365 réponses à ce sujet

[Kaelef]

Nomen Mendax wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

All of that is soundproof.

No it's not. It really isn't.

Random is right, you mean foolproof, soundproof means that something prevents the passage of sound. 

It's also not foolproof.

[Andromidius]

Should we stop calling the sky blue now as well?

We call it faulty logic because that's what describes Starchild's reasoning for his actions. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you can tell us to stop saying it. No matter how much hot air you blow at us, the logic is still broken and circular.

Oh, and speculation.

[xsdob]

Kaelef wrote...

I don't think there's any place in the universe where the term "proof" is more abused than on BSN.

Fox news comes close but not close enough.

[Nomen Mendax]

Kaelef wrote...

Nomen Mendax wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

All of that is soundproof.

No it's not. It really isn't.

Random is right, you mean foolproof, soundproof means that something prevents the passage of sound. 

It's also not foolproof.

Yes, I agree, but I assume that's the word he meant to use -- and it at least vaguely makes sense in the context (even if it's not entirely the right word).

So OP if you are reading this:

soundproof - impervious to sound
foolproof - so straightforward or simple as to be incapable of misuse or mistake

(Oxford English Reference Dictionary)

Modifié par Nomen Mendax, 11 mai 2012 - 05:48 .

[The Razman]

Nomen Mendax wrote...

Kaelef wrote...

Nomen Mendax wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

All of that is soundproof.

No it's not. It really isn't.

Random is right, you mean foolproof, soundproof means that something prevents the passage of sound. 

It's also not foolproof.

Yes, I agree, but I assume that's the word he meant to use -- and it at least vaguely makes sense in the context (even if it's not entirely the right word).

So OP if you are reading this:

soundproof - impervious to sound
foolproof - so straightforward or simple as to be incapable of misuse or mistake

(Oxford English Reference Dictionary)

Soundproof is also a perfectly acceptable term, at least where I'm from.

[The Razman]

JBONE27 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

GhostV9 wrote...

The Razman wrote...
So it creates a force which will make sure that technology in the
galaxy never advances beyond a certain point by destroying the most
technologically developed civilisations every 50,000 years, thus keeping
the technology level below a safe threshold.

The problem is, that "force" is the very same thing he's trying to prevent from happening.

But in the eyes of the Synthetics, they are preventing it. They see no distinction between keeping a living walking talking organic and having their essence stored as genetic code in a machine. Because they aren't organic, they don't understand organic.

But the thing that created them was supposedly organic, therefore it would recognize the difference.  Therefore faulty logic.

What exactly are you basing that on?

Simple logic.  Synthetic life, unlike organic, does not replicate itself unknowingly.  It does not evolve from simple replicating molicules into more complex organisms.  All technology gets created by something, and since there is a desire to perserve organics within the beings who created the Reapers, it is logical to think that they are organic themselves.

That's not logic. That's just conjecture. What's to stop the Starchild being an AI built by other AIs? Or just one of a race of synthetic life forms?

Even if you were correct, just because something is a synthetic and was created by organics doesn't in any way mean it has to follow organic ideals, moral, logic or ethical standards. We don't have the first bit of information on who created the Starchild, or what the Starchild even is, to make any logical deductions like you're making.

Okay, you obviously don't know what you are talking about.  I make it a habit to not argue with people who are willfully ignorant.  Good day sir.

I'm sorry, but ... what was the point of that? We have literally no evidence that organics built the Starchild (hell, we don't even know that anything "built" the Starchild, we don't know what it is exactly) and yet you've come in and said "It was built by organics" as if that's factual.

I think it may be you who doesn't know what you're talking about, and your sudden u-turn into insulting me instead of explaining your bizaare logic would seem to support that. Oh well.

[Nomen Mendax]

The Razman wrote...

Soundproof is also a perfectly acceptable term, at least where I'm from.

If you don't mind me asking where is that (just idle curiosity)?

[Kaelef]

The Razman wrote...

Nomen Mendax wrote...

Kaelef wrote...

Nomen Mendax wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

All of that is soundproof.

No it's not. It really isn't.

Random is right, you mean foolproof, soundproof means that something prevents the passage of sound. 

It's also not foolproof.

Yes, I agree, but I assume that's the word he meant to use -- and it at least vaguely makes sense in the context (even if it's not entirely the right word).

