233 réponses à ce sujet

[Taboo]

Optimystic_X wrote...

FJVP wrote...

Synthesis forces everyone to be the same.

This argument is now completely brown from having been pulled out of so many asses.

Much like the arguments you pull out of your backside when you refuse to answer my questions. You have no idea what it does and defend it because you happen to have a viewpoint that you believe justifies it.

The problem with Synthesis is that it merges Synthetic and Organic DNA on a galactic scale. That is not a form of transhumanism. What you suggest is that rewriting the way the galaxy has functioned for billions of years is somehow ethical because it benefits people. You remove the problems in both synthetics and organics. By removing the undesirable traits we can achieve peace.

Do you understand the poltical undertones in that? Do you understand that even though it doesn't kill anyone you don't have that right? To take away such things?

Have you ever been educated  in the fields of ethics? Politics? Science?

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 03 mai 2012 - 09:56 .

[eddieoctane]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Let's suppose Legion did try to network to other geth before deciding,

... are you saying that every single geth supported the idea? That not one opposed? There very well may have been dissenting opinions that were ultimately forced to change, not far-fetched to think it when we're talking about the same guy (Legion) who was saying in the last installment how geth should not accept gifts from the Old Machines and "build their own" future. And those like-minded geth made up 95% of their people.

So, odds are pretty high that he truly did "force" his opinion on the rest of them.

Well, considering hwo Legion explained Geth thought processes, yes. They all were in total consensus. They all eventualy adopt the same stance on an issue. When you factor in that the Geth had already used the Reaper code of their own volition, the discussion has to change. It's no longer "do we accept the Reaper code?" but "does anyone not like what the Reaper code did for us?" There is a huge difference between that and synthesis. The Geth accepted the code once and decided to keep it. No one was given the choice of synthesis, even if the other option was their outright extermination, beforehand.

[His Name was HYR!!]

The Angry One wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

As I recall, he had no problem killing off the heretics either. Just under half of his programs supported it.

So much for allowing them to self-determinate.

Yes, but that particular dialog is on rewriting them.

Yeah I think the freedom to self-determinate ends when they're trying to kill you. Or in the Heretic's case, worse, trying to make all Geth worship the Reapers.

They allowed the heretics to join the Reapers in the first place on those grounds.

[Catroi]

The Angry One wrote...

EsterCloat wrote...

Legion is networked into all other geth. They're a hive mind. When he made that decision, it was a decision decided by ALL geth. He didn't force it on anyone. They chose it together.

Shepard, with his organic brain and non-hive mind, has no such connection and ability to decide with everyone.

Good point, at the very least he would've had consensus with the Primes from the previous mission, which are each a networked collection of Geth.

I agree with you but the codex states that they are NOT a hive mind, if they were Heretics wouldn't exist, they are just sharing their thoughts between each other

[The Angry One]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

They allowed the heretics to join the Reapers in the first place on those grounds.

They allowed the Heretics to differ from them. This changed when the Heretics started planning to brainwash them.

[Geneaux486]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

FJVP wrote...

Synthesis forces everyone to be the same.

This argument is now completely brown from having been pulled out of so many asses.

Much like the arguments you pull out of your backside when you refuse to answer my questions. You have no idea what it does and defend it because you happen to have a viewpoint that you believe justifies it.

The problem with Synthesis is that it merges Synthetic and Organic DNA on a galactic scale. That is not a form of transhumanism. What you suggest is that rewriting the way the galaxy has functioned for billions of years is somehow ethical because it benefits people. You remove the problems in both synthetics and organics. By removing the undesirable traits we can achieve peace.

Do you understand the poltical undertones in that? Do you understand that even though it doesn't kill anyone you don't have that right? To take away such things?

Have you ever been educated  in the fields of ethics? Politics? Science?

Where does it say undesirable traits are removed?  All the Catalyst says is that all will be stronger.  There's nothing to even suggest that the difference between each species is lessened after synthesis. 

[antares_sublight]

(I chose synthesis on my first playthrough, then thought better of it afterwards)

Pre-reaper code the Geth were not fully independent beings with full free will. Post-reaper code they were. Legion's actions gave them the full free will they didn't have.
Pre-synthesis, the beings to be affected are already fully independent with full free will. Synthesis imposes DNA-level changes on individuals with free will.

The situations under which the actions are imposed aren't the same.

[Taboo]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

FJVP wrote...

Synthesis forces everyone to be the same.

This argument is now completely brown from having been pulled out of so many asses.

