1357 réponses à ce sujet

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...


You just said -

"definitely gives reason for potential problems with control, ""if you think you can control us" 

What's the potential problem beside NOT BEING ABLE TO CONTROL THE REAPERS?

Sorry, I'm not with you

K, I'll go slowly.

I was saying that he only says negative things about destroy.

Your rebuttal was the negative thing he says about control was  "if you think you can control us" is meant to imply that there are potential problems with this.

My question to you is what "problems" are implied by the starkid when it comes to control?

A possibility of mismanagement by organics of the Reapers which means that the machines can rebel against them and ultimately kill all organics

Derp.

You got all that from the word think? I think you might be grasping at that one SubAstris.....

Implying that most of IT is based on such grasping, yes?

[KingZayd]

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
You're making several assumptions:

A) You assume "control" means 100% active, every action control.
You assume the Catalyst is active and monitoring the Citadel.
C) You assume the Catalyst is in control of the Citadel.
D) You assume the Catalyst can doing anything beyond what is shown when the Crucible is attached.

A) no, but i assume it doesn't mean control in an abstract manner.. i assume it has to be at least in communication with the reapers some of the time?
At some point, yeah. if not, why not?
C) The Citadel is a part of the Catalyst. If it doesn't control the Citadel, why doesn't it?
D) Yes, because otherwise it's useless. It says the reapers are its solution, and that it controls them, so surely it must have SOME influence and SOME contact with them?

Why can't you just say "Yes, I am making assumption that conveniently support my point of view"?

You are ascribing powers not in evidence in the series.

Because i'm not making the assumptions to back up my point of view. I would love to like the endings at face value, but I don't. I've tried, and these didn't make sense. The only way to make them make sense, would be to add lots of convoluted ways that make the reapers and the story ridiculous, unless you care to prove otherwise? I am ascribing powers not in evidence in most of the series, but which are implied by the Starchild.

It's only upon further investigation that i was convinced that yes, indoctrination is happening

[CavScout]

Leafs43 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...

ev76 wrote...

Cavscout did you choose control?or Synthesis?

I selected destroy. Why?

Really? i remember you passionately defending synthesis as the superior option a couple of weeks ago? Why the change? (from destroy --> synthesis, or from synthesis --> destroy)

He has to make his argument seem credible by choosing the one option that hasn't been completely obliterated by logic.

It's bad enough that you guys make up things said in game, now you do it about things said on the forums. Desperation.

[balance5050]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

It is incredibly useful. Clearly this commenter doesn't know what a basic fallacy s/he is making

It's unrelated because this commentator is right.

The reapers, don't want organics to be killed by sythetics, so they kill organics so they don't make synthetics. Sounds like they just don't want any competition to me.

That is an over-simplification of the purpose of the Reapers. They kill advanced organic life so that it can't be at a stage where it creates AI capable of killing all life in the universe (kinda like the "Grey Goo Theory"). Your misunderstand of the basis of the Reapers might be the one of the main reasons you like IT.

The metacon war shows that they have gotten to that stage before and organics resolved it on they're own, rendering the starkids purpose for the reapers usleless and based on an event that MAY happen.

First of, that's not even talked about in the game.

You might be able to point out an example where organics did manage to put down the threat, but that doesn't disprove the Catalyst. Over an infinite amount of time, it is likely that organics will create synthetics which they cannot control, and remember, this only has to happen once for all life to be destroyed. And so the Catalyst have this solution to stop that, the Reapers

With an unlimited amount of time mold could evolve to be the dominant species and take over everything.

ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE WITH AN UNLIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME.

The point is we will never now because these reapers come and feed off of and kill every intelligent race every 50000 years. What starkid says is possible sure, but we will never know because we cant decide for ourselves.

Over a very long time, the Catalyst deems it less likely that a mould could evolve and try to kill all dominant species (and have the same weaknesses of every other organic whih would dramatically reduce the chances of that) than an advanced synthetic race

Focus on the meat of what I said, not the hyperbole.

"The point is we will never now because these reapers come and feed off of and kill every intelligent race every 50000 years. What starkid says is possible sure, but we will never know because we cant decide for ourselves."

Which makes his argument based on a fallacy. And it proves that you blindly beleive him when he presents no proof whatsoever.

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...


