739 réponses à ce sujet

[balance5050]

Lookout1390 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

The argument was another means of reaper control other than indoctrination, which you have yet to provide proof other than "yeah well how do you know there isn't another way?"

This whole argument is based upon a scrap of paper with strange references to the Matrix, the Crucible "effect" having an effect on everything, "destroy life / create life", hope, etc. There is only one mention regarding something that was eventually dropped (if we believe other references from tiers). Did someone care to verify at what time this scrap of paper was written, prior of after the "Indoc sequence was decided OUT"?

I've never heard of that until just now.

I know the plot all and all was dropped and changed around in earlier creation (including Drew's original concept, but even that was a pretty damn terrible ending too).

here you go:

 

[CavScout]

[quote]BatmanTurian wrote...
[quote]CavScout wrote...
No they wouldn't. If a theory can be demostrated to be wrong, you don't then need to come up with a competing theory...
[/quote]
wrong that is the whole point. You have to create a new hypothesis to replace the old theory. if it holds water then it becomes a valid theory, replacing the old theory.[/quote]

This is simply false. A theory is not valid until it is replaced by another theory. A theory becomes invalid when it can be demonstrated to be invalid.







[quote][quote]Besides, invoking science in an IT debate is a horrible idea as IT wouldn't even qualify as a theory under scientific norms. [/quote]Oh, yeah you're right. So you mean it's an interpretation. Ah so what was the other meaning of theory again. Oh yeah, interpretation or explanation of events.[/quote]

Disproving one theory is not "interpretation"

[quote]





[quote]Besides, in a literal sense you are already using a theory to dispute another theory. Your theory is that all of the ending actually happened. You are completely illogical or trolling as usual.[/quote]


[quote]This is IT circular logic running amok. Only if one presumes IT to be true does one then think the endings are not real....[/quote]

What other stance is there? You say the endings are crap therefore you acknowledge the endings as to have actually happened, otherwise there would be no ending to complain about,

Logic. Use it.

[/quote][/quote]

You invoke logic but fail at it so spectacularly. There is no reason to presume the endings aren't real unless one belives in IT in the first place. [/quote]

Modifié par CavScout, 13 mai 2012 - 04:17 .

[OH-UP-THIS!]

Iconoclaste wrote...

KevShep wrote...

Dude Ive anwsered your question with a question and your avoiding it. There are different ways of indoctrination but the codex and Wiki state that there is only one way the reapers can control you...indoctrination!
 Do you want me to link wiki it to you?

Well, that may simply point to the "control" being TIM's  control, not the "Reapers".

Here let me try............................control through TIM, as TIM is the antennae.

Wow that was difficult.

[Sdrol117]

ohupthis wrote...


Maybe you can explain why Shepard is not vaporized by this:



  



....Shepard was brought back to life in ME2, after being dead for an extremely long time. It's a videogame, dude. 


That would be THE fastest revival in history then. lol keep clappin' dude

What are you even saying? lol.

Modifié par Sdrol117, 13 mai 2012 - 04:18 .

[OH-UP-THIS!]

CavScout wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...


The representative of the Pro-enders side of the argument for this discussion...ladies and gentlemen.

Let's give him a round of applause.

I would rather skip that and simply argue the validity of arguments pro and con IT. But if things get too personal, I believe it's time to seek fun discussion elsewhere. I don't like discussing IT with its most "prominent" defenders because it almost always end up "personal" : "you don't get it, you overlooked, you need to be reminded...", like if it was some kind of scientifically founded theory. It lacks solid evidence, yet many of its supporters will endlessly repeat the same mistakes over and over again, instead of asking themselves "Why am I not as convincing as I would like to, sincee I pretend to have solid grounds for arguing?"

It is rather pointless, it boggles my mind why people keep making threads like these.

IT-believers won't convince pro-enders, and vice versa. 

It's getting very old.

Yet, here you are supporting IT the best way you know how....

And what the hell is a Pro-Ender? Are IT folks only capable of having a single thought in their mind at one time? Can one not be dismissive of IT and wish the ending was done in a different way?

Ok what would yer ending look like?

[CavScout]

Sdrol117 wrote...
What are you even saying? lol.

Attack dogs just bark.

[balance5050]

Sdrol117 wrote...

ohupthis wrote...


Maybe you can explain why Shepard is not vaporized by this:

snip

  



....Shepard was brought back to life in ME2, after being dead for an extremely long time. It's a videogame, dude. 


That would be THE fastest revival in history then. lol keep clappin' dude

What are you even saying? lol.

More than you.

[CavScout]

ohupthis wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Yet, here you are supporting IT the best way you know how....

And what the hell is a Pro-Ender? Are IT folks only capable of having a single thought in their mind at one time? Can one not be dismissive of IT and wish the ending was done in a different way?

Ok what would yer ending look like?

What bearing does it have on the validity of IT?

[BatmanTurian]

CavScout wrote...