So OP if you are reading this:

soundproof - impervious to sound
foolproof - so straightforward or simple as to be incapable of misuse or mistake

(Oxford English Reference Dictionary)

Soundproof is also a perfectly acceptable term, at least where I'm from.

Are you sure you're not mixing the terms "sound" and "foolproof"?

"All of that is sound," is a reasonable, if awkward, thing to say.

[Zaidra]

I think that people who don't have the brain capacity to understand the meaning of the word "logic" should quit throwing it around like a hand grenade trying to blow up their enemies and let the people who actually understand this stuff think about it.

i'm out~

[The Razman]

Sal86 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

The argument fails precisely because it relies only on inevitability, which justifies everything. It's a slippery slope. Here's another one: it's possible that aliens will appear to commit genocide on our planet and it's only possible to stop them by stockpiling nuclear warheads. Given the scale of such a threat, we should give up our daily lives to stock up on nukes for the upcoming alien invasion.

Aliens invading is not a logical thing to happen given what we know. Machines rising up and destroying organic life, given that we've spent three games seeing the effects of synthetics raging war on organics (the Geth) and exploring the consequences of machines having intelligence with EDI ... is not an illogical thing to happen. In fact, we've seen it happening with the Geth, as I've said.

Sorry, but you're not making a very good case here. The Starchild has decided that its inevitable. That's all you really need to know unless you have something which invalidates its premise, and all the evidence we have on its premise actually supports it instead.

I don't agree with your assertions about the Geth. Your argument in the OP is that if the Geth were more advanced, they would have spread beyond the veil and attacked other organics. It was not lack of tech or firepower that prevented them from spreading beyond the veil, it was an active decision that they made not to attack organics and to spare the remaining Quarians. Beyong this point, any hostile behaviour from the Geth is only as a result of self defence or Reaper interference. It still doesn't matter who started the morning war, it ended in the synthetics sparing the organics, which is directly counter the catalyst's argument.

It isn't that the Geth specifically would destroy all organic life if they were more advanced. It's that they prove that war will happen between organics and synthetics, whatever the underlying reasons or who's "fault" it is. And this is just within the 50,000 of our cycle that a major intragalactic war between organics and synthetics has occured. It's most definitely a point of evidence which favours the logic that war is inevitable ... and given the logic of a technological singularity, organic life would get wiped out by this at some point.

Given enough time, a "mistake" will happen where machines which are way more advanced than us will get into a war like the Geth where they're not so nice and considerate to stay within Quarian space. And we'll all die. We can argue about "maybe it won't happen" ... but there's way too much evidence to say it isn't logically plausible that it wouldn't. And given that the price of it happening would be extinction of all organic life, the Starchild's solution is the only 100% way of stopping it from occuring, in its capability.

[The Razman]

Kaelef wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Nomen Mendax wrote...

Kaelef wrote...

Nomen Mendax wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

All of that is soundproof.

No it's not. It really isn't.

Random is right, you mean foolproof, soundproof means that something prevents the passage of sound. 

It's also not foolproof.

Yes, I agree, but I assume that's the word he meant to use -- and it at least vaguely makes sense in the context (even if it's not entirely the right word).

So OP if you are reading this:

soundproof - impervious to sound
foolproof - so straightforward or simple as to be incapable of misuse or mistake

(Oxford English Reference Dictionary)

Soundproof is also a perfectly acceptable term, at least where I'm from.

Are you sure you're not mixing the terms "sound" and "foolproof"?

"All of that is sound," is a reasonable, if awkward, thing to say.

"Soundproof logic" is also a reasonable thing to say where I am. If it's not where you are, I don't know what to tell you.

[ZIPO396]

The Razman wrote...

Sal86 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

The argument fails precisely because it relies only on inevitability, which justifies everything. It's a slippery slope. Here's another one: it's possible that aliens will appear to commit genocide on our planet and it's only possible to stop them by stockpiling nuclear warheads. Given the scale of such a threat, we should give up our daily lives to stock up on nukes for the upcoming alien invasion.

Aliens invading is not a logical thing to happen given what we know. Machines rising up and destroying organic life, given that we've spent three games seeing the effects of synthetics raging war on organics (the Geth) and exploring the consequences of machines having intelligence with EDI ... is not an illogical thing to happen. In fact, we've seen it happening with the Geth, as I've said.

