9089 réponses à ce sujet

[AngryFrozenWater]

flemm wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I don't think that the ending is State Of The Art writing. However, it is often conveniently used in discussions to avoid whatever issue people feel like they should avoid. That's my point.

Well, from what I gather, you're mostly interested in condemning the idea (at least as currently implemented in the game) as bad or wrong, is that correct?

But I think the danger is that, to achieve that goal, you may feel the need to impose a certain (negative) interpretation of synthesis as absolute.

Whereas most fans of synthesis seem to take another approach. Basically: the idea is good and interesting, whatever the flaws in its implementation and whatever moral quandries it poses (possibly even because of those quandries).

Can role playing be bad or wrong? I highly doubt that. So what's up then? Generally speaking, if you try to reason about a topic like synthesis then look at it for what it is. Do not try to win the discussion. Edit: That last remark was in general too. Don't get me wrong.

In a thread like this, which claims to be a compendium, I expect more or less objective information. That's not easy, because the game allows different interpretations. Topics simply have advantages and disadvantages. It doesn't make sense to try to rationalize these disadvantages and glorify the advantages. That doesn't make the disadvantages go away. I mainly see fan fiction and head canon in the initial post. It goes as far as that these people see this interpretation as truth.

There is an interesting thread which investigates why people do not like synthesis. You can see the regular synthesis fans trying to push their fan fiction and head canon there too. They are making a fool of themselves. It is far easier to accept what people bothers than to fight against it. The compendium thread would greatly improve by simply adding the things that bother people and try to word why these are bothering them, without trying to rationalize these or wave these away. Do not try to find "solutions" for these disadvantages. There are different interpretations. It is vague like that. So what? Explore these. It's probably a lot of work, because that may or may not have consequences for the existing text. That way it can become a true compendium. It can help people who read it play different kinds of Shepards who happen to select synthesis. Now it is full of crap, shaped by hiding and rationalizing the obvious disadvantages or trying to make them work in a one size fits all format.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 24 juillet 2012 - 07:19 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Farid-Yoda-N7 wrote...

@AngryFrozenWater

People are in no way defined by their actions in video games. Mass Effect is my favorite video game, I have spent more than 200 hours playing the Mass Effect 1/2/3 campaigns, and many more playing the multiplayer, reading the books and reading the comics; however it is a video game and this is a video game developer forum not a court room. I would never intentionally let people die either, and all of my play throughs are full paragon, but people have the right to make their own story in mass effect.

You seem to be accusing people of having ideas/beliefs they don't actually have. For example you are saying that it is absolutely wrong to consider people with different ideas your enemy. I agree with you, and I'd like to think everyone else does too. But nobody here said anything that opposes that statement, so why are you using it as an argument against other people? 

Think whatever you want of me. If you are interested then read my response to flemm.

[Vigilant111]

Farid-Yoda-N7 wrote...

@AngryFrozenWater

People are in no way defined by their actions in video games. Mass Effect is my favorite video game, I have spent more than 200 hours playing the Mass Effect 1/2/3 campaigns, and many more playing the multiplayer, reading the books and reading the comics; however it is a video game and this is a video game developer forum not a court room. I would never intentionally let people die either, and all of my play throughs are full paragon, but people have the right to make their own story in mass effect.
As for your utopia argument, my understanding is that none of the synthesis supporters here wants a utopia. An utopia is not even possible. Of course any thing is possible in a fictional universe but personally I didn't notice any thing in the synthesis ending indicating that there is a utopia. For me even if there was synthesis would still be by far the best ending.

You seem to be accusing people of having ideas/beliefs they don't actually have. For example you are saying that it is absolutely wrong to consider people with different ideas your enemy. I agree with you, and I'd like to think everyone else does too. But nobody here said anything that opposes that statement, so why are you using it as an argument against other people? 

I tend to agree with you, especially the part about entitlement of one's own opinion. I guess the ending is just blown out of proportion, it actively changed the dynamic of the game from war tactics to pure politics based on philosophical debates, and we use these forums as platforms to assert our views. Our actions in game more or less reflect ourselves, possibly even our real lives, it is a terrifying thing to read about justifications for certain choices

As for synthesis, I think it is an abstract idea of peace, nothing wrong with that, but the execution of it is tactless and wrong. I feel strongly about it because I do not want synthesis to happen to me or anyone else no matter how good the Catalyst says it is, or in anyway implied it. People deserve much more than just one talking head and information source

As for fanfic, very creative, but I think it is just a way to make ourselves feel better. I mean I have read people coming up with all these interpretations about Geth and EDI not being dead in destroy, somehow...I'd like to believe so but I also recognises it is NOT real

