238 réponses à ce sujet

[MisterJB]

dreman9999 wrote...
1. Do you even understand the reason of the conflictof organics and synthetics. Look at their nature. Organicsis base in he concept of need, Synthecis is based on th concept of understading. They fight because theya re alien to each other. But from this cycle we see thatboth side are trying to coexsist and learn from one another. If their is no conflict there is not need for for fear of sysnthetic..They haveno needs so they would force any conflict on there own. If they find they don't need organics, they would justleave them be. The fear of synthetic over running organicsisbased on the actions of organics. Stop that action and their e is no conflict.

Sorry, but I really don't feel like discussing subjects like what defines organics.
I'm just going to say two things.
First of all, the geth and quarian agreed to a truce to fight a common enemy. This is not unheard of and it is no guarantee that peace will last.

Second, synthetic advance much faster than any organic species. The geth have existed for only 300 years and they are one of the most advanced species in the galaxy despite the fact they were not even true AIs before the Reaper Code was implanted.
Organics can not compete with this. So, synthetics can extinguish organics without even realizing it in their pursuit of advancement much like humans have cause the extinction of so many less advanced races on Earth we didn't even know were there until they were gone.
So, yes, the possibility that synthetics might cause the extinction of organics is very real. They don't need to want to or bear us any ill-will.

2.Of coure they will be a chance of a pyrric victory. You needto understand what cuases the conflict first...It's organics nature. The onlytrue way to stop the conflict is to contrl the nature of organics.

All of this is completely untrue but I believe I already gave it a proper answer in my previous point.

3.And you just gave the crucible to the star child...Who build it doesn't matter...It's who has it in the end that does.

On what basis do you claim Shepard has given the Crucible to the StarChild? Organics are the ones controlling it, it is an organic that sacrifices his life to fire it.

Modifié par MisterJB, 18 mai 2012 - 10:34 .

[DirtySHISN0]

jijeebo wrote...

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

Lets see...Eradicate an entire species from existence and become as bad as the reapers or never see love interest again?

Never see love interest.

True dat.


I'll just get a Reaper to pass on Sheps messages to Kaidan. 


"Rudimentary being of blood and flesh, I have a message that is beyond your comprehension."

"...Huh?"

"We should see other people."

"...Wha?"

"This hurts you."

"...Eh?"

Assuming direct control

(Javik walks up to love interest)

[Malditor]

dreman9999 wrote...

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

 What the f*** am i reading?

For those above having trouble distinguishing the meaning of two different words.

www.google.co.uk/

Did you even read the point made ageint control and syntheise?

In control....What does"Yes, you will die. Youcan control us but lose everything you are" mean?

AndIn systhesis, youleavethe starchld in charge....Did you for get that reapers can control people thought implants...What did you just do to every one in synthesis?

Wow, he's talking about the discussion about prejudice and racism man....

[Taboo]

feliciano2040 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

The word you're looking for is authoritarian when you talk about the endings.

Majority in the sense of the endings is far different than Maelon's data or the council.

Synthesis effects all organic and Synthetic life in the galaxy. That is far, FAR more beings than in any other situation in any game I've ever played. That's billions of beings. Billions.

That is far different from isolated species being destroyed or cured as awful as that sounds.

None of the choices are ethical, they all come down to a matter of taste.

Excuse me, but releasing the rachni, killing the council, curing the genophage, re-writing the heretics, and countless other decisions, all have effects on EVERYONE in the galaxy, upon trillions of lives, and you're not asking for anyone's opinion on any of those choices, which are as ethically-relevant as Synthesis is.

You split hairs.

The Rachnii mean nothing to the plot of Mass Effect 3. The Queen is alive regardless of her fate on Noveria. I would argue that the Genophage cure is agreed upon by the majority of the Krogan and disagred upon by everyone else. They did not have the right to do it in the first place. It is what it is. Re-writing the heretics is also a small change that means nothing. From an ethical standpoint it is repugnant but it's effects again mean nothing in the context of the story. It's ****. Yes. But those choices only affect a small group of things. The difference is numbers.