You just said -

"definitely gives reason for potential problems with control, ""if you think you can control us" 

What's the potential problem beside NOT BEING ABLE TO CONTROL THE REAPERS?

Sorry, I'm not with you

K, I'll go slowly.

I was saying that he only says negative things about destroy.

Your rebuttal was the negative thing he says about control was  "if you think you can control us" is meant to imply that there are potential problems with this.

My question to you is what "problems" are implied by the starkid when it comes to control?

A possibility of mismanagement by organics of the Reapers which means that the machines can rebel against them and ultimately kill all organics

Actually that's the problem with destroy not control. You ok?

How? With destroy, Reapers are killed immediately, control they stay. With destroy mismanagement would be impossible because there would be nothing to manage

[CavScout]

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

ThinkIntegral wrote...
You know if it was lying or even wanted to lie, it wouldn't even have bother to lift Shepard to the outside on the bottom of the Presidium. The Reapers were already winning.  In other words, why even bother to fool Shepard when it was already winning?

If it wasn't lying it had no reason to bring Shepard upstairs either. The only answer that makes sense is indoctrination.

No, it's not the "only" answer. It could, be as the game plays out, Shep makes it the Crucible and the Catalyst simply gives him the available options.

he only "makes it" up there, because the Starchild chooses to bring Shepard upstairs. If it isn't the only answer that makes sense, what is another one?

Did you forget the whole bit about how the Crucible changed the Catalyst?

No. He says that when presenting the options. The Crucible changed the Citadel, its body, giving it these options. It's a hardware change.

How does the elevator prove IT?

[OH-UP-THIS!]

CavScout wrote...

Sable Phoenix wrote...
In essence, until BioWare out and out says otherwise, the Indoctrination Theory is just as valid an interpretation of the ending as the literallist one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Yup just as I suspected,  we're not getting anywhere.

I'm going to Lowes for some rat poison. NO not for me.

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

It is incredibly useful. Clearly this commenter doesn't know what a basic fallacy s/he is making

It's unrelated because this commentator is right.

The reapers, don't want organics to be killed by sythetics, so they kill organics so they don't make synthetics. Sounds like they just don't want any competition to me.

That is an over-simplification of the purpose of the Reapers. They kill advanced organic life so that it can't be at a stage where it creates AI capable of killing all life in the universe (kinda like the "Grey Goo Theory"). Your misunderstand of the basis of the Reapers might be the one of the main reasons you like IT.

The metacon war shows that they have gotten to that stage before and organics resolved it on they're own, rendering the starkids purpose for the reapers usleless and based on an event that MAY happen.

First of, that's not even talked about in the game.

You might be able to point out an example where organics did manage to put down the threat, but that doesn't disprove the Catalyst. Over an infinite amount of time, it is likely that organics will create synthetics which they cannot control, and remember, this only has to happen once for all life to be destroyed. And so the Catalyst have this solution to stop that, the Reapers

With an unlimited amount of time mold could evolve to be the dominant species and take over everything.

ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE WITH AN UNLIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME.

The point is we will never now because these reapers come and feed off of and kill every intelligent race every 50000 years. What starkid says is possible sure, but we will never know because we cant decide for ourselves.

Over a very long time, the Catalyst deems it less likely that a mould could evolve and try to kill all dominant species (and have the same weaknesses of every other organic whih would dramatically reduce the chances of that) than an advanced synthetic race

Focus on the meat of what I said, not the hyperbole.

"The point is we will never now because these reapers come and feed off of and kill every intelligent race every 50000 years. What starkid says is possible sure, but we will never know because we cant decide for ourselves."

Which makes his argument based on a fallacy. And it proves that you blindly beleive him when he presents no proof whatsoever.

He is basing it on statistical likelihood. We don't know what happened in the beginning to provoke the Catalyst, or makers of the Catalyst to implement such a solution anyway.

[balance5050]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


Sorry, I'm not with you

K, I'll go slowly.

I was saying that he only says negative things about destroy.

Your rebuttal was the negative thing he says about control was  "if you think you can control us" is meant to imply that there are potential problems with this.

My question to you is what "problems" are implied by the starkid when it comes to control?

A possibility of mismanagement by organics of the Reapers which means that the machines can rebel against them and ultimately kill all organics

Derp.

You got all that from the word think? I think you might be grasping at that one SubAstris.....

Implying that most of IT is based on such grasping, yes?