Bottom line, synthesis is good idea, but not okay to be implemented in such a way, not even in an adavanced civilisation like that of ME's, there are still some boundaries and morals if the society is to continue to function, but then again, who am I to preach about morals when I chose destroy

As for Angry's interpretation of synthesis as utopia, well, what is so bad about it? I mean I was the one that spread the rumour that utopia could not be achieved, but who knows... and yes it is unlikely that things will be 100% perfect in the synthesis scenario, but at least one could expect that conflicts, be it organic / organic or organic / synthetic or synthetic / synthetic, would be less frequent, perhaps even gone forever because technology enables everyone to have the same strength, and there will be no point for conflicts... I think that was the INTENTION behind synthesis and an utopia is really not that far fetched, in terms of elimination of conflicts

I would much prefer that synthesis would actively improve aspects of life like making sure everyone has the equal rights, perfecting legal systems, etc, rather than some kind of armament hedge/safety measure against future revolts

[I Am Robot]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...


Think whatever you want of me. If you are interested then read my response to flemm.

I didn't say anything negative about you. I said I disagree with your opinion and the way you are expressing it. 

@vigilant111
  
You said you kind of agree with me but then you said we are sort of represented by our actions in video games ( I said we are not represented by them) 

Modifié par Farid-Yoda-N7, 24 juillet 2012 - 09:58 .

[Vigilant111]

Farid-Yoda-N7 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...


Think whatever you want of me. If you are interested then read my response to flemm.

I didn't say anything negative about you. I said I disagree with your opinion and the way you are expressing it. 

@vigilant111
  
You said you kind of agree with me but then you said we are sort of represented by our actions in video games ( I said we are not represented by them) 

Hence the disclaimer: "more or less reflected by..."

[Ieldra]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

flemm wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I don't think that the ending is State Of The Art writing. However, it is often conveniently used in discussions to avoid whatever issue people feel like they should avoid. That's my point.

Well, from what I gather, you're mostly interested in condemning the idea (at least as currently implemented in the game) as bad or wrong, is that correct?

But I think the danger is that, to achieve that goal, you may feel the need to impose a certain (negative) interpretation of synthesis as absolute.

Whereas most fans of synthesis seem to take another approach. Basically: the idea is good and interesting, whatever the flaws in its implementation and whatever moral quandries it poses (possibly even because of those quandries).

Can role playing be bad or wrong? I highly doubt that. So what's up then? Generally speaking, if you try to reason about a topic like synthesis then look at it for what it is. Do not try to win the discussion. Edit: That last remark was in general too. Don't get me wrong.

In a thread like this, which claims to be a compendium, I expect more or less objective information. That's not easy, because the game allows different interpretations. Topics simply have advantages and disadvantages. It doesn't make sense to try to rationalize these disadvantages and glorify the advantages. That doesn't make the disadvantages go away.

The only objective information we have is what is in the game. All of that has been in the OP since the EC came out. If you think something's missing, tell me and I'll put it in.

Also, the only objective downside of Synthesis is that you force it on the whole galaxy, and even that is not truly objective since morality is never objective, it's just a consensus.  We've been over that several times, and of course there is no agreement about how much of a problem is it or if it negates the validity of making a decision for Synthesis.

Everything else is interpretation, which is made more difficult since the EC has created contradicting information (the contradicting parts are marked in the reference in the OP). Also, all the things you say are "cop outs" in your post a few pages back are valid arguments from another point of view. Here's an example: I believe that it is inappropriate to judge a non-human intelligence by human moral standards, and I have always believed so. That is because I think there is no objective morality, there just one common to all humans to a certain degree. Thus, my view of the Catalyst is free from moral condemnation. This is not a cop-out, not a rationalization, but a consequence of a meta-ethical position I have always had. I also think that this position is one we are called to take by the game, but that's a different topic.
Note that this position does not mean that I justify what it has done, for any justification would use the same moral standards I have just said do not apply. All I can try to do is explain. 

As a counterexample: the problem of changing all life in Synthesis is a valid one because I am a human and the people affected by the change are mostly human-like, so I can be expected to have some empathy with them. Thus, saying "Synthesis is not justified" is a valid position. I do not agree of course, but I totally understand it. Saying "The Catalyst's actions are not justified" is not a valid argument. That it comes across to us as something akin to an "evil god" is completely irrelevant. That holds true even if the statement "The Catalyst's actions are not necessary to fulfil its purpose" is true, because for a non-human mind "This solution is the most energy-efficient" might be a reason compelling enough not to look for a different one.

So you see, the position "no one is really guilty, and the cycle was a cosmic accident", is neither an ad-hoc rationalization nor "fan fiction". BTW, just to be totally clear about it: I think the proposition that any free-willed intelligent life form has a sense of morality is false, and that arguments based on it are null and void.  

