739 réponses à ce sujet

[CavScout]

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Indoctrination is in the game. Indoctrination of Shep as demanded by IT is not.

IT is indoctrination.

IT is the indoctrination of Shep. Don't try to be coy. You don't pull it off well.

[OH-UP-THIS!]

jules_vern18 wrote...

I asked this before and it got brushed off once again (funny how that always happens in IT threads):

What happens if the EC is released and does not validate IT? What if the endings are simply extended and delivered to be taken at face value?

I'm really curious where IT goes from there. Will you still insist that Bioware had IT planned all along?

I have yet to get an answer from the Cult of Indoctrination Theory on this one. Anybody?

uh cult of indoc theory, kinda has a nice ring to it huh? LOL Abbreviated means something else, we won't go there.


If, IT isn't included in the EC, it did have it's moments in the sun.

It was fun while it lasted ok?

At least we can show our imaginations, and let them fly. with evidence i might add.

[dreman9999]

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...
Sigh... so you're saying the scene where Shepard falls under full reaper control IS in the game?

Read that to yourself and make sure you understand my question and what you said.

He is under TIMs full control. I've clearly stated I don't think it is indocrination. It, IMO, is something TIM learned from the study of reapers. Keep trying the silly 6th grade debate team tactics if you must.

TIM is under the control of the reapers.......And TIM control Shepard...... What does that mean?

You boys and you goal post moving....

I don't think it is Indocrination and I believe it is TIM who is doing it.

It's not goal post moving. It's something that happens in the plot. So I'm sapposed to focus on one plot point and ignore the nextplot point dreactly ealatedto it?

You don't even believe it to be a real scene. There is literally no point in debating the meaning of the scene if one party thinks it actually happened and the other wants to believe it was all a "dream".

Fun fact...There 3 theories for IT.http://social.biowar...ndex/12023755/1

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

TSA_383 wrote...
This, I think, is the crux of the problem.

I will repeat the offer that nobody has yet taken up of a cash bet of some kind, to be decided based on story progression from this point.

Out of curiosity, and I mean this in the nicest possible way, but have you ever read any classic books that require a little reading-into to pick up on the meaning? One such book which I was a fan of is "Brave New World", and I know that I mention it a fair bit on these forums, but when Mac Walters was writing the ending of ME3, he used it for inspiration (along with "The end of the first Matrix", I'll let you work that one out...) so I think it's worth a note. It's available free online these days and out of copyright, so I strongly recommend that you go take a look. Even if not for ME3, it's a fascinating look into a dystopian "future" (I put this in quotes as the book is rather dated now and despite being set in the future the technology is somewhat behind...) in which people are lead through subconscious suggestion to be perfectly willing servants of their politcal masters. It's actually quite interesting as it parallels a lot of what we see in mainland China these days.

Appeal To Complexity

You realize that you're not actually debating right? You're not even entertaining the idea of being engaged in discussion?

One does not debate by falling into the trappings of a fallacious argument.

Modifié par CavScout, 13 mai 2012 - 06:47 .

[dreman9999]

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Indoctrination is in the game. Indoctrination of Shep as demanded by IT is not.

IT is indoctrination.

IT is the indoctrination of Shep. Don't try to be coy. You don't pull it off well.

That still is indoctriantion

[Sisterofshane]

CavScout wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...
As to why you are given the magic elevator ride, it's simple.  The Reapers still need time - either to indoctrinate you or to kill you. If they gave up after the hallucination of TIM failed, wouldn't you just wake up in the London rubble right there, and be capable of continuing your task unhindered?  It would be much better (simpler) to keep your number one enemy under your "illusion".

The Reapers will destroy the Crucible if Shepartd hesitates too long to make a choice upstairs, so there is no logic to wake Shepard up "still in a dream" to "gain more time", since they already have all the time they want to destroy the Crucible while Shep is unconscious.

Again, you are assuming that what happens while in the "dream citadel" has bearing on the real world (which according to IT is Shepard laying semi-unconscious in the rubble of London).

If you read my second paragraph, then you would understand my point of view (which splits from IT).  They already failed at their attempt to Indoctrinate Shepard - and Shepards mind refuses to give up (hence why it is shown Shep is struggling to get to the panel, I take this to be metaphorical for Shepard trying to wake himself up to finish the mission and defeat the Reapers.)  Picking an option given by the Catalyst doesn't actually accomplish anything other than making Shepard finally believe that the fight is over, and that he can just let go.

Iconoclaste this is why it is nearly pointless to debate an Indoctrination Theory Evangelical. They will claim anything from the game used against Indoctrination Theory is simply an artifact if Indoctrination Theory.

