739 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

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.

1. Yes.
2. Yes they do. The devs use it to make clear what does what in away every dev on the tema can understate from the code team, image team to sound team.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

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.

On that we can agree. Glad I got through it before "no child left behind"

[hoodaticus]

balance5050 wrote...

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?

balance, you are being trolled.

[dreman9999]

jules_vern18 wrote...

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?  

It's nothing about being afraid. It's relivency...The question has no point.

Modifié par dreman9999, 13 mai 2012 - 06:58 .

[balance5050]

hoodaticus wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

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?

balance, you are being trolled.

Yeah, I know. Are we going to collectively stop feeding the troll now then?

Modifié par balance5050, 13 mai 2012 - 06:59 .

[Iconoclaste]

balance5050 wrote...

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

Some of these pictures were proposed on the "official" IT thread, and put down by some IT supporters because they only show similarities between scenes that have nothing to do with indoctrination, to sum it up. But you still throw them around, because you like to avoid arguments. The explosion you show in the 1st picture has been heavily debated, and each time an alternate explanation comes around you post your pictures again, and the obvious result is the thread moving ahead so no one can use the arguments proposed against your "pictures" since they get buried deep back in the thread.

[Sisterofshane]

Iconoclaste wrote...

If Shepard would believe everything is over after making a choice, then why would he only wake up in the "destroy" ending? If you answer "Because that symbolizes his victory over indoc", then again : why did the Reapers suggest the possibility of a "destroy" solution, if they can even provoke hallucinations? Why this discrepancy between their immense power to "indoctrinate", and their lack of control over what they can show their victims? Why are they able to suggest sophisticated things like "the kid in the vent", or TIM's confrontation, but even after all this time trying (and succeeding to a point) to melt Shepard's mind, they still fail to the point of showing him the exit (destroy)?

I think it would have something to do with Shepard actually visualising his death in the control/synthesis options.  He actaully envisions his body disappating into nothing.  He also manages to accept that the Reapers were right, even though this "admission" was never really necessary (hence why they give him the "destroy" option in the first place).  This is also why the destroy/control option are the only one's available to Shep with low EMS.  They don't really need to spend the time to make an elaborate illusion - they just need to stall you long enough for you to die, so you can no longer interfere.  The Reapers give Shepard the illusion of defeating them in the manner with which he sees fit (otherwise it might break the illusion, because what is the first thing you tell yourself when something in a dream doesn't make any sense? Wake up).  They show the destroy ending, because if shepard doesn't believe that it is real, if he didn't make the choice he felt was adequete in to succeed in his ultimate goal, then he wouldn't just "give in" (and here by "give in", I mean that he wouldn't just die in the rubble, not give in to indoctrination).


It was never a "lack" of control, they were showing Shepard exactly what he wanted - exactly what he would believe.  Shepard needs to believe that he won.

[hoodaticus]

You don't need falsifiability unless you are about to conduct an experiment. This is interpretation of facts - not gathering of new ones.

[CavScout]

hoodaticus wrote...

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.

Jesus... this is so freaking easy. Why do nubs continue to post it like it hard?

1)The Catalyst home is the Citadel. You are presuming powers of control over the Citadel not evident in the game.
2)Because the Catalyst doesn't have control over the Citadel, Sovereign had to attempt his mission.

It's like beating up a child. It's not fair.

[jules_vern18]

dreman9999 wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

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?  

It's nothing about being afraid. It's relivency...The question has no point.

No, I think you just don't understand the question.

We are arguing about your theory.  I have a question about the nature of your theory.  In order for a theory to be established in logical argument, there must be conditions under which it can be disproved.  I am asking you what those conditions are in order to further the argument.  It is absolutely relevant.

[xsdob]

Why is it that multiple versions of the indoctrination theory are allowed to be called the same thing? It just makes it confusing.

[balance5050]

Iconoclaste wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

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

Some of these pictures were proposed on the "official" IT thread, and put down by some IT supporters because they only show similarities between scenes that have nothing to do with indoctrination, to sum it up. But you still throw them around, because you like to avoid arguments. The explosion you show in the 1st picture has been heavily debated, and each time an alternate explanation comes around you post your pictures again, and the obvious result is the thread moving ahead so no one can use the arguments proposed against your "pictures" since they get buried deep back in the thread.

