336 réponses à ce sujet

[The Angry One]

Optimystic_X wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Not even my ultra renegade Shepard is that arrogant.

Was he arrogant enough to nuke 300k Batarians? Or unilaterally decide the fate of the Rachni?

She was not. You do realise the facility was already set up to to this. This was hardly Shepard's plan alone.
In any case, it was literally a case of no choice, and my Shepard tried to warn the Batarians every time the opportunity came up, unfortunate acts of plot seemed to sabotage that every time.

No comparison whatsoever.

[PsyrenY]

Taboo-XX wrote...

They are dead. They are no longer themselves, free will or not.

Joker and EDI looked like themselves to me.

Taboo-XX wrote... 

The universe is chaotic by nature and has allowed life to evolve as a result. You do not simply rewrite the way the universe has worked for billions of years. Chaos has allowed us to be the way we are today. If, in a thousand years a singularity will happen and synthetics will wipe out organics then so be it. This is the way the universe works and how it should always be. None of the choices are ethical, they all simply come down to a matter of taste.

As a transhumanist, I see it being just as possible that the synthesis will come about in the fullness of time too. If I can speed it up, and save the Geth at the same time, so be it.
 

[adneate]

MisterJB wrote...
The results are more important than the means through which they were achieved.

Ah the old "The Ends Justify The Means" defence, how many war criminals and sociopaths have used that to get some sleep at night. The morality is irrelevant, the sacrifice is irrelevant and any crimes are irrelevant since in the end it will all be worth it.

I find it curious that your passionate defence of synthesis is in the end defended by that statement, since technically it invalidates all moral arguments by rendering morality itself an irrelevancy. If you invoke that defence you can't then say "Homophobia is wrong or Racism is wrong" because morality no longer exists in any finite sense. It exists only in a loose contextual sense, it's no longer "Thou shalt not murder" but "Thou shalt not murder unless thou has a good reason to". Since we've now made all morality contextual we also can't really claim Synthesis to be on a moral highground over destroy since the moral judgements made to evaluate each decision is contextual.

Destroy is the right choice because the ends justify the means.

[NoUserNameHere]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

You don't.......make........inferences.........at all. You literally suggested in a previous post that people who didn't like having their DNA rewritten could have it reveresed. I cannot fathom how you came to this conclusion or how you plan on explaining yourself. You have continuously avoided the question when it is presented to you. 

Do you approach everything like a husk. No emotion at all?

From where I'm sitting, futzing with everyone's DNA beats them being reaped/dead. Destroy involves genocide and Control is too vague.

Now you sound just like Saren. What with submission being preferable to extinction.

[MisterJB]

ElitePinecone wrote...
We're getting into actual philosophy here, which might even be what the devs intended. 

I happen to find utilitarianism morally repugnent. The ends never justify the means. It's better to lose than to achieve a good result with terrible methods.

Well, there is not much I can say other than I disagree. To me, the ends justify the means. That does not mean any ends justify any means, BTW.
In this case, I believe that the propesct of improving the quality of life of every single organic in the galaxy justifies bypassing their freedom of choice for a second.

Modifié par MisterJB, 01 mai 2012 - 05:43 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Can someone explain to me the actual results of Synthesis? How it works, how the galaxy is changed, what the advantages are? All I have is some deliberately ambiguous bullsh*t from the most untrustworthy source of information since the f*cking serpent in the garden of Eden.

Anyone? Please?

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 01 mai 2012 - 05:41 .

[PsyrenY]

The Angry One wrote...

In any case, it was literally a case of no choice, and my Shepard tried to warn the Batarians every time the opportunity came up, unfortunate acts of plot seemed to sabotage that every time.

You're missing my point. Trying to warn the Batarians always came AFTER starting the facility up, i.e. after the unilateral decision was made. Even had you managed to warn them, you would never have asked their permission to blow their relay, you would have made sure it happened. Because you had no choice.

You do have a choice (somewhat) in Synthesis. However, for my Shepard, the other options had too high a price to be worthy of consideration. Just as not blowing the Alpha Relay had too high a price to be worthy of consideration.

NoUserNameHere wrote...
Now you sound just like Saren. What with submission being preferable to extinction.

I saw no submission. Where was the Reaper that descended on EDI and Joker, causing them to prostrate themselves in deference?

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 01 mai 2012 - 05:41 .

[Taboo]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

They are dead. They are no longer themselves, free will or not.

Joker and EDI looked like themselves to me.

Taboo-XX wrote... 