A proves B.
B proves A.

It's great logic....

Ok, I have to laugh.  I neither support a literal or metaphorical "ending" to the games.  IMO, both interpretations are equally valid.  In fact, my above statements proves that I am not in direct support of Indoctrination Theory.  However, if I were to interpret the endings in a metaphorical way, that is how I view it to be happening.

However, you prove my point that you come into these threads looking with your "blinders", refusing to believe that anyone with an opinion different to yours is anything less then a zealot.  In fact, in the other debate I am having with you, there is nothing in my argument in which I am trying to link to the "validity" of IT.  In that argument I am trying to prove that, in a face value ending, that Shepard and Anderson were suffering from some sort of indoctrination, as opposed to some previously unheard of method of control.

So maybe you should be reconsidering who the "evangalist" is in this thread.

[jules_vern18]

dreman9999 wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

I asked this before and it got brushed off once again (funny how that always happens in IT threads):

What happens if the EC is released and does not validate IT? What if the endings are simply extended and delivered to be taken at face value?

I'm really curious where IT goes from there. Will you still insist that Bioware had IT planned all along?

I have yet to get an answer from the Cult of Indoctrination Theory on this one. Anybody?

Is this question relivent?  This has nothing that proves or did prove IT. It just a last hit attempt.

But that's what you guys say no matter where I ask it.  It seems like you're afraid to answer it or something.

And yes, it's relevant, because the answer may or may not be indicative of whether or not IT is actually disprovable.

In order for a hypothesis to be valid, there have to be conditions under which it can be disproved.

But it is not relivent. What is awnsering this question even going to prove?

Jesus man, I just said it.  FFS

I will spell it out for you: 

In order for a hypothesis to be accepted as valid, there have to be concievable conditions under which it can be disproven. 

EXAMPLE:  They theory of gravity could be disproved if somewhere in physics we found an object with a gravitational pull that did not correlate with its mass.  Conditions exist under which the theory of gravity could be disproved - whether or not those conditions have or will be met is a different story.

QUESTION:  Are there conditions under which IT can be disproved?  What are they?  If we're going to have an argument about whether or not IT is correct, shouldn't we at least determine if your hypothesis holds validity?

PROPOSAL:  A prosed condition under which IT would be disproved would be if the EC comes out and does not point to IT in any way.  Would you agree?

If you want to argue the merits of your theory, you have to acknowledge circumstances under which you could be wrong.  Otherwise you can simply shrug everything off as you have been and it's not a real argument.  

So, again:  to all IT theorists...under what conditions could your theory be disproven?

[CavScout]

Sisterofshane wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

CavScout wrote...
I don't believe TIM has out advanced the Reapers.

However, that is the only logical conclusion if we have ruled out the (what I will call) traditional Indoctrination and/or direct Reaper implantation of both Shepard and Anderson.

Only if you presume first that Reapers only do Indocrination.....

No, we can apply everything we have seen the Reapers do to the endings and still reach the same conclusion.

Are they turning Shep?Anderson into husks? No.

Are they genetically modifying them into organic constructs (such as the keepers)? No.

Are they killing them?  No.

Are they processing/harvesting them? No.

We've already ruled out that it is not "traditional" indoctrination (off on a tangent here, I find it odd that you do not dispute my use of the the term "traditional" here), and that they are not implanted with Reaper Tech.

So how exactly is TIM in control of the two of them through any means of his own?  And, if this method is known to him and he is indoctrinated (and he is if we are taking the ending at face value), then why are the Reapers not capitalizing on the fact that they can instananeously control individuals movements with TIM's discovery?

You can't support it without first presuming Indoctrination Theory at the outset.

And then you argue points I haven't made, why?

[hoodaticus]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Just as IT theorists can't disprove and literal interpretation of the endings.

Both versions are vaild until Bioware flat out refutes one or the other.

We've disproved the endings repeatedly.  That is the reason we went looking for an alternative theory in the first place.

ME3 ending is false because it claims the Citadel controls the Reapers.  If that were true, then Sovereign would not have spent 2000 years trying to raise allies to activate the citadel - AND FAIL; the citadel would have self-activated and the Reapers would have invaded when people were still worshipping Zeus.

If ME1 never happened, then ME3 never  happened, and neither did the ending.  ME3 ending contradicts ME1, and therefore itself.  The ME3 ending is self-refuting.  It is logically impossible.

An unfalsifiable ending like IT is much better than the falsified ending being served up by the pro-enders.

The fact that no pro-ender has the ability to defeat this argument does not excuse their claiming that we have not disproved the ending.

Modifié par hoodaticus, 13 mai 2012 - 06:53 .

