9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Mobius-Silent]

Fandango9641 wrote...
the level of opposition to the explicit propositions of Synthesis in this thread alone should be evidence enough to those supporting the idea that they have no right to make that choice on behalf of the BSN, nevermind an entire galaxy.

Additionally they have no right to exterminate the Geth, nor any right to assume control of the Reapers and the power that provides nor the right to deny existence to the galaxy's space-travel-capable races by refusing to use the device the galaxies representatives constructed.

All of the possible actions damage someones self-determination. the question is how much and how many.

In that context synthesis is just as viable and morally resonable as any of the other options. Not _more_ not _less_ simply comparable.

Modifié par Mobius-Silent, 13 juillet 2012 - 02:55 .

[Xilizhra]

Also a reflection of them being consistent in how defeating the Reapers conventionally was, in fact, impossible. Refusal is the only choice that's utterly unjustifiable; it's outright betrayal of the entire galaxy to prove a bogus moral point.

[Xilizhra]

It could have been a weapon, but that still wouldn't have been a conventional victory. And why shame on me?

[Taboo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The difference, my dear lillitheris, is that your Destroy scenario denies evidence from the games, while Farid-Yoda-N7 denies claims by others for which there was no evidence in the games.

Of course, *you* would say it's the same thing. No surprise here.

Not everyone's scenario is a pretty little ball of sunshine and I want you of all people to know that.

I outright refuse to gloss things over. I know what I did and what the ramifications are.

All we ask is that you do the same. I don't think that that's too much to ask.

[Mobius-Silent]

Fandango9641 wrote...
 And yes its a choice that results in the death and destruction of near everything in the entire Galaxy, but that's simply a reflection of how invested Mac and Casey were in defending their original vision for the game, nothing more.

Or a symptom of how invested you are in refusing to reconsider the morality of the options post-EC. Circa-OC, the options were so poorly explained that they could have constituted much more horrific things. Pose-EC I think they are much more inline with what could be expected given the in-universe motivations and/or technology.

That said, (to be clear) I still think all of the endings are terribly written and a lousy end to the trilogy, however I think that they are all internally-coherent and morally acceptable given then context (Save refusal, which is coherent but morally too vain IMHO). Stakes of this size (Galactic survival) often require compromises of similar size, that is the nature of war ("An Atrocity Committed in the Name of Survival")

[Xilizhra]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

It could have been a weapon, but that still wouldn't have been a conventional victory. And why shame on me?

Using an alien weapon designed to defeat the Reapers wouldn't constitute a conventional victory? In any case, what say you about a victory without compliance, a victory that doesn't necessitate Shep becoming a war criminal? And shame on you for calling a choice that respects life less moral than slavery, genocide and what basically amounts to space-eugenics!

It does not respect life. It throws life down the toilet because it's unworthy to continue existing if not by your standards. It's the work of a brutal fanatic, no better than those people who try to stop condom use in Africa despite the proliferation of AIDS.

[Xilizhra]

Good grief, Reject is a choice that respects the rights of all life to exist according to natural laws Xilizhra, not my standards. Synthesis violates that right and it does it without the permission of a single solitary person. And less talk about AIDS in Africa please, it really has no place in this discussion.

There's no such thing as natural law. There are physical laws, but if something can be broken, it wasn't really a physical law. What you mean by "natural laws" are really human-created moral laws, not something written into the very fabric of the universe (because if it was, Synthesis couldn't happen to begin with). They are absolutely your own standards, and you're absolutely dooming the galaxy for a second-rate speech about self-determination.

[Xilizhra]

So tell me, what facts am I ignorant of, precisely?

[lillitheris]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Good grief, Reject is a choice that DIRECTLY CAUSES all life to CEASE TO exist IN THE MOST HORRIFIC WAY POSSIBLE

Fixed that typo for you.

[Chashan]

lillitheris wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Good grief, Reject is a choice that DIRECTLY CAUSES all life to CEASE TO exist IN THE MOST HORRIFIC WAY POSSIBLE

Fixed that typo for you.

Could we possibly drop this?