As an aside: if you want to talk about the *thematic* problem with Synthesis, which lies in the idea of making two life forms similar in order to reduce conflict between them, and the underlying assumption that non-Synthesized synthetics aren't "true" life, I agree that hasn't been much discussed in this thread, and it does bother me even though I like Synthesis as such.. Perhaps we can start talking about it, since it appears people have gained some emotional distance.
I might add that the claim that Synthesis makes everyone the same is obsolete with the EC, but the theme of making things similar to avoid conflict still exists.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 juillet 2012 - 12:45 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Of course Ieldra2. Do you really think I am surprised by your defense?

[AngryFrozenWater]

Farid-Yoda-N7 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...


Think whatever you want of me. If you are interested then read my response to flemm.

I didn't say anything negative about you. I said I disagree with your opinion and the way you are expressing it.

That's fine.

[Shaigunjoe]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The only objective information we have is what is in the game. All of that has been in the OP since the EC came out. If you think something's missing, tell me and I'll put it in.

Also, the only objective downside of Synthesis is that you force it on the whole galaxy, and even that is not truly objective since morality is never objective, it's just a consensus.  We've been over that several times, and of course there is no agreement about how much of a problem is it or if it negates the validity of making a decision for Synthesis.

Everything else is interpretation, which is made more difficult since the EC has created contradicting information (the contradicting parts are marked in the reference in the OP). Also, all the things you say are "cop outs" in your post a few pages back are valid arguments from another point of view. Here's an example: I believe that it is inappropriate to judge a non-human intelligence by human moral standards, and I have always believed so. That is because I think there is no objective morality, there just one common to all humans to a certain degree. Thus, my view of the Catalyst is free from moral condemnation. This is not a cop-out, not a rationalization, but a consequence of a meta-ethical position I have always had. I also think that this position is one we are called to take by the game, but that's a different topic.
Note that this position does not mean that I justify what it has done, for any justification would use the same moral standards I have just said do not apply. All I can try to do is explain. 

As a counterexample: the problem of changing all life in Synthesis is a valid one because I am a human and the people affected by the change are mostly human-like, so I can be expected to have some empathy with them. Thus, saying "Synthesis is not justified" is a valid position. I do not agree of course, but I totally understand it. Saying "The Catalyst's actions are not justified" is not a valid argument. That it comes across to us as something akin to an "evil god" is completely irrelevant. That holds true even if the statement "The Catalyst's actions are not necessary to fulfil its purpose" is true, because for a non-human mind "This solution is the most energy-efficient" might be a reason compelling enough not to look for a different one.

So you see, the position "no one is really guilty, and the cycle was a cosmic accident", is neither an ad-hoc rationalization nor "fan fiction". BTW, just to be totally clear about it: I think the proposition that any free-willed intelligent life form has a sense of morality is false, and that arguments based on it are null and void.  

As an aside: if you want to talk about the *thematic* problem with Synthesis, which lies in the idea of making two life forms similar in order to reduce conflict between them, and the underlying assumption that non-Synthesized synthetics aren't "true" life, I agree that hasn't been much discussed in this thread, and it does bother me even though I like Synthesis as such.. Perhaps we can start talking about it, since it appears people have gained some emotional distance.
I might add that the claim that Synthesis makes everyone the same is obsolete with the EC, but the theme of making things similar to avoid conflict still exists.

You think that the theme was to make people the same to avoid conflict?  I disagree.  I think it was to give a level of understanding of one side and reduce the amount of fear to another to avoid conflict, not to make a homogenous society.

In some ways, it makes me think of the America as a Melting Pot debate.  With the boat loads of immigrants coming to the US, people thought the US (or New York City) would become a melting pot, a homogenous culture.  Years later, it looks like merging cultures increase the possibliity of new cultural variants sprouting, as opposed to becoming one singular meta culture.

This is an interesting quote though, from a play that thought America was a melting pot:

"Understand that America is God's Crucible, the great Melting-Pot where all the races of Europe are melting and re-forming! Here you stand, good folk, think I, when I see them at Ellis Island, here you stand in your fifty groups, your fifty languages, and histories, and your fifty blood hatreds and rivalries. But you won't be long like that,brothers, for these are the fires of God you've come to – these are fires of God. A fig for your feuds and vendettas! Germans and Frenchmen,Irishmen and Englishmen, Jews and Russians—into the Crucible with you all! God is making the American."

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 24 juillet 2012 - 01:22 .

[Ieldra]

Vigilant111 wrote...
As for Angry's interpretation of synthesis as utopia, well, what is so bad about it? I mean I was the one that spread the rumour that utopia could not be achieved, but who knows... and yes it is unlikely that things will be 100% perfect in the synthesis scenario, but at least one could expect that conflicts, be it organic / organic or organic / synthetic or synthetic / synthetic, would be less frequent, perhaps even gone forever because technology enables everyone to have the same strength, and there will be no point for conflicts... I think that was the INTENTION behind synthesis and an utopia is really not that far fetched, in terms of elimination of conflicts.