[OH-UP-THIS!]

[quote]jules_vern18 wrote...

[quote]ohupthis wrote...

[quote]jules_vern18 wrote...

[/quote]

Nice try.

1.  Why is Shepard only experiencing these early stage symptoms now?  Lore has established that indoctrination is a long process, yet Shepard does not display any of these symptoms until the very end (and still not buzzing in the ears).

2.  That's great.  We still see no signs - early or late - that Shepard feels like he's being watched.

3.  The kid in the fall of earth was not a hallucination.  He was a plot device used to illustrate to the player (and again through dream sequences) Shepard's attachment to earth and the toll that war is taking on him.

[/quote]

I don't know about you, but I sure a hell wouldn't want that buzzing coming through my PC speakers, that would be rather annoying. All 8 of them.

As for your other ramblings, try try again K?

[/quote]

This, ladies and gentlemen, is what a lost argument looks like. <3

[/quote]

Hardly, but riddle me this...............would you want the buzzing sound continuosly, while playing?

as for 2 and 3 they're already answered.

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...
Nope. TIM isn't a biotic.

This has been discussed yesterday on another thread, and you got your explanation. We are shown in game, very clearly, that TIM as a "biotic-like" glow around his fist, and that he makes Shepard move against his will.

So...He's using biotics.....

TIM does display a Biotic like effect over his arm/fist when talking to Shep.

It's called reaper power

http://3.bp.blogspot...s1600/indoc.png 

read the red part and refute it with logic please.

What is there to refute? You post an image and claim it means something... you do that a lot.

Hundreds of posts by you, and so little is said. You're becoming my favorite....

Battered person syndrome.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

TSA_383 wrote...
This, I think, is the crux of the problem.

I will repeat the offer that nobody has yet taken up of a cash bet of some kind, to be decided based on story progression from this point.

Out of curiosity, and I mean this in the nicest possible way, but have you ever read any classic books that require a little reading-into to pick up on the meaning? One such book which I was a fan of is "Brave New World", and I know that I mention it a fair bit on these forums, but when Mac Walters was writing the ending of ME3, he used it for inspiration (along with "The end of the first Matrix", I'll let you work that one out...) so I think it's worth a note. It's available free online these days and out of copyright, so I strongly recommend that you go take a look. Even if not for ME3, it's a fascinating look into a dystopian "future" (I put this in quotes as the book is rather dated now and despite being set in the future the technology is somewhat behind...) in which people are lead through subconscious suggestion to be perfectly willing servants of their politcal masters. It's actually quite interesting as it parallels a lot of what we see in mainland China these days.

Appeal To Complexity

You realize that you're not actually debating right? You're not even entertaining the idea of being engaged in discussion?

One does not debate by falling into the trappings of a fallacious argument.

Actually it happens ALL THE TIME... one does not debate by hypocritically listing common fallacious arguments. I don't even think we can say you're really debating, because you aren't actually coming up with proper rebuttals.

[CavScout]

dreman9999 wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...
But that's what you guys say no matter where I ask it.  It seems like you're afraid to answer it or something.

And yes, it's relevant, because the answer may or may not be indicative of whether or not IT is actually disprovable.

In order for a hypothesis to be valid, there have to be conditions under which it can be disproved.

But it is not relivent. What is awnsering this question even going to prove?

I wonder why you didn't say this when your ilk were demanding I answer irrelevant questions....

[Iconoclaste]

Sisterofshane wrote...

We've already ruled out that it is not "traditional" indoctrination (off on a tangent here, I find it odd that you do not dispute my use of the the term "traditional" here), and that they are not implanted with Reaper Tech.

So how exactly is TIM in control of the two of them through any means of his own?  And, if this method is known to him and he is indoctrinated (and he is if we are taking the ending at face value), then why are the Reapers not capitalizing on the fact that they can instananeously control individuals movements with TIM's discovery?

If TIM is using his "newly found power" to try to convince Shepard to "control" the Reapers, then he has a chance to succeed where any up front Reaper attempt would fail. If Reapers could simply make Shepard "move" by controlling him through TIM, then they could as well have him shoot Anderson repeatedly so he could stop pulling Shepard off track right there. But why is Anderson in Shepard's dream, anyway? Ah! Symbolism. This mixture of Shepard's will and Reapers suggestions. But why then would the Reapers allow TIM to shoot Anderson, just to risk antagonizing Shepard even more?

[dreman9999]

jules_vern18 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

I asked this before and it got brushed off once again (funny how that always happens in IT threads):

What happens if the EC is released and does not validate IT? What if the endings are simply extended and delivered to be taken at face value?