Vague as Reject is, just like large portions of the other endings, we are free to believe that just as much as we are to assume that the galaxy did manage to put up a grand, extended last stand against the Reapers in that scenario, possibly even managing to drive them back. Civilisations of that cycle might have ceased to exist in that scenario, species might have gone extinct, but apparently not all - be mindful of the asari-ish looking narrator at the end.

Modifié par Chashan, 13 juillet 2012 - 04:14 .

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The difference, my dear lillitheris, is that your Destroy scenario denies evidence from the games.

It’s funny how it works where my theory somehow does that, but yours doesn’t…

And, in fact, mine doesn’t go against in-game evidence:

1. Only the Reapers are shown dead.
2. Reaper gestaltness is highly debateable. I simply choose to believe the opposite from you. You have as much evidence in favor as I have against.
3. There’s nothing preventing fixing the relays.
4. There’s no proof whatsoever of the ‘inevitable’ extinction. We, in fact, have hints in favor of the opposite.
5. There’s nothing that would prevent harvesting the Reaper info and reverse-engineering the Synthesis solution. It IS achievable with their technology, is it not? Therefore, it’s achievable.

In other words, QED. My theory is just as valid as this one is:

“The races keep their racial identity and individuals keep their
individuality. No ones thought process becomes mixed with Shepard's.
Their consciousnesses does not change. Their ability to think and form
individual opinions is not hindered.”

Actually, mine is slightly better-rooted in reality.

…

Also, Clarke‘s 3rd law is one of the most misunderstood in history. He assumed a certain level of inference, but as we know that doesn’t work too well… A better, clearer formulation would be

“The effects of any sufficiently advanced technology are indistinguishable from magic.”

I’ll leave you to puzzle out the (significant) difference.

Modifié par lillitheris, 13 juillet 2012 - 04:18 .

[lillitheris]

Fandango9641 wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Good grief, Reject is a choice that DIRECTLY CAUSES all life to CEASE TO exist IN THE MOST HORRIFIC WAY POSSIBLE

Fixed that typo for you.

Aye, the consequences suck alright, but thats not my point now is it?

I’m not sure what your point is, truthfully, but Refuse is the worst ending of them all, both in outcome and morally speaking.

[His Name was HYR!!]

o Ventus wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Interesting, so curing the genophage is also considered genocide then since it involves manipulation of genetic coding on a mass scale? :stretching things to the max:  Glad I faked it for Wreav then. 

Genocide is literally defined as the systematic and deliberate extermination of people based on their racial, religious, or cultural belief or status.

So no, curing the genophage s NOTHING AT ALL like genocide.

That point may have something to do with the fact that the person you quoted was deliberately "stretching things to the max." And by using the same straw-logic as to how synthesis constitutes genocide.

On a note of obvious non-sarcasm, I do find it pretty downright hypocritical how everyone accepts sabotaging the cure (actual genocide) as the "right" thing to do when Wreav is in charge of the krogan, but decry moral issues (" ") of synthesis so intensely.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 13 juillet 2012 - 04:21 .

[lillitheris]

Farid-Yoda-N7 wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

So friends, can we please stop accusing each other and discuss the
moral and scientific implications of the synthesis ending? thank you.

So, you know, NO — we can’t.

   I was trying to make this discussion more peaceful. I hope I did not offend anyone in the process. I apologize if I did.

I’m sorry if I was harsh.

The way I read your message is that you completely handwave one of the most important questions surrounding Synthesis with nothing more than your say-so. That’s not conducive for discussion.

[lillitheris]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

On a note of obvious non-sarcasm, I do find it pretty downright hypocritical how SOME PEOPLE accept sabotaging the cure (actual genocide) as the "right" thing to do when Wreav is in charge of the krogan, but decry moral issues (" ") of synthesis so intensely.

Fixed that typo for you too.

…

You do raise a good point, even if you’re being unnecessarily reductionist. I’m not, for example, arguing that Destroy or Control are somehow morally pure options. Just that they are less bad than Synthesis.

[Xilizhra]

1) No one has the moral authority to enjoin slavery, genocide or what basically amounts to space-eugenics.

2) It sucks that the game punishes those who reject Caspers horrific solutions.

Maybe no one does, but when you have to make that decision or the outcome will be even worse, the only moral decision is to make one of those decisions.