The universe is chaotic by nature and has allowed life to evolve as a result. You do not simply rewrite the way the universe has worked for billions of years. Chaos has allowed us to be the way we are today. If, in a thousand years a singularity will happen and synthetics will wipe out organics then so be it. This is the way the universe works and how it should always be. None of the choices are ethical, they all simply come down to a matter of taste.

As a transhumanist, I see it being just as possible that the synthesis will come about in the fullness of time too. If I can speed it up, and save the Geth at the same time, so be it.
 

People have the RIGHT to choose. You do not have the ability to make it for them. If they don't want it they shouldn't have to deal with it. Believing transhumanism is right for you does not make it right for everyone else. This is the core of the debate. You do not have the right to make descisions on such a large scale.

[The Angry One]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Joker and EDI looked like themselves to me.

So did doctor what's her face before Harbinger assumed direct control.

As a transhumanist, I see it being just as possible that the synthesis will come about in the fullness of time too. If I can speed it up, and save the Geth at the same time, so be it.
 

Hey guess what? I'm a transhumanist too.
That doesn't mean I would impose this on all lifeforms in the galaxy. To do so would be horrifically presumptive and arrogant.
Such a change should be by concious choice, never by imposition.

[The Night Mammoth]

Optimystic_X wrote...

I saw no submission. Where was the Reaper that descended on EDI and Joker, causing them to prostrate themselves in deference?

Shepard or the Catalyst. 

Pick one. 

[The Angry One]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Can someone explain to me the actual results of Synthesis? How it works, how the galaxy is changed, what the advantages are? All I have is some deliberately ambiguous bullsh*t from the most untrustworthy source of information since the f*cking serpent in the garden of Eden.

Anyone? Please?

Joker gets glowing eyes and EDI's visor turns green.

Oh and everybody gets glowing veins. Even hats.

[PsyrenY]

Taboo-XX wrote...

People have the RIGHT to choose. You do not have the ability to make it for them.

Clearly I do have that ability, because of the Crucible/Catalyst.
It is not ethical, but neither is murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people by blowing up their star system.

 

Taboo-XX wrote... 
If they don't want it they shouldn't have to deal with it. Believing transhumanism is right for you does not make it right for everyone else. This is the core of the debate. You do not have the right to make descisions on such a large scale.

I also don't have the right to slaughter the Geth, nor do I have the right to gamble everyone's lives on a solution that has no guarantee of long-term success.

[Tom Lehrer]

Synthesis makes everyone a husk even trees and grass.

Reapers live and get what they want!

[Taboo]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

People have the RIGHT to choose. You do not have the ability to make it for them.

Clearly I do have that ability, because of the Crucible/Catalyst.
It is not ethical, but neither is murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people by blowing up their star system.

 

Taboo-XX wrote... 
If they don't want it they shouldn't have to deal with it. Believing transhumanism is right for you does not make it right for everyone else. This is the core of the debate. You do not have the right to make descisions on such a large scale.

I also don't have the right to slaughter the Geth, nor do I have the right to gamble everyone's lives on a solution that has no guarantee of long-term success.

None of the ending choices are logical OR ethical. They come down to a matter of taste.

Which of the three is the lesser evil?

Without clarification the endings are a failure........for now.

We need to wait a few more months.

[richard_rider]

MisterJB wrote...
Well, there is not much I can say other than I disagree. To me, the ends justify the means. That does not mean any ends justify any means, BTW.
In this case, I believe that the propesct of improving the quality of life of every single organic in the galaxy justifies bypassing their freedom of choice for a second.

I'm sorry, but if the end justifies the means, then the end justifies the means, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Storm258]

I guess Synthesis is what indoctrinated Saren wanted. And as we don't see many real "cyborgs" in Mass Effect (besides implants and such stuff), Saren probably was supposed to be the first one. His arm was a geth-arm, wasn't it? You could argue that Husks are already "Synthesis", so that's what the Reapers have been doing all along.

So if that's true, then ...

Control -> Illusive Man -> Indoctrinated -> Bad guy -> Nooooo
Synthesis -> Saren -> Indoctrinated -> Bad guy -> Nooooo
Destroy -> Anderson -> Good guy -> Breath scene -> only right choice -> Indoctrination theory?!

And there we are again ...

[richard_rider]

adneate wrote...

MisterJB wrote...
The results are more important than the means through which they were achieved.

Ah the old "The Ends Justify The Means" defence, how many war criminals and sociopaths have used that to get some sleep at night. The morality is irrelevant, the sacrifice is irrelevant and any crimes are irrelevant since in the end it will all be worth it.