Much like the arguments you pull out of your backside when you refuse to answer my questions. You have no idea what it does and defend it because you happen to have a viewpoint that you believe justifies it.

The problem with Synthesis is that it merges Synthetic and Organic DNA on a galactic scale. That is not a form of transhumanism. What you suggest is that rewriting the way the galaxy has functioned for billions of years is somehow ethical because it benefits people. You remove the problems in both synthetics and organics. By removing the undesirable traits we can achieve peace.

Do you understand the poltical undertones in that? Do you understand that even though it doesn't kill anyone you don't have that right? To take away such things?

Have you ever been educated  in the fields of ethics? Politics? Science?

Where does it say undesirable traits are removed?  All the Catalyst says is that all will be stronger.  There's nothing to even suggest that the difference between each species is lessened after synthesis. 

The difference is removed. What makes them fear one another is removed. An undesirable trait is removed. Regardless of how it's done it shouldn't be done.

Furthermore a Utopia is only achievable if you suppress certain things in people. I don't know to what extent Synthesis does this but I KNOW that Brave New World is cited as an influence next to Synthesis in the Final Hours App.

You know what that book warns you against right?

[Geneaux486]

Taboo-XX wrote...
The difference is removed. What makes them fear one another is removed. An undesirable trait is removed.

This is never stated in the game.  Organic DNA is enhanced with synthetics, and something organic happens to synthetics.  That's all we know for a fact. 

[His Name was HYR!!]

eddieoctane wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Let's suppose Legion did try to network to other geth before deciding,

... are you saying that every single geth supported the idea? That not one opposed? There very well may have been dissenting opinions that were ultimately forced to change, not far-fetched to think it when we're talking about the same guy (Legion) who was saying in the last installment how geth should not accept gifts from the Old Machines and "build their own" future. And those like-minded geth made up 95% of their people.

So, odds are pretty high that he truly did "force" his opinion on the rest of them.

Well, considering hwo Legion explained Geth thought processes, yes. They all were in total consensus. They all eventualy adopt the same stance on an issue. When you factor in that the Geth had already used the Reaper code of their own volition, the discussion has to change. It's no longer "do we accept the Reaper code?" but "does anyone not like what the Reaper code did for us?" There is a huge difference between that and synthesis. The Geth accepted the code once and decided to keep it. No one was given the choice of synthesis, even if the other option was their outright extermination, beforehand.

Does he specify whether its really total consensus, or general consensus?

[OblivionDawn]

Umm, who thinks synthesis is immoral lol?

Anyone who knows nothing about ethics, probably.

[Geneaux486]

OblivionDawn wrote...

Umm, who thinks synthesis is immoral lol?

Anyone who knows nothing about ethics, probably.

Synthesis is definetely a moral gray area, as are the other two choices.  Even though I think the "homogenized DNA" argument is a load of crap (mostly because it is), that still doesn't necesarily give Shepard the right to mess with the DNA of every living thing in the galaxy.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 03 mai 2012 - 10:13 .

[PsyrenY]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Much like the arguments you pull out of your backside when you refuse to answer my questions. You have no idea what it does and defend it because you happen to have a viewpoint that you believe justifies it.

Except, yet again, I have evidence to support my assertion while you do not.

Joker's skin did not turn gray in Synthesis, nor did EDI develop flesh. Clearly, diversity remains.

And I've answered all your questions before, you just don't like that I have a differing opinion from yours. Go on, repost any of them so I can slap it down yet again.

Taboo-XX wrote... 

Do you understand the poltical undertones in that? Do you understand that even though it doesn't kill anyone you don't have that right? To take away such things?

Have you ever been educated  in the fields of ethics? Politics? Science?

"Ethics" is a luxury that we cannot always afford. If Synthesis bothers you so much don't choose it, but you won't stop me from doing so. My ethics don't allow me to genocide an innocent race, nor do they allow me to gamble everyone's lives on very doubtful control.

[HyperionTheGreat]

We are building a consensus.

Fact is it's not immoral as it leaves a lot of questions. So now that everyone is essentially equal, how do they reproduce, what traits will they gain, what of their genes, stuff like that...

I mean honestly synthesis is like flying into a black hole hoping it's actually a portal to a different universe/galaxy/whatever,

[Konfined]

Geneaux486 wrote...

OblivionDawn wrote...

Umm, who thinks synthesis is immoral lol?

Anyone who knows nothing about ethics, probably.