The fact that you have gone into evading my questions proves that destroy is the only option where the kid is actively trying to dissuade you.

Modifié par balance5050, 05 mai 2012 - 09:44 .

[CavScout]

DTKT wrote...

SubAstris wrote...
First of, that's not even talked about in the game.

You might be able to point out an example where organics did manage to put down the threat, but that doesn't disprove the Catalyst. Over an infinite amount of time, it is likely that organics will create synthetics which they cannot control, and remember, this only has to happen once for all life to be destroyed. And so the Catalyst have this solution to stop that, the Reapers

It's still a pretty dumb solution since it just created the same cycle over and over.

Anyway, it's pretty obvious that neither of the two camps will convince anyone. Just drop the subject and wait for the EC in June.

That's the point. Even the Catalyst says his solution won't work anymore.

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


Sorry, I'm not with you

K, I'll go slowly.

I was saying that he only says negative things about destroy.

Your rebuttal was the negative thing he says about control was  "if you think you can control us" is meant to imply that there are potential problems with this.

My question to you is what "problems" are implied by the starkid when it comes to control?

A possibility of mismanagement by organics of the Reapers which means that the machines can rebel against them and ultimately kill all organics

Derp.

You got all that from the word think? I think you might be grasping at that one SubAstris.....

Implying that most of IT is based on such grasping, yes?

The fact that you have gone into evading my questions proves that destroy is the only option where the kid is actively trying to dissuade you.

Da fuq?

[KingZayd]

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...

ev76 wrote...

Cavscout did you choose control?or Synthesis?

I selected destroy. Why?

Really? i remember you passionately defending synthesis as the superior option a couple of weeks ago? Why the change? (from destroy --> synthesis, or from synthesis --> destroy)

Are you lying or purposively misremembering?

neither: 
http://social.biowar...dex/11593338/10 

are you lying or purposely misremembering?

[CavScout]

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Why can't you just say "Yes, I am making assumption that conveniently support my point of view"?

You are ascribing powers not in evidence in the series.

Because i'm not making the assumptions to back up my point of view.

Yeah, that was kinda of my point.
 

[dreamgazer]

CavScout wrote...

How does the elevator prove IT?

I don't know about IT, specifically, but that perfect face-plant onto the ascending elevator to the catalyst's lair screams surreal and dream-like to me.

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...
Implying that most of IT is based on such grasping, yes?

The fact that you have gone into evading my questions proves that destroy is the only option where the kid is actively trying to dissuade you.

Telling you the outcome of a decision is not "dissuading" you.

[Sable Phoenix]

I thought this thread was going to be an actual discussion. Instead it's just an argument.

Well done, guys.

[balance5050]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...


You just said -

"definitely gives reason for potential problems with control, ""if you think you can control us" 

What's the potential problem beside NOT BEING ABLE TO CONTROL THE REAPERS?

Sorry, I'm not with you

K, I'll go slowly.

I was saying that he only says negative things about destroy.

Your rebuttal was the negative thing he says about control was  "if you think you can control us" is meant to imply that there are potential problems with this.

My question to you is what "problems" are implied by the starkid when it comes to control?

A possibility of mismanagement by organics of the Reapers which means that the machines can rebel against them and ultimately kill all organics

Actually that's the problem with destroy not control. You ok?

How? With destroy, Reapers are killed immediately, control they stay. With destroy mismanagement would be impossible because there would be nothing to manage

No, the endings seem to be blurring for you.

With destroy, there is no one to "protect" us from synthetics, mismanagement of our future technology.

With Control, there is there is no negativity depending on if you think you can actually control the reapers.

Areyou saying that the risk involves Shepards mismanagement of the reapers?

[CavScout]

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Are you lying or purposively misremembering?

neither: 
http://social.biowar...dex/11593338/10 

are you lying or purposely misremembering?

Where do I say I selected Sythesis or that I think it is the best ending? You do know I am not the OP of that topic, right?

[OH-UP-THIS!]

CavScout wrote...

ohupthis wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Again, if it's all a dream state, created by the Reapers, why are they putting in the "Win" button for Shep to use? Why doesn't the Catalyst just omit the Destroy ending option?