Sorry, but you're not making a very good case here. The Starchild has decided that its inevitable. That's all you really need to know unless you have something which invalidates its premise, and all the evidence we have on its premise actually supports it instead.

I don't agree with your assertions about the Geth. Your argument in the OP is that if the Geth were more advanced, they would have spread beyond the veil and attacked other organics. It was not lack of tech or firepower that prevented them from spreading beyond the veil, it was an active decision that they made not to attack organics and to spare the remaining Quarians. Beyong this point, any hostile behaviour from the Geth is only as a result of self defence or Reaper interference. It still doesn't matter who started the morning war, it ended in the synthetics sparing the organics, which is directly counter the catalyst's argument.

It isn't that the Geth specifically would destroy all organic life if they were more advanced. It's that they prove that war will happen between organics and synthetics, whatever the underlying reasons or who's "fault" it is. And this is just within the 50,000 of our cycle that a major intragalactic war between organics and synthetics has occured. It's most definitely a point of evidence which favours the logic that war is inevitable ... and given the logic of a technological singularity, organic life would get wiped out by this at some point.

Given enough time, a "mistake" will happen where machines which are way more advanced than us will get into a war like the Geth where they're not so nice and considerate to stay within Quarian space. And we'll all die. We can argue about "maybe it won't happen" ... but there's way too much evidence to say it isn't logically plausible that it wouldn't. And given that the price of it happening would be extinction of all organic life, the Starchild's solution is the only 100% way of stopping it from occuring, in its capability.

You mean Synthesis it's favourite option which doesn't stop sentients from making synthetics in future? Yeah the Starchild is real bright and foolproof that one.

[GuardianAngel470]

I agree with most of your points Razmann and I really hate the ending. Good thing I don't hate it because it's literarily or logically flawed. Presented with the Starchild's premise I'd rather defy it and let the pieces fall where they may. If synthetics eventually wipe out all organics, so be it. That's called evolution and I happen to agree with the concept.

If they DON'T end up wiping out all organics, fine, better for organics. I happen to believe it highly unlikely a synthetic race would turn aggressor or even respond with violence against violence after a certain point but the Geth are the counterpoint to that sentiment.

My single biggest problem with the ending is that I didn't have the option to defy the enemy. An enemy is allowed to have a logic that I disagree with, it is allowed to have a logic that I feel is flawed. In fact both of those are going to be the case with the vast majority of villains in fiction.

What isn't allowed is having the protagonist agree with the villain or accept that logic at the last second in a way that is a complete betrayal of the protagonist's character. As character development it can be done where the protagonist breaks after or during the final confrontation, (like if Batman let the Joker fall to his death in The Dark Knight) but that wasn't the case here. For paragons and anyone who sided with or sympathized with the Geth Shepard's acceptance of the Starchild's scenario at all is simply out of character.

Then the three choices come up and that issue is compounded. To me it always felt like a false dilemma fallacy. As if Starchild had presented three terrible choices, where the cons vastly outweighed the pros in every case, when the right choice was outside of the dilemma. It infuriated me that Shepard didn't even attempt to look for it.

To me that wasn't a hard choice; it was submission. And that, more than any other point about this ending that I agree with, is what was wrong with it for me.

[What a Succulent Ass]

Random Jerkface wrote...

In fourteen lines, it manages to commit several logical fouls (the extremity of its "Solution" notwithstanding), the biggest of which are an appeal to probability and the assumption as to the nature of a tech singularity. We have no single data point to extrapolate upon, and we are given no evidence that the Catalyst does either. A singularity is simply a point in which technology develops beyond our capacity, a manifestation that can occur in an infinite number of manners. To assume that the technology will be inevitably hostile is foolish. To assume that they will not only be hostile, but actively engage in genocide is also foolish. To assume they will not only be hostile, but engage in genocide, and inevitably wipe out all organic existence is bafflingly foolish. To think every singularity in all civilisations in all existence will mirror this hypothetical is just utterly absurd. Just considering the steepness of the slippery slope this reasoning requires is giving me illogic burns.

Going to go ahead and quote myself, because all I see is the same appeal to probability.

[The Razman]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

I agree with most of your points Razmann and I really hate the ending. Good thing I don't hate it because it's literarily or logically flawed. Presented with the Starchild's premise I'd rather defy it and let the pieces fall where they may. If synthetics eventually wipe out all organics, so be it. That's called evolution and I happen to agree with the concept.

