CavScout wrote...
Even if true, it doesn't make my statement any less true.Lookout1390 wrote...
CavScout wrote...
But you are a zealot and you don't know what hypocrite means.
See? Right here, a perfect example. He never answered the major question and is still pretending it never happened.
Modifié par balance5050, 13 mai 2012 - 05:07 .
CavScout wrote...
Even if true, it doesn't make my statement any less true.Lookout1390 wrote...
CavScout wrote...
But you are a zealot and you don't know what hypocrite means.
See? Right here, a perfect example. He never answered the major question and is still pretending it never happened.
CavScout wrote...
BatmanTurian wrote...
Dodging the facts. full reaper control is an obvious phrase synonym for indoctrination or huskification. Do you refute this? If so, what do you think they actually meant?CavScout wrote...
Please link to my post where I state the Codex/Wiki are in error.
PS: "full reaper control" is in the App not the Codex/Wiki.
Once again, you won't support your claim (ie I said that the Codex/Wiki) was wrong (or in error).
FATCS:
Indocrination is not mentioned in the Final Hours app you post so often.
Nothing in the Codex states that the only way to be under "full Reaper control" is by indoctrination.
These facts are indisputable. Why do you even try?
You are the ones opening threads to get discussions going. You already have an IT thread going on, why then would you need "more info"?BatmanTurian wrote...
Iconoclaste wrote...
You do have something to win, or else you wouldn't stick around just to sound like a parrot repeating stuff learned by hearth. If you realise this opponent is not going to give into your version of the story, then you are staying just for your own sake, because you know you might just be on the wrong track. That's why insecure people tend to annoy others.ohupthis wrote...
Total waste of blood actually.
The same could be said for you, sir.
balance5050 wrote...
Arguing semantics....
WHO HERE THINKS THAT "FULL REAPER CONTROL" = INDOCTRINATION?
Show of hands let's say.
Sisterofshane wrote...
It's one thing to argue what Bioware intends to do with the EC - it's another thing to simply refute a metaphorical interpretation to the ending of a story, on the basis that you did not like the metaphor.CavScout wrote...
That IT isn't in the ending of ME3 at all.
Unless Bioware comes out and with a statement out right disputing this interpretation of the ending as it was presented (which they might choose to let the EC do all of the talking), there is nothing to make IT any less valid then your own interpretation of the endings.
Modifié par balance5050, 13 mai 2012 - 05:09 .
Sisterofshane wrote...
And it's perfectly valid to believe in a literal interpretation of the ending, but what makes me mad with CavScout is that he comes into the Lions Den and pokes it stick to wake it up, but doesn't bring any actual meat for the Lion to chew.
DJBare wrote...
First off my apologies for yet another IT thread.
Why am I making another?, it's an attempt to clear up some confusion I see quite often.
I see question like "If IT then how do the choices matter?"; they don't, at least not in the way you think they do.
IT states that Shepard never leaves earth, Shepard never made it to the citadel, so everything after Harbingers beam(or maybe after the personnel vehicle carrying Shepard crashes) is hallucination influenced by indoctrination attempts.
This is where the choices come in, they are representations of Shepard's fight against indoctrination taking place in his own mind, control is a fools errand, TIM as much proves this, synthesis is accepting reaper indoctrination, you are now one of the many in reaper form, destroy is Shepard defying attempts at indoctrination, high ems is Shepard's will to survive while under a pile of rubble which is where s/he has been all along.
This thread is not an attempt to convince others to believe IT, it's purpose is to get people to understand that with IT everything after London is not real, not the reapers being destroyed, not the relays being destroyed, nothing is real after London.
That really isa stupid reason to dispute IT. Just be neutral, not attack something you see some rationality in.CavScout wrote...
Sisterofshane wrote...
It's one thing to argue what Bioware intends to do with the EC - it's another thing to simply refute a metaphorical interpretation to the ending of a story, on the basis that you did not like the metaphor.CavScout wrote...
That IT isn't in the ending of ME3 at all.
Unless Bioware comes out and with a statement out right disputing this interpretation of the ending as it was presented (which they might choose to let the EC do all of the talking), there is nothing to make IT any less valid then your own interpretation of the endings.