GAH!! again read this very slowly, let it sink in,OK?  The Destroy option is the only way to break their hold on Sheps' mind, its only SYMBOLIC, not literal, as in if the EMS is too low, the entire Earth, all inhabitants, and allies are vaporized, I don't see that as a win, IN ANY FORM!!

If it's not real, why do the Reapers even make it an option?

Once again I come back to what IS in the GAME........................EMS to low, your only option is destroy.

[KingZayd]

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

ThinkIntegral wrote...
You know if it was lying or even wanted to lie, it wouldn't even have bother to lift Shepard to the outside on the bottom of the Presidium. The Reapers were already winning.  In other words, why even bother to fool Shepard when it was already winning?

If it wasn't lying it had no reason to bring Shepard upstairs either. The only answer that makes sense is indoctrination.

No, it's not the "only" answer. It could, be as the game plays out, Shep makes it the Crucible and the Catalyst simply gives him the available options.

he only "makes it" up there, because the Starchild chooses to bring Shepard upstairs. If it isn't the only answer that makes sense, what is another one?

Did you forget the whole bit about how the Crucible changed the Catalyst?

No. He says that when presenting the options. The Crucible changed the Citadel, its body, giving it these options. It's a hardware change.

How does the elevator prove IT?

nothing proves IT, nor disproves it. The only thing that can is the EC. But it's evidence, as no other sensible explanation has been provided for it.

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...
How? With destroy, Reapers are killed immediately, control they stay. With destroy mismanagement would be impossible because there would be nothing to manage

No, the endings seem to be blurring for you.

With destroy, there is no one to "protect" us from synthetics, mismanagement of our future technology.

With Control, there is there is no negativity depending on if you think you can actually control the reapers.

Areyou saying that the risk involves Shepards mismanagement of the reapers?

The Catalyst states that Shep will "lose everything" by selecting control.

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...


You just said -

"definitely gives reason for potential problems with control, ""if you think you can control us" 

What's the potential problem beside NOT BEING ABLE TO CONTROL THE REAPERS?

Sorry, I'm not with you

K, I'll go slowly.

I was saying that he only says negative things about destroy.

Your rebuttal was the negative thing he says about control was  "if you think you can control us" is meant to imply that there are potential problems with this.

My question to you is what "problems" are implied by the starkid when it comes to control?

A possibility of mismanagement by organics of the Reapers which means that the machines can rebel against them and ultimately kill all organics

Actually that's the problem with destroy not control. You ok?

How? With destroy, Reapers are killed immediately, control they stay. With destroy mismanagement would be impossible because there would be nothing to manage

No, the endings seem to be blurring for you.

With destroy, there is no one to "protect" us from synthetics, mismanagement of our future technology.

With Control, there is there is no negativity depending on if you think you can actually control the reapers.

Areyou saying that the risk involves Shepards mismanagement of the reapers?

When I mean machines I hope it was clear I meant Reapers in that original statement

Also a possible negative of control and synthesis is that you die, I mean, that could be a big deal for some people:lol:

Modifié par SubAstris, 05 mai 2012 - 09:54 .

[CavScout]

ohupthis wrote...

CavScout wrote...

ohupthis wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Again, if it's all a dream state, created by the Reapers, why are they putting in the "Win" button for Shep to use? Why doesn't the Catalyst just omit the Destroy ending option?

GAH!! again read this very slowly, let it sink in,OK?  The Destroy option is the only way to break their hold on Sheps' mind, its only SYMBOLIC, not literal, as in if the EMS is too low, the entire Earth, all inhabitants, and allies are vaporized, I don't see that as a win, IN ANY FORM!!

If it's not real, why do the Reapers even make it an option?

Once again I come back to what IS in the GAME........................EMS to low, your only option is destroy.

Yeah, that's kinda of the point.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...
Implying that most of IT is based on such grasping, yes?

The fact that you have gone into evading my questions proves that destroy is the only option where the kid is actively trying to dissuade you.

Telling you the outcome of a decision is not "dissuading" you.

So at face value, Synthesis is the best ending then.

[OH-UP-THIS!]

CavScout wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Again, you can't show it lying.

Catalyst says Shepherd will die due to his synthetic implant if he chooses destroy.

Shepherd doesn't die in destroy


Catalyst found to be lying.

Undeniable evidence.

Catalyst never says Shepperd will die to his synthetic parts. Like your claims of circular reasoning, you are making up dialog that never occurred.

did too neener neener.