If they DON'T end up wiping out all organics, fine, better for organics. I happen to believe it highly unlikely a synthetic race would turn aggressor or even respond with violence against violence after a certain point but the Geth are the counterpoint to that sentiment.

My single biggest problem with the ending is that I didn't have the option to defy the enemy. An enemy is allowed to have a logic that I disagree with, it is allowed to have a logic that I feel is flawed. In fact both of those are going to be the case with the vast majority of villains in fiction.

What isn't allowed is having the protagonist agree with the villain or accept that logic at the last second in a way that is a complete betrayal of the protagonist's character. As character development it can be done where the protagonist breaks after or during the final confrontation, (like if Batman let the Joker fall to his death in The Dark Knight) but that wasn't the case here. For paragons and anyone who sided with or sympathized with the Geth Shepard's acceptance of the Starchild's scenario at all is simply out of character.

Then the three choices come up and that issue is compounded. To me it always felt like a false dilemma fallacy. As if Starchild had presented three terrible choices, where the cons vastly outweighed the pros in every case, when the right choice was outside of the dilemma. It infuriated me that Shepard didn't even attempt to look for it.

To me that wasn't a hard choice; it was submission. And that, more than any other point about this ending that I agree with, is what was wrong with it for me.

That's all another issue to what this thread is about, but I will say that the view off the Starchild as an enemy is something which deeply confuses me. He's not forcing you to do anything. He could of just let you die and let the cycles continue on. He's only giving you exactly what you wanted ... a way to defeat the Reapers, which is what you spent the entire game trying to activate the Crucible in the first place was for.

Viewing the Starchild as the enemy when it's done nothing but help you is bizaare to me, and I can't help but wonder if its borne out of a conventional expectation of meeting an enemy at the end of a game.

[The Razman]

Random Jerkface wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

In fourteen lines, it manages to commit several logical fouls (the extremity of its "Solution" notwithstanding), the biggest of which are an appeal to probability and the assumption as to the nature of a tech singularity. We have no single data point to extrapolate upon, and we are given no evidence that the Catalyst does either. A singularity is simply a point in which technology develops beyond our capacity, a manifestation that can occur in an infinite number of manners. To assume that the technology will be inevitably hostile is foolish. To assume that they will not only be hostile, but actively engage in genocide is also foolish. To assume they will not only be hostile, but engage in genocide, and inevitably wipe out all organic existence is bafflingly foolish. To think every singularity in all civilisations in all existence will mirror this hypothetical is just utterly absurd. Just considering the steepness of the slippery slope this reasoning requires is giving me illogic burns.

Going to go ahead and quote myself, because all I see is the same appeal to probability.

Within Shepard's lifetime, there's been two separate instances which he's observed of synthetics committing genocide against organics.

The only word for assuming that similar incidents would for some reason not continue to occur throughout history, and that the nature of the singularity doesn't mean that synthetics will vastly overpower organics in both intelligence and technological power meaning that such incidents would result in the destruction of organic life, is naive. Attempting to undermine it by saying there's no concrete evidence is to suggest that this logic is somehow flawed, when it's based on things we see happening within the game.

[What a Succulent Ass]

can't help but wonder if its borne out of a conventional expectation of meeting an enemy at the end of a game

I'm going to take a wild guess and postulate that it's the fact it's the leader (and possibly the architect) of the reapers, and is responsible for the death of untold trillions (or more).

[Sal86]

The Razman wrote...

*pyramid snip*

It isn't that the Geth specifically would destroy all organic life if they were more advanced. It's that they prove that war will happen between organics and synthetics, whatever the underlying reasons or who's "fault" it is. And this is just within the 50,000 of our cycle that a major intragalactic war between organics and synthetics has occured. It's most definitely a point of evidence which favours the logic that war is inevitable ... and given the logic of a technological singularity, organic life would get wiped out by this at some point.

Given enough time, a "mistake" will happen where machines which are way more advanced than us will get into a war like the Geth where they're not so nice and considerate to stay within Quarian space. And we'll all die. We can argue about "maybe it won't happen" ... but there's way too much evidence to say it isn't logically plausible that it wouldn't. And given that the price of it happening would be extinction of all organic life, the Starchild's solution is the only 100% way of stopping it from occuring, in its capability.