I'm really curious where IT goes from there. Will you still insist that Bioware had IT planned all along?

I have yet to get an answer from the Cult of Indoctrination Theory on this one. Anybody?

Is this question relivent?  This has nothing that proves or did prove IT. It just a last hit attempt.

But that's what you guys say no matter where I ask it.  It seems like you're afraid to answer it or something.

And yes, it's relevant, because the answer may or may not be indicative of whether or not IT is actually disprovable.

In order for a hypothesis to be valid, there have to be conditions under which it can be disproved.

But it is not relivent. What is awnsering this question even going to prove?

Jesus man, I just said it.  FFS

I will spell it out for you: 

In order for a hypothesis to be accepted as valid, there have to be concievable conditions under which it can be disproven. 

EXAMPLE:  They theory of gravity could be disproved if somewhere in physics we found an object with a gravitational pull that did not correlate with its mass.  Conditions exist under which the theory of gravity could be disproved - whether or not those conditions have or will be met is a different story.

QUESTION:  Are there conditions under which IT can be disproved?  What are they?  If we're going to have an argument about whether or not IT is correct, shouldn't we at least determine if your hypothesis holds validity?

PROPOSAL:  A prosed condition under which IT would be disproved would be if the EC comes out and does not point to IT in any way.  Would you agree?

If you want to argue the merits of your theory, you have to acknowledge circumstances under which you could be wrong.  Otherwise you can simply shrug everything off as you have been and it's not a real argument.  

So, again:  to all IT theorists...under what conditions could your theory be disproven?

But that has nothing to do with question what will be done after it disproven. A scientic testis only about finding out if the 
hypothesis is right or wrong and what varied results are.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

CavScout wrote...
I don't believe TIM has out advanced the Reapers.

However, that is the only logical conclusion if we have ruled out the (what I will call) traditional Indoctrination and/or direct Reaper implantation of both Shepard and Anderson.

Only if you presume first that Reapers only do Indocrination.....

No, we can apply everything we have seen the Reapers do to the endings and still reach the same conclusion.

Are they turning Shep?Anderson into husks? No.

Are they genetically modifying them into organic constructs (such as the keepers)? No.

Are they killing them?  No.

Are they processing/harvesting them? No.

We've already ruled out that it is not "traditional" indoctrination (off on a tangent here, I find it odd that you do not dispute my use of the the term "traditional" here), and that they are not implanted with Reaper Tech.

So how exactly is TIM in control of the two of them through any means of his own?  And, if this method is known to him and he is indoctrinated (and he is if we are taking the ending at face value), then why are the Reapers not capitalizing on the fact that they can instananeously control individuals movements with TIM's discovery?

You can't support it without first presuming Indoctrination Theory at the outset.

And then you argue points I haven't made, why?

Because you haven't made any point so were forced to fill in the blanks for you.

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Iconoclaste this is why it is nearly pointless to debate an Indoctrination Theory Evangelical. They will claim anything from the game used against Indoctrination Theory is simply an artifact if Indoctrination Theory.

A proves B.
B proves A.

It's great logic....

So you're saying you love the idea of I.T.? How it's an extremly refreshing, fourth wall breaking, metaphysical experince that bleedes out into the real world in an extremly surprising ways?

I am sure you've been told you're special by mom and dad.. but really... this thread is beyond your capabilities. You should excuse yourself.

[CavScout]

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
What the point of repeating images?

Plus, it doesn't prove anything. You're appealing to authority here. You don't know what it means, you only know what someone told you it means.

It proves that indoctrination is used in the last scene of the game being that indoctriantion is the reapers main power.

So you think TIM is indocrinating Shep and Anderson?

PS: Game files don't really prove anything... they're file names.

[dreman9999]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

We've already ruled out that it is not "traditional" indoctrination (off on a tangent here, I find it odd that you do not dispute my use of the the term "traditional" here), and that they are not implanted with Reaper Tech.

So how exactly is TIM in control of the two of them through any means of his own?  And, if this method is known to him and he is indoctrinated (and he is if we are taking the ending at face value), then why are the Reapers not capitalizing on the fact that they can instananeously control individuals movements with TIM's discovery?

If TIM is using his "newly found power" to try to convince Shepard to "control" the Reapers, then he has a chance to succeed where any up front Reaper attempt would fail. If Reapers could simply make Shepard "move" by controlling him through TIM, then they could as well have him shoot Anderson repeatedly so he could stop pulling Shepard off track right there. But why is Anderson in Shepard's dream, anyway? Ah! Symbolism. This mixture of Shepard's will and Reapers suggestions. But why then would the Reapers allow TIM to shoot Anderson, just to risk antagonizing Shepard even more?