Everyone and everything is affected in Synthesis. The Catalyst says all organic life. Plants are affected. That means even basic lifeforms are changed, You make a choice that affects everything. Every plant, dog,cat geth, man,turian,krogan,salarian,yahg are changed at once with no prior knowledge of the situation. It happens on a galactic scale. All at once.

[DirtySHISN0]

dreman9999 wrote...

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

 What the f*** am i reading?

For those above having trouble distinguishing the meaning of two different words.

www.google.co.uk/

Did you even read the point made ageint control and syntheise?

In control....What does"Yes, you will die. Youcan control us but lose everything you are" mean?

AndIn systhesis, youleavethe starchld in charge....Did you for get that reapers can control people thought implants...What did you just do to every one in synthesis?

Did you even read my original post?

this was for the guy arguing racism and prejudice are the same thing.

[Malditor]

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

 What the f*** am i reading?

For those above having trouble distinguishing the meaning of two different words.

www.google.co.uk/

Did you even read the point made ageint control and syntheise?

In control....What does"Yes, you will die. Youcan control us but lose everything you are" mean?

AndIn systhesis, youleavethe starchld in charge....Did you for get that reapers can control people thought implants...What did you just do to every one in synthesis?

Did you even read my original post?

this was for the guy arguing racism and prejudice are the same thing.

To be fair to the other person, all racism is technically prejudice. But not all prejudice is racism. Same as all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

[dreman9999]

MisterJB wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
1. Do you even understand the reason of the conflictof organics and synthetics. Look at their nature. Organicsis base in he concept of need, Synthecis is based on th concept of understading. They fight because theya re alien to each other. But from this cycle we see thatboth side are trying to coexsist and learn from one another. If their is no conflict there is not need for for fear of sysnthetic..They haveno needs so they would force any conflict on there own. If they find they don't need organics, they would justleave them be. The fear of synthetic over running organicsisbased on the actions of organics. Stop that action and their e is no conflict.

Sorry, but I really don't feel like discussing subjects like what defines organics.
I'm just going to say two things.
First of all, the geth and quarian agreed to a truce to fight a common enemy. This is not unheard of and it is no guarantee that peace will last.

Second, synthetic advance much faster than any organic species. The geth have existed for only 300 years and they are one of the most advanced species in the galaxy despite the fact they were not even true AIs before the Reaper Code was implanted.
Organics can not compete with this. So, synthetics can extinguish organics without even realizing it in their pursuit of advancement much like humans have cause the extinction of so many less advanced races on Earth we didn't even know were there until they were gone.
So, yes, the possibility that synthetics might cause the extinction of organics is very real. They don't need to want to or bear us any ill-will.

2.Of coure they will be a chance of a pyrric victory. You needto understand what cuases the conflict first...It's organics nature. The onlytrue way to stop the conflict is to contrl the nature of organics.

All of this is completely untrue but I believe I already gave it a proper answer in my previous point.

3.And you just gave the crucible to the star child...Who build it doesn't matter...It's who has it in the end that does.

On what basis do you claim Shepard has given the Crucible to the StarChild? Organics are the ones controlling it, it is an organic that sacrifices his life to fire it.

1. In order to beable to decust the natureof an organci /synthetic conflict. One mustlook at there nature and why the conflict happen..Just saying it can happen agein is being short sighted on the nature on the conflict. No matter how you cut it,it's organics that start the conflit first.

2.No you havn't ..All you said was"Hey they would surpass us"...A pryrric victory doen't need one side to surpass theother...It need poth side to be even or balanced in away. If both side are balance in an organic/ynthesis vs synthestic conflict, a pryyric victory is always possible.

3.In synthesis, I just watch Shepard run off an edge to meet his firy death...Leaving the star child alone with the curcible.....With no one else to use it but him.That is not giving him the crucible?

[dreman9999]

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

 What the f*** am i reading?

For those above having trouble distinguishing the meaning of two different words.

www.google.co.uk/

Did you even read the point made ageint control and syntheise?