It proves that war can happen between organics and synthetics. Something happening once =/= it's inevitable. The second paragraph is purely conjecture. Yes, it's locically plausible that technological singularity could happen but again, that's not the same as being inevitable.

The fact is, the catalyst offers up no evidence at all to support his claim that organics will be wiped out by synthetics so we are forced to look to our own empirical evidence. Our own empirical evidence being that even when synthetics and organics do war, it does not result in the extinction of either species.

[Sal86]

The Razman wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

In fourteen lines, it manages to commit several logical fouls (the extremity of its "Solution" notwithstanding), the biggest of which are an appeal to probability and the assumption as to the nature of a tech singularity. We have no single data point to extrapolate upon, and we are given no evidence that the Catalyst does either. A singularity is simply a point in which technology develops beyond our capacity, a manifestation that can occur in an infinite number of manners. To assume that the technology will be inevitably hostile is foolish. To assume that they will not only be hostile, but actively engage in genocide is also foolish. To assume they will not only be hostile, but engage in genocide, and inevitably wipe out all organic existence is bafflingly foolish. To think every singularity in all civilisations in all existence will mirror this hypothetical is just utterly absurd. Just considering the steepness of the slippery slope this reasoning requires is giving me illogic burns.

Going to go ahead and quote myself, because all I see is the same appeal to probability.

Within Shepard's lifetime, there's been two separate instances which he's observed of synthetics committing genocide against organics.

The only word for assuming that similar incidents would for some reason not continue to occur throughout history, and that the nature of the singularity doesn't mean that synthetics will vastly overpower organics in both intelligence and technological power meaning that such incidents would result in the destruction of organic life, is naive. Attempting to undermine it by saying there's no concrete evidence is to suggest that this logic is somehow flawed, when it's based on things we see happening within the game.

Which are these 2 instances that you're referring to?

[Tigerman123]

I'm not really sure why people think that Bioware's intention was that Shepard fully accepts the catalyst's premise, it wasn't. That is the entire point of the EDI and Geth subplots, they gave you a portrayal of synthetics as agreeable and capable of working in harmonious concert with organic life as part of a general theme of, essentially, not judging a book by its cover, that we also see in the Krogan and Rachni subplots. The red 'destroy' ending wouldn't have any particular connotations of immorality for most if you'd only experienced synthetic life through the lens of the Heretic Geth, the Reapers, Eva Core, or the luna iteration of EDI. Not only are our interactions with Legion and EDI sympathetic to them, but their character arcs are emotive, EDI doesn't just explore the meaning of her life free of the narrow bounds of her conception, she goes out with Joker…

The catalyst doesn’t presuppose that synthetics are any more inherently malicious than ourselves, human civilisations with significant technological or military superiority have almost always imposed their will on others for material gain. Considering that synthetics will inevitably reach a position of great superiority, you could to assume one of ; (some?) synthetics are inherently moral, that they’d fail to ameliorate their own condition out of care for others, that there are sufficient resources to share, that a synthetic race would never need resources occupied by organics, because of some limit to the resources (energy from stars) needed for an advanced civilisation.

None of the endings force any particular motive upon Shepard other than to stop the Reapers, it’s an RPG game, it’s up to you define his or her reasoning. The destroy ending results in the elimination of all synthetic life, your Shepard could be coldly indifferent, elated or saddened, which gives the event a different character. They could’ve destroyed them out of prejudice or viewed them as a necessary sacrifice to allow newer iterations of artificial life in the future. Do you have to accept that organics will inevitably be destroyed to pick synthesis, perhaps your Shepard is a trans humanist and considers it a boon to the galaxy in and of itself?

[The Razman]

Sal86 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

*pyramid snip*

It isn't that the Geth specifically would destroy all organic life if they were more advanced. It's that they prove that war will happen between organics and synthetics, whatever the underlying reasons or who's "fault" it is. And this is just within the 50,000 of our cycle that a major intragalactic war between organics and synthetics has occured. It's most definitely a point of evidence which favours the logic that war is inevitable ... and given the logic of a technological singularity, organic life would get wiped out by this at some point.