Sigh. this is still hotly debated even in the IT thread so please take your disingenuous asstertions elsewhere.

[esideras]

Scimal wrote...

I think most people who don't agree with IT are more than aware.

Pointing that out doesn't make the theory any less ridiculous. What you're essentially saying is that they made a game without an end. Shepard gets ripped up by Harbinger's beam, and if you want to believe IT, then you choose Red, and you choose to keep fighting.

Then the game stops. You don't keep fighting. You don't win. You don't lose. The game doesn't conclude, because it stops right before it ends.

Then you get some geezer telling his grandkid about Shepard - which the I.T. seems to forget exists. How does that fit into the IT anyways? I'd like to know that instead.

How does the Buzz Aldrin epilogue fit into IT? Is it yet another hallucination?

That is true but wouldn't you rather accept a mind**** rather than seeing the whole series got to hell? That is assuming that DLC will fix it. I'd rather it be a stupid marketing plan than it being bad writing.

[jules_vern18]

hoodaticus wrote...

You don't need falsifiability unless you are about to conduct an experiment. This is interpretation of facts - not gathering of new ones.

You need falsifiability in order for any theory to be tested and as a basis for any assertions in a logical argument.

[Sisterofshane]

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?

Not arguing IT here, man.  Just that Reaper Control = Indoctrination.

It applies to both interpretations.

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...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.

Let me help you out, one does not debate effectively by falling into the trappings of the other side's fallacious arguments.

One does not re-butt fallacies, you simply point them out and move on.

[dreman9999]

xsdob wrote...

Why is it that multiple versions of the indoctrination theory are allowed to be called the same thing? It just makes it confusing.

Because they all are about indoctriantion.
Just use dream, hallucination, and infleace for now.

[dreman9999]

Sisterofshane wrote...

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?

Not arguing IT here, man.  Just that Reaper Control = Indoctrination.

It applies to both interpretations.

Implantation is a type of indoctrination.

[hoodaticus]

jules_vern18 wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

You don't need falsifiability unless you are about to conduct an experiment. This is interpretation of facts - not gathering of new ones.

You need falsifiability in order for any theory to be tested and as a basis for any assertions in a logical argument.

Again - irrelevant.  State the experiment you intend to perform in order to test indoctrination theory.  I don't think there is such an experiment, and therefore testability is irrelevant.

[Sisterofshane]

CavScout wrote...

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.

Clearly. 

Modifié par Sisterofshane, 13 mai 2012 - 07:10 .

[dreman9999]

jules_vern18 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

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?  

It's nothing about being afraid. It's relivency...The question has no point.

No, I think you just don't understand the question.

We are arguing about your theory.  I have a question about the nature of your theory.  In order for a theory to be established in logical argument, there must be conditions under which it can be disproved.  I am asking you what those conditions are in order to further the argument.  It is absolutely relevant.

But the question has noting to do withdisproving the theory.

[OH-UP-THIS!]

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?

That is in your best interest to do, not us, we believe, you don't. fairly straight forward.

as for a direct straight forward answer, "For Bioware to have not messed up the ending".

Does that fit your criteria?

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

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?

You do know why an argument from authority is fallacious, right?

[hoodaticus]

CavScout wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...
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.

Jesus... this is so freaking easy. Why do nubs continue to post it like it hard?

1)The Catalyst home is the Citadel. You are presuming powers of control over the Citadel not evident in the game.
2)Because the Catalyst doesn't have control over the Citadel, Sovereign had to attempt his mission.

It's like beating up a child. It's not fair.

This is what is known in the academic world as an "epic fail". 

Shepard: I thought the Citadel was the Catalyst.
Catalyst: No. The Citadel is part of me.

Please put down the bong and return to argue once sober.

[CavScout]

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...So you think TIM is indocrinating Shep and Anderson?

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

1. Yes.
2. Yes they do. The devs use it to make clear what does what in away every dev on the tema can understate from the code team, image team to sound team.

If game files are the end all, be all, where are the files that prove Indocrination Theory?