You invoke logic but fail at it so spectacularly. There is no reason to presume the endings aren't real unless one belives in IT in the first place.

Then explain to us what the endings really are to you. Did they happen? Are they canon? What do you actually believe? Because it's hard to argue your case if you have no case to stand on.

Your stance, simplified without insults,  is " I disagree with this I.T. interpretation. " So then, what would you think is the actual case? What is the basis of your argument?

[OH-UP-THIS!]

Iconoclaste wrote...

ohupthis wrote...


Maybe you can explain why Shepard is not vaporized by this: (overused pictures)

Because he's not in the center of the explosion anymore. He's somewhere else on the Citadel. He could also simply be "shielded" inside the circular room, if he's still there after having collapsed in front of the control panel. Even one version of IT supports this, and make the "dream part" only the last sequence with the Catalyst.

So in other words..........................................

yeah I thought so.

[Lookout1390]

balance5050 wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...

The argument was another means of reaper control other than indoctrination, which you have yet to provide proof other than "yeah well how do you know there isn't another way?"

This whole argument is based upon a scrap of paper with strange references to the Matrix, the Crucible "effect" having an effect on everything, "destroy life / create life", hope, etc. There is only one mention regarding something that was eventually dropped (if we believe other references from tiers). Did someone care to verify at what time this scrap of paper was written, prior of after the "Indoc sequence was decided OUT"?

I've never heard of that until just now.

I know the plot all and all was dropped and changed around in earlier creation (including Drew's original concept, but even that was a pretty damn terrible ending too).

here you go:

 

Oh...THAT monstrosity...yes I've seen that evil thing many times now..

I really thought it was fake until a month ago.

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

Sdrol117 wrote...

ohupthis wrote...


Maybe you can explain why Shepard is not vaporized by this:

snip

....Shepard was brought back to life in ME2, after being dead for an extremely long time. It's a videogame, dude. 
That would be THE fastest revival in history then. lol keep clappin' dude

What are you even saying? lol.

More than you.

You're not posting using two accounts are you?

[Iconoclaste]

KevShep wrote...

The explosion changes the whole equation of distance and speed and direction plus mass, that means it will be cought by the earths gravity

We can see from the cutscene that is not going to happen very fast (the "fall on Earth"). There are at least a few hundred miles between the Citadel and the Earth, just look at pictures of the space shuttle (450 km), and the relative size of Earth behind it, and its curvature.

[balance5050]

BatmanTurian wrote...

CavScout wrote...


You invoke logic but fail at it so spectacularly. There is no reason to presume the endings aren't real unless one belives in IT in the first place.

Then explain to us what the endings really are to you. Did they happen? Are they canon? What do you actually believe? Because it's hard to argue your case if you have no case to stand on.

Your stance, simplified without insults,  is " I disagree with this I.T. interpretation. " So then, what would you think is the actual case? What is the basis of your argument?

Good luck with this one archangel... I mean batman turian.

[CavScout]

BatmanTurian wrote...

CavScout wrote...
You invoke logic but fail at it so spectacularly. There is no reason to presume the endings aren't real unless one belives in IT in the first place.

Then explain to us what the endings really are to you. Did they happen? Are they canon? What do you actually believe? Because it's hard to argue your case if you have no case to stand on.

Your stance, simplified without insults,  is " I disagree with this I.T. interpretation. " So then, what would you think is the actual case? What is the basis of your argument?

Are you so unable to support your own claims that you have to fall back to the attack the other debater stance for a puncher's chance in debate?

[Sisterofshane]

Iconoclaste wrote...

KevShep wrote...

Dude Ive anwsered your question with a question and your avoiding it. There are different ways of indoctrination but the codex and Wiki state that there is only one way the reapers can control you...indoctrination!
 Do you want me to link wiki it to you?

Well, that may simply point to the "control" being TIM's  control, not the "Reapers".

That, however, is a huge gap in the information given within the game to support that TIM was capable of such control.

At Sanctuary, it is revealed that TIM (with help from Miranda's father), found out that he was capable of controlling husks/indoctrinated/Reapertech-Implanted individuals by over-riding the signals that the Reapers use to control the aforementioned.  Note that these individuals must first be subjected to the different methods of indoctrination (dragon's teeth, exposure to other Reaper Tech, Reaper Implants) BEFORE TIM can control them.  Hence why all Cerberus Members now undergo "integration".

In the parts of the story between Sanctuary and the Citadel Control Panel, it is never explained how TIM would have become capable of near instantaneous indoctrination as we see with Shepard and Anderson.  The fact that the two of them retain their mental capacities (despite losing bodily control) would seem counterintuitive to the point made directly in the codex that the faster indoctrination occurs, the less the brain of the victim is capable of functioning.  The way in which TIM describes this ("Look at the power THEY wield!") suggests that the way in which he is controlling Shep/Anderson is not different from the only was we know the Reapers to control an individual (which is Indoctrination).  Remember, as far as we know, TIM is only capable of controlling those previously indoctrinated.  Does this mean that Shepard and Anderson were already indoctrinated?

