again, I refer to the OP. Morality has nothing to do with it.

If I kill a chicken, I killed a chicken. An Apple is an Apple.

But go ahead and keep up with the lies about moral relativism.

Except that it is a moral argument.  They're not killing us just to kill.  They believe that killing us allows for all of organic life to continue by avoiding the singularity.

Kind of like how hunters are allowed to "thin" populations of animals that would otherwise breed themselves to a point in which they would exhaust their natural ecosystems and end up starving to death.  The hunters are still killing, but doing so with a higher moral reasoning.

The problem we have with the Reapers is that we are certainly more aware and intelligent than your average woodland animal.  Have they not tried just explaining the problem to us?  I mean, Shep seemed to understand the entire debate within five minutes all while hemorrhaging to death.

[TheLastAwakening]

Yes, and a rotten apple is still an apple. However, there is a distinction because one of its properties has changed and therefore one of its functions has changed.

Imo, I don't think the Reapers are equating killing directly with saving. Rather, I think the Reapers are pointing out that a certain property in their method of killing differs and it is that which they use in the framework they call salvation.

I don't agree with the Reapers so I won't continue the line of thinking I was going to use regarding Husk. However, I will say imo I don't think you can dismiss the Reapers perspective so easily by saying that truth depends on physical realities.

From what we know of their physical reality: the victims which are processed become preserved as part of a new Reaper. In essence the "fate" of the dead is not exactly the same if lets say Shepard were to kill someone vs a Reaper doing the same. Yes, there are potentially some instance were what the Reapers are doing is the same but that is not their ultimate goal.

I think similar parallels can be made regarding the Quarians wishing to shutdown the Geth etc...

So are the Reapers lying or cynically insane?
Imo the addition of the Catalyst creates an unknown. Then again I stupid sometimes, I like dinosaurs.

[Captain Victory]

KILL IS KISS.

Modifié par Captain Victory, 16 avril 2012 - 05:43 .

[webhead921]

This thread is a joke.

[humes spork]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Except that it is a moral argument.  They're not killing us just to kill.  They believe that killing us allows for all of organic life to continue by avoiding the singularity.

It is and he knows it, that's why he's dodging my question.

Because if he answers yes, killing a chicken is morally equivalent to killing a human, then humans are no better than Reapers and hypocrites for condemning the Reapers for engaging in mass murder while turning a blind eye to humans' own industrial-scale animal slaughter.

If he answers no, then he provokes the question of why killing a chicken is not morally equivalent to killing a human. The natural answer is, regardless how you phrase it or gussy it up, because chickens are a lower order of life with less value then humans, which in turn provokes the questions of what moral authority do animals of a "higher order" have to engage in mass slaughter and how are humans of an equal or higher order of life than Reapers, that the latter has no moral authority to slaughter the former. That's a question that has no objective answer, and ultimately boils down to ceding there is no moral authority to kill "lower orders" of life, or moral authority stems from some derivation of might makes right.

In the case of answering yes, he's demonstrated hypocrisy. In the case of answering no he's demonstrated bias. Either one is the consequence of an inherently relative viewpoint, which shoots his little theory that moral relativism has no place in this argument all to hell. Is it any wonder he buggered out of the thread when pressed for an answer?

Modifié par humes spork, 16 avril 2012 - 05:57 .

[daecath]

Zine2 wrote...
So when the Reapers equate "killing" with "saving" ("We are your salvation through destruction"), what they are saying is simply factually wrong. They are saying an "Apple" is an "Orange". Thus, only two conclusions are possible:

1) They are lying - they know it's an apple but insist on calling it an orange.

2) They are clinically insane - they literally cannot tell the difference between an apple and an orange because their cognitive skills are worse than a five year old. It doesn't matter if you have infinite processing power or ten thousand years worth of data. If you cannot tell an apple from an orange, you are suffering from a proveable mental disorder, and therefore your opinions has as much merit as a madman in a padded cell, or a senile old man. Being older does not automatically make you wiser or deeper.

There is no other room for other "interpretations". This is the harsh reality of the ending.

As much as I hate to disagree with anyone who is ragging on the endings, I'm afraid I'm going to have to.

Let's say you have a baby chick that is just about to hatch. You want to help it out, so when you see it's little beak poke out, you start removing the shell from around it. You believe you are helping this little baby creature come into the world, but in reality, you are harming it. There are plenty of other examples in the animal kingdom where humans attempting to help actually do more harm than good. We see a creature in need, and so we help it in the best way we know how. The animal however sees it differently. Perhaps by helping, we are preventing it from learning a vital skill. Perhaps we are somehow "tainting" it so that it will no longer be accepted by its society.

Even in our own society, we have less dramatic versions of this. You might open a door for a woman because you think it's chivalrous, only to have her get upset at you for sexism. You might offer to pay for a meal for a friend you know is struggling, only for them to get upset at your handout. Perspective does change things.

Now I'm not saying they're right. But I'm saying there is a third option beyond either them lying, or them being insane. They could honestly believe, either because they are deluded, or because they know something we don't, that they are helping us. That doesn't make them insane, and it doesn't make them liars.

[TheLastAwakening]

webhead921 wrote...

This thread is a joke.

I still like Dinosaurs:P.