In control....What does"Yes, you will die. Youcan control us but lose everything you are" mean?

AndIn systhesis, youleavethe starchld in charge....Did you for get that reapers can control people thought implants...What did you just do to every one in synthesis?

Did you even read my original post?

this was for the guy arguing racism and prejudice are the same thing.

Yes, and 
racism and prejudice are the same thing when applied to people.

racism 
http://dictionary.re...m/browse/racism 

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races  determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race  is superior and has the right to rule others.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
hatred or intolerance of another race  or other races.



 prejudice 
http://dictionary.re...e/prejudice?s=t 
an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.
damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.

Modifié par dreman9999, 18 mai 2012 - 10:56 .

[DirtySHISN0]

Malditor wrote...

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

Did you even read my original post?

this was for the guy arguing racism and prejudice are the same thing.

To be fair to the other person, all racism is technically prejudice. But not all prejudice is racism. Same as all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

I disagree, they wouldn't necessitate different words if they were the same thing.

[Malditor]

http://seekinglibert...s-a-difference/

Should be enlightening for you dreman9999

[dreman9999]

Malditor wrote...

http://seekinglibert...s-a-difference/

Should be enlightening for you dreman9999

They are the same. One is just more norrow that the other. They both have the same concept. That why they are the same.

[MisterJB]

dreman9999 wrote...
1. In order to beable to decust the natureof an organci /synthetic conflict. One mustlook at there nature and why the conflict happen..Just saying it can happen agein is being short sighted on the nature on the conflict. No matter how you cut it,it's organics that start the conflit first.

Saying that it will alway be organics who start the conflict based on the quarians is not only shorth sighted but naive.
And you didn't refute my points.

2.No you havn't ..All you said was"Hey they would surpass us"...A pryrric victory doen't need one side to surpass theother...It need poth side to be even or balanced in away. If both side are balance in an organic/ynthesis vs synthestic conflict, a pryyric victory is always possible.

A pyrrhic victory would still be preferable to extinction which is what will happen without the Reapers or Synthesis.

3.In synthesis, I just watch Shepard run off an edge to meet his firy death...Leaving the star child alone with the curcible.....With no one else to use it but him.That is not giving him the crucible?

You do realize there are people controling the Crucible. And that Shepard's giving himself to the Crucible is what activates it.
So, no, the StarChild is never "alone with the Crucible".

[DirtySHISN0]

dreman9999 wrote...
Yes, and 
racism and prejudice are the same thing.

Prejudice - preconvieved opinion not based on reason or experience.

Racism - Discrimination based on ethnicity/belief.

They go hand in hand. One can become the other, but are not the same thing.

Modifié par DirtySHISN0, 18 mai 2012 - 11:01 .

[dreman9999]

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

Malditor wrote...

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

Did you even read my original post?

this was for the guy arguing racism and prejudice are the same thing.

To be fair to the other person, all racism is technically prejudice. But not all prejudice is racism. Same as all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

I disagree, they wouldn't necessitate different words if they were the same thing.

Your not getting that one word is just brooder then the other. They both have the same concept.

[Baa Baa]

Destroy is the best option if you really wanted to see your LI again and feel that love conquers all and that kind of thing. But truly the best ending (if taken at face value) is probably control, that is if shepard sends the reapers to the sun or something in the EC. But keeping the reapers around isn't an option.

[Malditor]

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

Malditor wrote...

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

Did you even read my original post?

this was for the guy arguing racism and prejudice are the same thing.

To be fair to the other person, all racism is technically prejudice. But not all prejudice is racism. Same as all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

I disagree, they wouldn't necessitate different words if they were the same thing.

In some circumstances the two words can be interchanged. But they don't mean exactly the same thing being racist is a form of prejudice.

[dreman9999]

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Yes, and 
racism and prejudice are the same thing.

Prejudice - preconvieved opinion not based on reason or experience.

Racism - Discrimination based on ethnicity.

They go hand in hand, but are not the same thing.