Synthesis is definetely a moral gray area, as are the other two choices.  Even though I think the "homogenized DNA" argument is a load of crap (mostly because it is), that still doesn't necesarily give Shepard the right to mess with the DNA of every living thing in the galaxy.

There is nothing grey about imposing your desires upon another group.  It's morally reprehensible, plain and simple.

[Geneaux486]

Konfined wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

OblivionDawn wrote...

Umm, who thinks synthesis is immoral lol?

Anyone who knows nothing about ethics, probably.

Synthesis is definetely a moral gray area, as are the other two choices.  Even though I think the "homogenized DNA" argument is a load of crap (mostly because it is), that still doesn't necesarily give Shepard the right to mess with the DNA of every living thing in the galaxy.

There is nothing grey about imposing your desires upon another group.  It's morally reprehensible, plain and simple.

That's not what's happening.  It's not Shepard's desires, he didn't build the Crucible, he was just ordered to activate it, and had the support of multiple races.  That doesn't make it right, but that does make it defendable.  With the Crucible you basically have to make the best of a bad situation.  All three choices involve Shepard doing something that is morally questionable, but if he doesn't do it, everyone dies.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 03 mai 2012 - 10:18 .

[OblivionDawn]

Geneaux486 wrote...

OblivionDawn wrote...

Umm, who thinks synthesis is immoral lol?

Anyone who knows nothing about ethics, probably.

Synthesis is definetely a moral gray area, as are the other two choices.  Even though I think the "homogenized DNA" argument is a load of crap (mostly because it is), that still doesn't necesarily give Shepard the right to mess with the DNA of every living thing in the galaxy.

What does it matter? It propels organic life to the pinnacle of evolution.

It's not like Shepard took it upon himself to change all organics because he thought it would be cool. Rather, it was the right of organics to evolve to their maximum capability. All that was needed was a "catalyst" to make that take place. Shepard and the Star Child were simply that catalyst.

The ends justify the means. Acting on behalf of an entire galaxy may be considered somewhat arrogant, but surely it's not immoral to bring synthetics and organics into perfect harmony if no one was killed or hurt in the process.

[Wulfram]

Synthesis is too much gibberish to definitively say it's immoral.  But it seems pretty dodgy to me.

Modifié par Wulfram, 03 mai 2012 - 10:19 .

[HyperionTheGreat]

Geneaux486 wrote...

OblivionDawn wrote...

Umm, who thinks synthesis is immoral lol?

Anyone who knows nothing about ethics, probably.

Synthesis is definetely a moral gray area, as are the other two choices.  Even though I think the "homogenized DNA" argument is a load of crap (mostly because it is), that still doesn't necesarily give Shepard the right to mess with the DNA of every living thing in the galaxy.

Hey if people don't wanna get turned into gray biomechanical Reaper goo, they'll conform and they'll do it.

[Geneaux486]

OblivionDawn wrote...

What does it matter? It propels organic life to the pinnacle of evolution.

It's not like Shepard took it upon himself to change all organics because he thought it would be cool. Rather, it was the right of organics to evolve to their maximum capability. All that was needed was a "catalyst" to make that take place. Shepard and the Star Child were simply that catalyst.

The ends justify the means. Acting on behalf of an entire galaxy may be considered somewhat arrogant, but surely it's not immoral to bring synthetics and organics into perfect harmony if no one was killed or hurt in the process.

But the question remains does Shepard have that right?  Especially when he's got two other options, one of which being the enslavement of the Reapers at no additional cost to organics.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 03 mai 2012 - 10:20 .

[Konfined]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Much like the arguments you pull out of your backside when you refuse to answer my questions. You have no idea what it does and defend it because you happen to have a viewpoint that you believe justifies it.

Except, yet again, I have evidence to support my assertion while you do not.

Joker's skin did not turn gray in Synthesis, nor did EDI develop flesh. Clearly, diversity remains.

And I've answered all your questions before, you just don't like that I have a differing opinion from yours. Go on, repost any of them so I can slap it down yet again.

Taboo-XX wrote... 

Do you understand the poltical undertones in that? Do you understand that even though it doesn't kill anyone you don't have that right? To take away such things?

Have you ever been educated  in the fields of ethics? Politics? Science?

"Ethics" is a luxury that we cannot always afford. If Synthesis bothers you so much don't choose it, but you won't stop me from doing so. My ethics don't allow me to genocide an innocent race, nor do they allow me to gamble everyone's lives on very doubtful control.