I don't "refute" IT because I dislike it, IT gets refuted because IT Evangelist claim proof and evidence where there is none.
PS: An "interpretation" not specifically debunked by BW doesn't mean it is on par with the ending supported by BW.
CavScout wrote...
Sisterofshane wrote...
And it's perfectly valid to believe in a literal interpretation of the ending, but what makes me mad with CavScout is that he comes into the Lions Den and pokes it stick to wake it up, but doesn't bring any actual meat for the Lion to chew.
Why bother with meat when the cave only has rats?
Modifié par Lookout1390, 13 mai 2012 - 05:11 .
Iconoclaste wrote...
You are the ones opening threads to get discussions going. You already have an IT thread going on, why then would you need "more info"?BatmanTurian wrote...
Iconoclaste wrote...
You do have something to win, or else you wouldn't stick around just to sound like a parrot repeating stuff learned by hearth. If you realise this opponent is not going to give into your version of the story, then you are staying just for your own sake, because you know you might just be on the wrong track. That's why insecure people tend to annoy others.ohupthis wrote...
Total waste of blood actually.
The same could be said for you, sir.
You're just looking for a "good fight" with your fellow "supporters", but in the long run you will just get more frustrated, because you are far from winning any arguments based on your "evidence" only. Given that IT is just another way to interpret the endings, you should at least try to make it "believable" without all these doubts assailing you, calling for yet another thread to be opened to "test" your "IT warfare".
You act like kids.
[/list]BatmanTurian wrote...
[*]indoctrination doesn't have to be mentioned when it is alluded to by a synonym phrase in the app
[*]indoctrination is full reaper control. The subject may have some free will if slowly indoctrinated or be a complete slave if quickly indoctrinated. Either way they are under the Reapers sway, believe what the Reapers tell them, and the Reapers have complete control unless the subject is slowly indoctrinated and has enough strong will to break it temporarily. Ignoring this is to ignore the lore of the ME universe entirely, which is illogical.
[*]Also you dodged my questions again. It's looking bad for you.
This is no "Lion's den". It's their classical night-shift thread bursting hour calling exactly for guys like that, and me. They enjoy this : it gets ferocious, they get all agitated, in the end they go to sleep more or less satisfied, good for them for now. But I don't think they lack companionship on the IT thread, they just wouldn't be so free to throw around the same stuff without being called back in line by the "elders" of IT.Sisterofshane wrote...
And it's perfectly valid to believe in a literal interpretation of the ending, but what makes me mad with CavScout is that he comes into the Lions Den and pokes it stick to wake it up, but doesn't bring any actual meat for the Lion to chew.
Ignoring fallacious questioning would score you points in debate actually.BatmanTurian wrote...
CavScout wrote...
Even if true, it doesn't make my statement any less true.Lookout1390 wrote...
CavScout wrote...
But you are a zealot and you don't know what hypocrite means.
See? Right here, a perfect example. He never answered the major question and is still pretending it never happened.
Dodging questions in a debate would normally disqualify you immediately.
Modifié par CavScout, 13 mai 2012 - 05:13 .
balance5050 wrote...
WHO HERE THINKS THAT "FULL REAPER CONTROL" = INDOCTRINATION?
-KevShep
-Batman Turian
-balance5050
CavScout wrote...
Sisterofshane wrote...
And it's perfectly valid to believe in a literal interpretation of the ending, but what makes me mad with CavScout is that he comes into the Lions Den and pokes it stick to wake it up, but doesn't bring any actual meat for the Lion to chew.
Why bother with meat when the cave only has rats?
[*]1. Indoctrination is a sublte process that takes time...no person have you ever met who was indoctrinated, other than a full-grown Asari matriarch who lasted a few seconds, go "Oh I'm indoctrinated, or "uh oh, I may be indoctrinated. This is explained clearly in ME1 and 2[*]2 Because you aren't fully indoctrinated when it first hits you, so you are still a remnant of yourself until time slowly allows it to consume, once again, clearly explained in the codex[*]3 Answer our questionCavScout wrote...
[/list]BatmanTurian wrote...
