247 réponses à ce sujet

[wantedman dan]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

It's giving context.

We're all adults, here. If you can't take a little bit of discomfort, the door out is located at the top of the thread.

Well, I encourage you to leave then, because:

Site Rules says...

 These forums are not for discussing other topics such as politics, sex or adult topics, religion, etc. Topics or discussions may be closed at the discretion of staff and volunteer moderators. 

Or, you know, you could keep away from the subjects you're not supposed to talk about.

Seriously? You call providing an abstract example that gives context to a relevant argument the active discussion of said topic?

That's pretty desperate.

[Kunari801]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Kunari801 wrote...

Star-brat's logic is flawed, his entire argument is an appeal to probability fallacy and his "solution" in the Reapers is circular.   Even if you believe his ONE single instance as "proof" that is still only one instance.   

Mind giving example of what you're talking about?

Star-brats logic:  "All synthetics will seek to destroy all organic life... eventually" 
(not a direct quote)     He has only ONE example, even if you believe him, that's just one example.   The reason for the Reapers is to prevent it from occuring again, yet there is no proof that it would occur again.    In other words: a sample size of one is not sufficent to make his claim true. 

The game has already established that synthetics do NOT always want to kill organics in forms of Legion, EDI, and (if you did) the uplifted & free Geth who choose to fight the Reapers with you.  However Star-brat dismisses this evidence because "Eventually they will" (not a direct quote), this is an appeal to probability.  

The Reapers are basically circular:  I'll kill you with synthetics so you don't make synthetics that will kill you.    This is also flawed.   It's like the police coming over to you and saying, "Eventually you'll commit a crime, so we're going to arrest you now and put you into prison." 

Wiki link: Appeal to probability[/b] 

[wantedman dan]

I'll rejoin this discussion in a few hours; I have to head to my final classes. Peace, love, joy.

[Dendio1]

wantedman dan wrote...

Dendio1 wrote...

httinks2006 wrote...

Why on this insane ravaged F@#$%^&  planet would anyone choose to believe the Starbrat , Starchild , Godchild ,or  Being of light words as law ?
This is the commander , creator of the enemy we have been trying to stop for three games and when it saids you have these choices we do it ?
illiogical , idiotic , stupid , moronic .... etc ... really ?

I absolutely knowmy Shepard would never have giving in to this , damn I've proving quite the opposite for the past two games and five years....

I just finished playing DEUS EX human revolutions where I ran into a similar scenario and trusted the AI when choosing my endings. 

That's why you give the information to the people and let them decide.

Hey im being honest. Star kid didn't repeat himself and introduced an entirely new problem to the plot. So in my confused state, I fell back to the game I just played and the similar scenario. I decided to choose the middle option because it seemed like the steriotypical compromise where everyone lives.  Well after the bull****, I reloaded chose red and have since enjoyed two months of analysis on the ME3 endings.

[Dendio1]

Shepard doesn't want his cycle to die. It doesn't matter what star kid says, right or wrong, the will to live trumps logic.

[ed87]

Unfortunately this kind of stuff has been said repeatedly for about 2 months now. I wonder what Bioware are going to do about this

[Subguy614]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...


Cheers, have fun.

I actually have to go to, I need to work. But I'll be back.

Thanks for the warning.

[Kunari801]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Kunari801 wrote...

Star-brats logic:  "All synthetics will seek to destroy all organic life... eventually" 
(not a direct quote)     He has only ONE example, even if you believe him, that's just one example.   The reason for the Reapers is to prevent it from occuring again, yet there is no proof that it would occur again.    In other words: a sample size of one is not sufficent to make his claim true. 

The game has already established that synthetics do NOT always want to kill organics in forms of Legion, EDI, and (if you did) the uplifted & free Geth who choose to fight the Reapers with you.  However Star-brat dismisses this evidence because "Eventually they will" (not a direct quote), this is an appeal to probability.  

The Reapers are basically circular:  I'll kill you with synthetics so you don't make synthetics that will kill you.    This is also flawed.   It's like the police coming over to you and saying, "Eventually you'll commit a crime, so we're going to arrest you now and put you into prison." 

Wiki link: Appeal to probability[/b] 

*sigh*

I wish you'd read the thread, I already went over this.

The Catalyst doesn't say, "I only have one example, and my logic is based off of that." He doesn't tell us how many examples he has. He doesn't tell us how often it has happened in the past. The problem isn't his logic, it's the fact that he doesn't show us his proof. Lack of exposition.

The game has not established that. The game has established that after 50 years, synthetics do not want to attack organics. if you know anything about math (calculus--limits and such), or really anything, you can't possibly say "the way it is now HAS to be the way it will remain forever."

No, no, no! The Reapers don't think they're killing. They think they're preserving in Reaper form. Big big difference.

I'll have to find the actual in-game dialog, but I do believe he states it occurred once and the Reapers are his solution to stop them then and prevent it from occurring again.  How could there be more examples if the Reapers prevent it from occurring?   

Besides, if one does not trust the source it doesn't matter how much "evidence" it brings.   Many of us do not believe Star-brat.  The writers will have to make him something we do believe before we accept any evidence he may present in the EC. 

Appeal to probability.    Yes, maybe the Geth (or other AIs) will eventually decide to "kill all organics" but it can't be proven.  Mathematically the possibility is not zero, but that doesn't mean it will occur.   Mathematically, it's also possible the Krogan,  Rachni, or other organic race could rise up and decide to kill all others.   Should Shepard kill all other organics to prevent that possibility?