No, but they allow you to forcibly change every being in the galaxy though, right?  Joker's skin doesn't turn grey, but he also still suffers from Brittle Bone too.  So what good was synthesis?  Everyone in the galaxy has been altered right down to the fundemental building blocks, with no tangible change for the better, and the Reapers ride off into the sunset, still very much alive.  So you have nothing to show for your decision, other than the fact that your ethics appear to be completely warped.

Modifié par Konfined, 03 mai 2012 - 10:35 .

[His Name was HYR!!]

The Angry One wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

They allowed the heretics to join the Reapers in the first place on those grounds.

They allowed the Heretics to differ from them. This changed when the Heretics started planning to brainwash them.

And the story ends with the geth realizing their mistake, and they rectify this through either re-write or denying the heretics freedom to self-determinate for choosing the wrong perspective.

Greater good, I'm seeing a common theme here.

[Taboo]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Much like the arguments you pull out of your backside when you refuse to answer my questions. You have no idea what it does and defend it because you happen to have a viewpoint that you believe justifies it.

Except, yet again, I have evidence to support my assertion while you do not.

Joker's skin did not turn gray in Synthesis, nor did EDI develop flesh. Clearly, diversity remains.

And I've answered all your questions before, you just don't like that I have a differing opinion from yours. Go on, repost any of them so I can slap it down yet again.

Taboo-XX wrote... 

Do you understand the poltical undertones in that? Do you understand that even though it doesn't kill anyone you don't have that right? To take away such things?

Have you ever been educated  in the fields of ethics? Politics? Science?

"Ethics" is a luxury that we cannot always afford. If Synthesis bothers you so much don't choose it, but you won't stop me from doing so. My ethics don't allow me to genocide an innocent race, nor do they allow me to gamble everyone's lives on very doubtful control.

No you haven't answered my questions. You have yet to explain to me how you believed that if someone didn't like having their DNA synthesized they could have it reversed. That's a red flag. You said it and implied it and avoided the thread like a plague when I called you out on it.

I know that Synthesis doesn't turn people into husks or something to the like. It DOES merge organic and synthetic DNA which is nothing short of divine. I see people like you quote pseudo and fringe sciene articles for inspiration. You are no different to me than someone who believes that crystals can heal wounds or that a medium can contact the dead. You're a joke and a laughing stock. You remind me of that crazed man of Greek descent on Ancient Aliens. Synthesis in nothing short of divine.

As for ethics, one is always hesitant to do something once oneself is involved. Black and White only exist when you aren't involved personally most of the time. I don't belive Destroy to be ethcial either but I don't want to rewrite the way the galaxy is. Nothing about the ending choices are ethical, they all come down to taste.

[antares_sublight]

OblivionDawn wrote...
Acting on behalf of an entire galaxy may be considered somewhat arrogant, but surely it's not immoral to bring synthetics and organics into perfect harmony if no one was killed or hurt in the process.

How about the millions/billions of people who didn't want their DNA changed in that manner?

Synthesis turns Shepard into a fascist strongman, imposing his ideal of existential superiority on all races, ridding the galaxy of "inferior" pure organics and forbidding anyone anywhere in the galaxy live otherwise.

[OblivionDawn]

Geneaux486 wrote...

OblivionDawn wrote...

What does it matter? It propels organic life to the pinnacle of evolution.

It's not like Shepard took it upon himself to change all organics because he thought it would be cool. Rather, it was the right of organics to evolve to their maximum capability. All that was needed was a "catalyst" to make that take place. Shepard and the Star Child were simply that catalyst.

The ends justify the means. Acting on behalf of an entire galaxy may be considered somewhat arrogant, but surely it's not immoral to bring synthetics and organics into perfect harmony if no one was killed or hurt in the process.

But the question remains does Shepard have that right?  Especially when he's got two other options, one of which being the enslavement of the Reapers at no additional cost to organics.

At the end of Mass Effect 3, it could be argued that Shepard is the very icon of organic individuality and tenacity, based on his role in fighting the Reapers. Everyone knew that it was up to him to stop the Reapers in the end, and numerous people told him to do whatever it takes.

On the other hand, it could be argued that Shepard acted on behalf of the entire galaxy without taking the entire galaxy's consent. He probably did not have the "right" to do that. But, given what he did for the entire galaxy, does it really matter if he had the right or not?

After all was said and done, would anyone really consider Shepard an egomanical tyrant who imposed his will on the galaxy? Or would they consider him the savior/avenger of hundreds of trillions of organic lives?