Given enough time, a "mistake" will happen where machines which are way more advanced than us will get into a war like the Geth where they're not so nice and considerate to stay within Quarian space. And we'll all die. We can argue about "maybe it won't happen" ... but there's way too much evidence to say it isn't logically plausible that it wouldn't. And given that the price of it happening would be extinction of all organic life, the Starchild's solution is the only 100% way of stopping it from occuring, in its capability.

It proves that war can happen between organics and synthetics. Something happening once =/= it's inevitable. The second paragraph is purely conjecture. Yes, it's locically plausible that technological singularity could happen but again, that's not the same as being inevitable.

The fact is, the catalyst offers up no evidence at all to support his claim that organics will be wiped out by synthetics so we are forced to look to our own empirical evidence. Our own empirical evidence being that even when synthetics and organics do war, it does not result in the extinction of either species.

It doesn't result in the extinction of organics because the synthetics aren't as overpowered as the Reapers. Which they aren't because the Reapers have been making sure technology doesn't get advanced enough for them to be. Kind of disproving your own logic there, aren't you?

And as I said in the OP, the argument of "something happening once =/= it's inevitable" isn't viable in the slightest when the consequence for it happening when synthetics are powerful enough to destroy all organic life is annihilation. There's no coming back from that ... you have to be 100% sure that's not going to happen or there's no point. And unless you have some evidence to suggest that it won't happen again, the fact that its happened as recently as Shepard's own lifetime is evidence enough that the Starchild's logic is based on reasonable evidence.

I used this analogy when I was talking with someone else. If you had a 5-year-old son who had a disease, and it went into remission ... if the doctor said to you "We could amputate your son's legs now and it'll make sure there's 100% no chance of the disease coming back, or we could do nothing and hope that it won't. We have no idea what the chances are of it coming back, but the disease has struck before and there's no plausible reason to suggest it won't happen again". What would you choose?

[HellbirdIV]

The Catalyst says that Synthesis is the "Final evolution of life".

There is no such thing as "final evolution". Ergo, the Catalyst fails at logic.

[GuardianAngel470]

The Razman wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

I agree with most of your points Razmann and I really hate the ending. Good thing I don't hate it because it's literarily or logically flawed. Presented with the Starchild's premise I'd rather defy it and let the pieces fall where they may. If synthetics eventually wipe out all organics, so be it. That's called evolution and I happen to agree with the concept.

If they DON'T end up wiping out all organics, fine, better for organics. I happen to believe it highly unlikely a synthetic race would turn aggressor or even respond with violence against violence after a certain point but the Geth are the counterpoint to that sentiment.

My single biggest problem with the ending is that I didn't have the option to defy the enemy. An enemy is allowed to have a logic that I disagree with, it is allowed to have a logic that I feel is flawed. In fact both of those are going to be the case with the vast majority of villains in fiction.

What isn't allowed is having the protagonist agree with the villain or accept that logic at the last second in a way that is a complete betrayal of the protagonist's character. As character development it can be done where the protagonist breaks after or during the final confrontation, (like if Batman let the Joker fall to his death in The Dark Knight) but that wasn't the case here. For paragons and anyone who sided with or sympathized with the Geth Shepard's acceptance of the Starchild's scenario at all is simply out of character.

Then the three choices come up and that issue is compounded. To me it always felt like a false dilemma fallacy. As if Starchild had presented three terrible choices, where the cons vastly outweighed the pros in every case, when the right choice was outside of the dilemma. It infuriated me that Shepard didn't even attempt to look for it.

To me that wasn't a hard choice; it was submission. And that, more than any other point about this ending that I agree with, is what was wrong with it for me.

That's all another issue to what this thread is about, but I will say that the view off the Starchild as an enemy is something which deeply confuses me. He's not forcing you to do anything. He could of just let you die and let the cycles continue on. He's only giving you exactly what you wanted ... a way to defeat the Reapers, which is what you spent the entire game trying to activate the Crucible in the first place was for.

Viewing the Starchild as the enemy when it's done nothing but help you is bizaare to me, and I can't help but wonder if its borne out of a conventional expectation of meeting an enemy at the end of a game.

"They are my solution."

It controls the Reapers directly and (presumably) has for millenia upon millenia. He's the man behind the destruction of trillions upon trillions of organic beings and even more synthetic ones. How is he NOT the enemy?

Him giving me a choice feels like a manipulation; a concession given to further his own goals. I don't trust his motives at all.