The both are the same concept. The only difference is that Prejudice can be used in a more brode way. The dosen't mean they are different.

[dreman9999]

Malditor wrote...

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

Malditor wrote...

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

Did you even read my original post?

this was for the guy arguing racism and prejudice are the same thing.

To be fair to the other person, all racism is technically prejudice. But not all prejudice is racism. Same as all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

I disagree, they wouldn't necessitate different words if they were the same thing.

In some circumstances the two words can be interchanged. But they don't mean exactly the same thing being racist is a form of prejudice.

They both are based on the same concept.

[dreman9999]

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Yes, and 
racism and prejudice are the same thing.

Prejudice - preconvieved opinion not based on reason or experience.

Racism - Discrimination based on ethnicity.

They go hand in hand, but are not the same thing.

racism 
http://dictionary.re...m/browse/racism 

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races  determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race  is superior and has the right to rule others.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
hatred or intolerance of another race  or other races.



 prejudice 
http://dictionary.re...e/prejudice?s=t 
an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.
damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.

[DirtySHISN0]

dreman9999 wrote...

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Yes, and 
racism and prejudice are the same thing.

Prejudice - preconvieved opinion not based on reason or experience.

Racism - Discrimination based on ethnicity.

They go hand in hand, but are not the same thing.

The both are the same concept. The only difference is that Prejudice can be used in a more brode way. That doesn't mean they are different.

bold bits are the meat of my argument
you agree that there is a difference but they arent different?

+ read backwards a bit.  I do understand they are essentially the same concept but have different applicables to be able to be used as a descriptive.  They arent interchangeable because their meaning is based on the specifics of their use.

What i think you mean is they are both a form of discrimination.

Modifié par DirtySHISN0, 18 mai 2012 - 11:09 .

[Malditor]

dreman9999 wrote...

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Yes, and 
racism and prejudice are the same thing.

Prejudice - preconvieved opinion not based on reason or experience.

Racism - Discrimination based on ethnicity.

They go hand in hand, but are not the same thing.

racism 
http://dictionary.re...m/browse/racism 

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races  determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race  is superior and has the right to rule others.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
hatred or intolerance of another race  or other races.



 prejudice 
http://dictionary.re...e/prejudice?s=t 
an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.
damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.

Yes one is a broader term than the other, and like I said racism is based on race, which is elicitely stated in the definition you provided. You can't say someone is racist if they dislike another based on socio-economic status, such as only their income, but you can say they are prejudice. Therefore they are not the same.

Modifié par Malditor, 18 mai 2012 - 11:09 .

[InHarmsWay]

Required reading for those who like the Synthesis ending.

[dreman9999]

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Yes, and 
racism and prejudice are the same thing.

Prejudice - preconvieved opinion not based on reason or experience.

Racism - Discrimination based on ethnicity.

They go hand in hand, but are not the same thing.

The both are the same concept. The only difference is that Prejudice can be used in a more brode way. That doesn't mean they are different.

bold bits are the meat of my argument
you agree that there is a difference but they arent different?

No, I saidone is broder then the other. That doesn't make it different. The both have the same concept.

[dreman9999]

InHarmsWay wrote...

Required reading for those who like the Synthesis ending.

And let me add  that a pinnicle of evoution Reaper was traken down by a threasher maw.

[dreman9999]

Malditor wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Yes, and 
racism and prejudice are the same thing.

Prejudice - preconvieved opinion not based on reason or experience.

Racism - Discrimination based on ethnicity.

They go hand in hand, but are not the same thing.

racism 
http://dictionary.re...m/browse/racism 

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races  determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race  is superior and has the right to rule others.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
hatred or intolerance of another race  or other races.



 prejudice 
http://dictionary.re...e/prejudice?s=t 
an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.
damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.

Yes one is a broader term than the other, and like I said racism is based on race, which is elicitely stated in the definition you provided. You can't say someone is racist if they dislike another based on socio-economic status, such as only their income, but you can say they are prejudice. Therefore they are not the same.

But they both have the same concept. They both have the same ideal. That makes them the same.