Taking the endings at face value is so contradictory to the established story and lore that it makes little sense.  Those who still have faith in Bioware's writing capabilities have deigned to believe that the ending was a metaphor for the struggle taking place in Shepard's mind - a fight against indoctrination.

[BatmanTurian]

balance5050 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

CavScout wrote...


You invoke logic but fail at it so spectacularly. There is no reason to presume the endings aren't real unless one belives in IT in the first place.

Then explain to us what the endings really are to you. Did they happen? Are they canon? What do you actually believe? Because it's hard to argue your case if you have no case to stand on.

Your stance, simplified without insults,  is " I disagree with this I.T. interpretation. " So then, what would you think is the actual case? What is the basis of your argument?

Good luck with this one archangel... I mean batman turian.

If I'm correct, he rejects I.T. by saying the endings actually happened by evidence of his last post. Otherwise, his argument makes no sense because he has no base to build it on.

[Sdrol117]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Sdrol117 wrote...

ohupthis wrote...


Maybe you can explain why Shepard is not vaporized by this:

snip

....Shepard was brought back to life in ME2, after being dead for an extremely long time. It's a videogame, dude. 
That would be THE fastest revival in history then. lol keep clappin' dude

What are you even saying? lol.

More than you.

You're not posting using two accounts are you?

I totally give up on these people. I admit it, the IT is cool, and thought provoking. But is it part of this game and the story? No. Moving on.

[CavScout]

Nyoka wrote...

Um, didn't Weekes say people survived the explosion on the citadel because there are shelters and stuff? And that due to FTL research, the galaxy is still a lively place after the destruction of the relays? Either he's willingly deceiving people or those things really happened.

The "arms" of the Citadel appear relativly undamaged as well.... where one would think most folks would be.

[Lookout1390]

Nyoka wrote...

Um, didn't Weekes say people survived the explosion on the citadel because there are shelters and stuff? And that due to FTL research, the galaxy is still a lively place after the destruction of the relays? Either he's willingly deceiving people or those things really happened.

They can say they 'happened' all they want, but it doesn't make any sense with the rules that apply to the Mass Effect universe, and the limitations in it when it comes to interstellar travel.

People are throwing such a fit over it because there is no evidence to support this idea, without a major ret-con/plot-hole.

[balance5050]

Nyoka wrote...

Um, didn't Weekes say people survived the explosion on the citadel because there are shelters and stuff? And that due to FTL research, the galaxy is still a lively place after the destruction of the relays? Either he's willingly deceiving people or those things really happened.

That was paraphrased, weekes was referring to people who survived when the reapers catured the citadel. And if you read the codex you'll see why FTL would takes years to get from one side of the galaxy to the other. need to drop from FTL to refuel and pick up supplies every so often.

[BatmanTurian]

CavScout wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

CavScout wrote...
You invoke logic but fail at it so spectacularly. There is no reason to presume the endings aren't real unless one belives in IT in the first place.

Then explain to us what the endings really are to you. Did they happen? Are they canon? What do you actually believe? Because it's hard to argue your case if you have no case to stand on.

Your stance, simplified without insults,  is " I disagree with this I.T. interpretation. " So then, what would you think is the actual case? What is the basis of your argument?

Are you so unable to support your own claims that you have to fall back to the attack the other debater stance for a puncher's chance in debate?

Answer the question and stop dodging. Otherwise you are trolling and not even worth debating.

[OH-UP-THIS!]

CavScout wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Only a fool thinks one needs a theory to dispute another theory.

Actually, I'm sure many scientists, who use the scientific method to create a new theory to dispute another one
(String Theory attempting to unite Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity), would disagree with you.

No they wouldn't. If a theory can be demostrated to be wrong, you don't then need to come up with a competing theory...

Besides, invoking science in an IT debate is a horrible idea as IT wouldn't even qualify as a theory under scientific norms.

Besides, in a literal sense you are already using a theory to dispute another theory. Your theory is that all of the ending actually happened. You are completely illogical or trolling as usual.

This is IT circular logic running amok. Only if one presumes IT to be true does one then think the endings are not real....

Then I put forth ONE simple question, That EVEN YOU will understand..............WHY are you even in here?

[BatmanTurian]

Sdrol117 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Sdrol117 wrote...

ohupthis wrote...


Maybe you can explain why Shepard is not vaporized by this:

snip

....Shepard was brought back to life in ME2, after being dead for an extremely long time. It's a videogame, dude. 
That would be THE fastest revival in history then. lol keep clappin' dude

What are you even saying? lol.

More than you.

You're not posting using two accounts are you?

I totally give up on these people. I admit it, the IT is cool, and thought provoking. But is it part of this game and the story? No. Moving on.

Fair enough. You have a right to your opinion. And that's all either side's points are at this moment in time: opinion.