[*]indoctrination doesn't have to be mentioned when it is alluded to by a synonym phrase in the app
[*]indoctrination is full reaper control. The subject may have some free will if slowly indoctrinated or be a complete slave if quickly indoctrinated. Either way they are under the Reapers sway, believe what the Reapers tell them, and the Reapers have complete control unless the subject is slowly indoctrinated and has enough strong will to break it temporarily. Ignoring this is to ignore the lore of the ME universe entirely, which is illogical.
[*]Also you dodged my questions again. It's looking bad for you.
1)Indoctrination isn't mentioned in the Final Hours app, do you agree?
2)How can indoctrination be both "full reaper control" and also leave the subject with "some free will"?
3)Ask a question germane to the discussion then.
Modifié par Lookout1390, 13 mai 2012 - 05:16 .
CavScout wrote...
balance5050 wrote...
WHO HERE THINKS THAT "FULL REAPER CONTROL" = INDOCTRINATION?
-KevShep
-Batman Turian
-balance5050
Just save us time, and space, by just us all agreeing that anyone predisposed to believe in IT will believe in anything that supports IT.
CavScout wrote...
Ignoring fallacious questioning would score you points in debate actually.BatmanTurian wrote...
CavScout wrote...
Even if true, it doesn't make my statement any less true.Lookout1390 wrote...
CavScout wrote...
But you are a zealot and you don't know what hypocrite means.
See? Right here, a perfect example. He never answered the major question and is still pretending it never happened.
Dodging questions in a debate would normally disqualify you immediately.
Lookout1390 wrote...
CavScout wrote...
Even if true, it doesn't make my statement any less true.
Which is?
If you're referring to the "no it's not the only means of control, even though I haven't provided evidence even though you have given me evidence" statement, then I surely hope you can do better.
But indoctrination is narritively coherent. It's been explain in ME1 and ME2. Say indoctrination doesn't fit is like saying thinking the end of inception is a dream makes no sense when you slept during the first part of the movie.jules_vern18 wrote...
DJBare wrote...
First off my apologies for yet another IT thread.
Why am I making another?, it's an attempt to clear up some confusion I see quite often.
I see question like "If IT then how do the choices matter?"; they don't, at least not in the way you think they do.
IT states that Shepard never leaves earth, Shepard never made it to the citadel, so everything after Harbingers beam(or maybe after the personnel vehicle carrying Shepard crashes) is hallucination influenced by indoctrination attempts.
This is where the choices come in, they are representations of Shepard's fight against indoctrination taking place in his own mind, control is a fools errand, TIM as much proves this, synthesis is accepting reaper indoctrination, you are now one of the many in reaper form, destroy is Shepard defying attempts at indoctrination, high ems is Shepard's will to survive while under a pile of rubble which is where s/he has been all along.
This thread is not an attempt to convince others to believe IT, it's purpose is to get people to understand that with IT everything after London is not real, not the reapers being destroyed, not the relays being destroyed, nothing is real after London.
Yeah, um, I get it...I just don't think IT would be any better than taking the endings at face value. Introducing an "it was all a dream!!!!1" twist in the last 10 minutes of a game is no better than introducing a new character and plot point in the last 10 minutes of a game.
I would like a well-structured, narratively coherent, choice-contingent variety of endings that fit in with the story's established lore, foreshadowing, logical footing, and overarching themes. IT and Starbrat are equally bad in terms of those criteria.
CavScout wrote...
Sisterofshane wrote...
It's one thing to argue what Bioware intends to do with the EC - it's another thing to simply refute a metaphorical interpretation to the ending of a story, on the basis that you did not like the metaphor.CavScout wrote...
That IT isn't in the ending of ME3 at all.
Unless Bioware comes out and with a statement out right disputing this interpretation of the ending as it was presented (which they might choose to let the EC do all of the talking), there is nothing to make IT any less valid then your own interpretation of the endings.
I don't "refute" IT because I dislike it, IT gets refuted because IT Evangelist claim proof and evidence where there is none.
PS: An "interpretation" not specifically debunked by BW doesn't mean it is on par with the ending supported by BW.
Retour en haut