1.
Fun fact...There 3 theories for IT. 
http://social.biowar...ndex/12023755/1 
2.Shepardis not fully indoctrinated.
3.To show they are in control and weak Sheps will.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Iconoclaste this is why it is nearly pointless to debate an Indoctrination Theory Evangelical. They will claim anything from the game used against Indoctrination Theory is simply an artifact if Indoctrination Theory.

A proves B.
B proves A.

It's great logic....

So you're saying you love the idea of I.T.? How it's an extremly refreshing, fourth wall breaking, metaphysical experince that bleedes out into the real world in an extremly surprising ways?

I am sure you've been told you're special by mom and dad.. but really... this thread is beyond your capabilities. You should excuse yourself.

Oh no, I'm right at home 



The evidence is that he wakes up amongst concrete rubble after just being in the middle of this:

  

 

Also, the white light "dream transition effect is very telling that the ending could be a combination of a dream and being somehow mentally linked to some reaper somehow.


Dreams
http://desmond.image...jpg&res=landing

  
Shepard in Geth consensus



The ending

  

Also, look at Shepards eyes when he chooses either control or synthesize

 


Reposting for justice 

[hoodaticus]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Iconoclaste this is why it is nearly pointless to debate an Indoctrination Theory Evangelical. They will claim anything from the game used against Indoctrination Theory is simply an artifact if Indoctrination Theory.

A proves B.
B proves A.

It's great logic....

So you're saying you love the idea of I.T.? How it's an extremly refreshing, fourth wall breaking, metaphysical experince that bleedes out into the real world in an extremly surprising ways?

I am sure you've been told you're special by mom and dad.. but really... this thread is beyond your capabilities. You should excuse yourself.

My my, do people love to project.

[jules_vern18]

dreman9999 wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

I asked this before and it got brushed off once again (funny how that always happens in IT threads):

What happens if the EC is released and does not validate IT? What if the endings are simply extended and delivered to be taken at face value?

I'm really curious where IT goes from there. Will you still insist that Bioware had IT planned all along?

I have yet to get an answer from the Cult of Indoctrination Theory on this one. Anybody?

Is this question relivent?  This has nothing that proves or did prove IT. It just a last hit attempt.

But that's what you guys say no matter where I ask it.  It seems like you're afraid to answer it or something.

And yes, it's relevant, because the answer may or may not be indicative of whether or not IT is actually disprovable.

In order for a hypothesis to be valid, there have to be conditions under which it can be disproved.

But it is not relivent. What is awnsering this question even going to prove?

Jesus man, I just said it.  FFS

I will spell it out for you: 

In order for a hypothesis to be accepted as valid, there have to be concievable conditions under which it can be disproven. 

EXAMPLE:  They theory of gravity could be disproved if somewhere in physics we found an object with a gravitational pull that did not correlate with its mass.  Conditions exist under which the theory of gravity could be disproved - whether or not those conditions have or will be met is a different story.

QUESTION:  Are there conditions under which IT can be disproved?  What are they?  If we're going to have an argument about whether or not IT is correct, shouldn't we at least determine if your hypothesis holds validity?

PROPOSAL:  A prosed condition under which IT would be disproved would be if the EC comes out and does not point to IT in any way.  Would you agree?

If you want to argue the merits of your theory, you have to acknowledge circumstances under which you could be wrong.  Otherwise you can simply shrug everything off as you have been and it's not a real argument.  

So, again:  to all IT theorists...under what conditions could your theory be disproven?

But that has nothing to do with question what will be done after it disproven. A scientic testis only about finding out if the 
hypothesis is right or wrong and what varied results are.

Again, still afraid to answer the question.

I only asked "what IT's next step would be" for color.  Let's leave that part out if it makes you feel better, ok?

REVISED QUESTION:  What are the conditions under which IT can be disproved?  

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...You never won in 6th grade debate, did you?

I studied psychology, but I work in internet advertising. Point is I graduated college.

Our school system has truly failed us.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
What the point of repeating images?

Plus, it doesn't prove anything. You're appealing to authority here. You don't know what it means, you only know what someone told you it means.

It proves that indoctrination is used in the last scene of the game being that indoctriantion is the reapers main power.

So you think TIM is indocrinating Shep and Anderson?

PS: Game files don't really prove anything... they're file names.

File names that read Reaper power, why call it that if he was using ANYTHING else?

[CavScout]

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Indoctrination is in the game. Indoctrination of Shep as demanded by IT is not.

IT is indoctrination.

IT is the indoctrination of Shep. Don't try to be coy. You don't pull it off well.

That still is indoctriantion

Seriously, you can't pull it off.