I find it curious that your passionate defence of synthesis is in the end defended by that statement, since technically it invalidates all moral arguments by rendering morality itself an irrelevancy. If you invoke that defence you can't then say "Homophobia is wrong or Racism is wrong" because morality no longer exists in any finite sense. It exists only in a loose contextual sense, it's no longer "Thou shalt not murder" but "Thou shalt not murder unless thou has a good reason to". Since we've now made all morality contextual we also can't really claim Synthesis to be on a moral highground over destroy since the moral judgements made to evaluate each decision is contextual.

Destroy is the right choice because the ends justify the means.

This sums up the entire "end justifies the means" argument.

[daigakuinsei]

Still confused on how Synthesis is any different from turning everyone into husks.

[Sepharih]

Optimystic_X wrote...
As a transhumanist, I see it being just as possible that the synthesis will come about in the fullness of time too. If I can speed it up, and save the Geth at the same time, so be it.
 

We've had this conversation before.  Like last time, I pointed out that when you speak of "speeding it up", what you're really promoting is eugenics.

[The Angry One]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

People have the RIGHT to choose. You do not have the ability to make it for them.

Clearly I do have that ability, because of the Crucible/Catalyst.
It is not ethical, but neither is murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people by blowing up their star system.

There is no comparison. NO COMPARISON.

300k people dying vs. fundamentally altering trillions of life forms in the galaxy. Not only the current ones, but all future generations. Mucking about with the building blocks of life to remake everything into the Reaper's image.

[M Hedonist]

Optimystic_X wrote...

As a transhumanist, I see it being just as possible that the synthesis will come about in the fullness of time too. If I can speed it up, and save the Geth at the same time, so be it.
 

This literally made me go 'Wait, what'. How does a) 'People can become cyborgs if they want' lead to 'everybody becomes a cyborg' in any logical way? Because if there's no logical way in which a) leads to then there's no way to 'speed up' this alleged process (???) you're talking about.

Modifié par Sauruz, 01 mai 2012 - 05:56 .

[MisterJB]

richard_rider wrote...
I'm sorry, but if the end justifies the means, then the end justifies the means, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Allow me to give you an example:

End: Save Sur'Kesh.
Means: Allow the Reapers to burn Pallaven and Thessia.
In this case, the end does not justify the means because you are losing more lifes than those you saved.

End: Save Sur'Kesh where the Crucible is being built.
Means:Same as before.
In this case, the ends justify the means because, while you are sacrificing two planets to save one, you are also saving the only thing that can end this war thus saving salarians, turians and asari.

[PsyrenY]

Sepharih wrote...

We've had this conversation before.  Like last time, I pointed out that when you speak of "speeding it up", what you're really promoting is eugenics.

Godwin yet again. Can you people really find no other way to articulate your point of view besides RAH?

And no, nanotechnology and eugenics are completely different. Eugenics has no scientific basis, merely racism. Nanotechnology has obvious benefits, as proven by our own world, the Quarians, the Salarians, and even the Human military.

The Angry One wrote...

There is no comparison. NO COMPARISON.

In both cases, Shepard is unilaterally making a hard choice to save as many lives as possible. How is there no comparison?

And if it really sucks/people want to "opt out" later, at least they're all alive - they're chances of finding a way out are much higher than if they're reaped/have no super-smart Geth around.

[frylock23]

The Angry One wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

People have the RIGHT to choose. You do not have the ability to make it for them.

Clearly I do have that ability, because of the Crucible/Catalyst.
It is not ethical, but neither is murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people by blowing up their star system.

There is no comparison. NO COMPARISON.

300k people dying vs. fundamentally altering trillions of life forms in the galaxy. Not only the current ones, but all future generations. Mucking about with the building blocks of life to remake everything into the Reaper's image.

Those 300K were also collateral damage and you tried your best to warn them to flee. The other is willful destuctruction because you feel their destruction in the quest to remake them into something you feel will ultimately be "better" is justified in some way. In other words, one was a last resort, but you're more than happy to do the other.

[Taboo]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Sepharih wrote...

We've had this conversation before.  Like last time, I pointed out that when you speak of "speeding it up", what you're really promoting is eugenics.

Godwin yet again. Can you people really find no other way to articulate your point of view besides RAH?

And no, nanotechnology and eugenics are completely different. Eugenics has no scientific basis, merely racism. Nanotechnology has obvious benefits, as proven by our own world, the Quarians, the Salarians, and even the Human military.

The Angry One wrote...

There is no comparison. NO COMPARISON.

In both cases, Shepard is unilaterally making a hard choice to save as many lives as possible. How is there no comparison?

And if it really sucks/people want to "opt out" later, at least they're all alive - they're chances of finding a way out are much higher than if they're reaped/have no super-smart Geth around.

So I should make others better............regardless of the cost?

Really? REALLY?