The Reapers can consider it whatever they like, I don't think you'd find too many Organics that would NOT consider it death to be turned into a Reaper or a Husk.  

Edit: I spellz gud. 

Modifié par Kunari801, 09 mai 2012 - 05:15 .

[Kunari801]

ed87 wrote...

Unfortunately this kind of stuff has been said repeatedly for about 2 months now. I wonder what Bioware are going to do about this

Very true. 

[ediskrad327]

only a fool would believe the crap he spouts

[wantedman dan]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

It's fairly obvious that, through interactions with three Reapers throughout the course of the games, there is no individuality present from the constituting species. They are formed into a collective consciousness of the Reaper itself. Also, the DNA =/= the organic.

The difference being, my "speculation" is logically and factually based with objective, empirical evidence found within the games, and is given. 

You, and your speculations, cannot enjoy that same luxury.

-snip-

"We are each a nation, independent of weakness."

Nation =/= collective consciousness.

-snip-

Considering that conversation was rife with intimidation on the part of Sovereign, that can be written off as a literary device; the meaning of his statement more closely aligns to "We are each [comprised of] a nation..." denoting immense collective processing power and the possibility of an ability to comprehend much more than one singular organic mind can.

The Reapers are a "each a nation" with one, singular collective voice and identity, which to me denotes one collective counsciousness. Sure there are speculations as to the exact composition of the Reaper consciousness, but if their composition were similar to the Geth, which is a collective of individual pieces of software with some division and individuality (even before the Reaper code was added), the Reapers would process data in a similar manner ("We are building consensus.").

[a.m.p]

OP, I collecting threads like this here. With your permission want your on the list.

As to the question you ask, the closest thing to an answer I got to it was that regardless of starchild lying or not Shepard might as well pick a color because if they don't, the galaxy is doomed. Forever.
I spend most of my time on BSN arguing against this.

[httinks2006]

a.m.p wrote...

OP, I collecting threads like this here. With your permission want your on the list.

As to the question you ask, the closest thing to an answer I got to it was that regardless of starchild lying or not Shepard might as well pick a color because if they don't, the galaxy is doomed. Forever.
I spend most of my time on BSN arguing against this.

of course go for it

[httinks2006]

The Angry One wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

You've proven nothing.

And, believing him is your choice. There's no reason to, and no reason not to.

The reason not to is that he's the self-proclaimed leader of the Reapers and the worst war criminal to ever have existed, responsible for the murder, mutilation and torture of trillions of innocent beings.
Also, his assertions are crap and he could be out-argued by a grade schooler.

This is the bottomline to the whole argument , the enemy leader isnt saving any organics , turning one into goo and depriving them of their lives so they wont create machines to do it at a later time is just well.... stupid .It's not a choice when you're forced to pick an option you know damn well your Shepard would never pick .
Most of the Shepards I can assure you would have picked the unknown shown fouth option and blew the starchilds head off in a heartbeat for even trying to use it's form as a misdirection to achive it's goals .

[KingZayd]

The Angry One wrote...

TSA_383 wrote...

httinks2006 wrote...

Why on this insane ravaged F@#$%^&  planet would anyone choose to believe the Starbrat , Starchild , Godchild ,or  Being of light words as law ?
This is the commander , creator of the enemy we have been trying to stop for three games and when it saids you have these choices we do it ?
illiogical , idiotic , stupid , moronic .... etc ... really ?

I absolutely knowmy Shepard would never have giving in to this , damn I've proving quite the opposite for the past two games and five years....

Then reject his "solutions" and blow up the red tube, and live

Destroy is one of it's solutions.
The fact that destroy ****s over the Reapers just as much as everyone else doesn't change that it's one of it's solutions.

So here are your Reaper leader approved solutions:

- Screw everybody.
- Screw everybody except the Reapers.
- Turn everybody into a Reaper.

Victorious and uplifting!

But destroy is what the crucible was made for isn't it? It was meant as an anti-reaper weapon. It wasn't meant to solve the reapers' philosophical issues. It wasn't meant for synthesis, and apparently the people who threatened the crucible program wanted control. I imagine there wouldn't have been a split if they were putting this feature into the crucible?

Destroy isn't an option that comes FROM the starchild. It is the default option, that the crucible was meant for.

Modifié par KingZayd, 09 mai 2012 - 09:09 .

[Vox Draco]

KingZayd wrote...

Destroy isn't an option that comes FROM the starchild. It is the default option, that the crucible was meant for.

Hey, I never looked at it this way! Makes me want even more to pick red now! Thank you!

[Lookout1390]

If you didn't pick destroy, your Shepard failed.

[Clayless]

KingZayd wrote...

But destroy is what the crucible was made for isn't it? It was meant as an anti-reaper weapon. It wasn't meant to solve the reapers' philosophical issues. It wasn't meant for synthesis, and apparently the people who threatened the crucible program wanted control. I imagine there wouldn't have been a split if they were putting this feature into the crucible?

Destroy isn't an option that comes FROM the starchild. It is the default option, that the crucible was meant for.

Not really, it's what this cycle assumed the Crucible was for. The option to destroy the Reapers is still on the Citadel, and just like Control it's the power that comes from both.

Only Synthesis seems to be from the Crucible and the Citadel.

Modifié par Our_Last_Scene, 10 mai 2012 - 01:02 .

[daecath]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

You've proven nothing.

And, believing him is your choice. There's no reason to, and no reason not to.

I lol'd. "No reason not to", that's a good one.

[Clumsy Astronaut]

It's all for the best, we'll all be happy in the new bio-synthetic collective, take your place among the drones comrade!