There is an important distinction between "less frequent" and "gone forever". While I think that Synthesis results in the former, the label "utopia" I would only attach to the latter, and I don't think that is a desirable state since it appears stagnant. I don't think Synthesis is meant to be that because of the prospect of advancement. There may be a golden age, but no perfect state of being. Such a thing would also require changing people's nature in a much more drastic way than giving them the ability to integrate technology, because as long as people have overlapping preferences, there will be conflict.

Personally, I also prefer a universe where interesting stories can still be told, and there is no interesting story without conflict.

[Ieldra]

Arcian wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Personally, I also prefer a universe where interesting stories can still be told, and there is no interesting story without conflict.

Conflict doesn't even have to be a devastating war between two forces, it can be something as simple as a problem that has to be overcome and two factions rushing towards being the first to solve that problem.

Yep. I can imagine a long golden age without a big war (though that will eventually end). But a state of being without any conflict? Not desirable.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 juillet 2012 - 02:16 .

[rekn2]

i dont get why people think evolution would stop with synthesis. i keep hearing " nothing will ever get better" etc. EDI and legion are synthetic, they changed. in fact, the ec makes it seem like our minds are still intact...

[Taboo]

Did everyone enjoy the article about the synthetic jellyfish? I sure did.

The goal of Synthesis is a noble one, but like the Jellyfish, it should be achieved when we are all capable of understanding it's affect WITH consent.

War is inevitable Ieldra. People are dicks and they always will be. Marx failed to understand this. Hegel failed to understand this. Margret Thatcher failed to understand this. It doesn't matter who you are, it's going to happen.

[His Name was HYR!!]

So they made a jellyfish from organic and synthetic parts?

O.O

REAPER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Singularity, here we come.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 24 juillet 2012 - 05:03 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

rekn2 wrote...

i dont get why people think evolution would stop with synthesis. i keep hearing " nothing will ever get better" etc. EDI and legion are synthetic, they changed. in fact, the ec makes it seem like our minds are still intact...

You can't blame them. The catalyst does say synthesis is the "final evolution of life", and it is something that I have a huge problem with. Bioware certainly didn't make us synthesizer's lives easier screwing up like that:D

Though their other complains (brainwashing! OMG! and everything is same, diversity lost! ZOMG) have been proven by the EC.

Taboo-XX wrote...

War is inevitable Ieldra. People are
dicks and they always will be. Marx failed to understand this. Hegel
failed to understand this. Margret Thatcher failed to understand this.
It doesn't matter who you are, it's going to happen.

Reminds me of a quote of The jackal from Farcry 2: "War is my home".

HYR 2.0 wrote...

So they made a jellyfish from organic and synthetic parts?

Was the permission of the Jellyfish taken?

Modifié par pirate1802, 24 juillet 2012 - 05:17 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Let me give an example of what is presented as fact in the compendium and which is actually nothing more than one interpretation that needs a lot of assumptions to make it work:

Ieldra2 wrote...

I.3 The origin of the Synthesis option

This has been thrown into question by the Extended Cut. While formerly, we could reasonably assume that the options were built into the Crucible by the civilizations of past cycles, the Extended Cut reveals that the Crucible is not much more than a power source and can only enact its solutions together with the Citadel. Nonetheless, when Shepard asks why these new solutions are now possible, the Catalyst answers: "You changed the variables. The Crucible changed me, created new...possibilities". Which means that it *is* actually the Crucible that makes Synthesis possible. It just needs the Citadel and Shepard as well. The following quote explains why it might be plausible for a civilization of past cycles to built something like Synthesis into the Crucible:

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Synthesis makes total sense as a tactic from a past civilization. It has been implied that the Geth can't be indoctrinated unless they at least willingly accept some kind of a gift from the Reapers. What if a previous cycle had a civilization like the Geth and the Quarians would have been if the Morning War had never happened? Or if the Pro-Geth Quarians had won? This is something that doesn't get brought up enough: the Geth Consensus mission doesn't just show that the Geth were blameless in the Morning war, it also shows that numerous Quarians sided with them and were brutally murdered for doing so. It wasn't just a synthetics vs. organics war, it was a civil war among the Quarians.

Anyway, imagine a collaborative society of sentient machines and organics. Imagine if they learned that machines were resistant to indoctrination, and that making yourself part synthetic conferred that resistance onto organics. Without indoctrination, it seems pretty plausible that a fairly advanced civilization could beat the Reapers, either by hiding out during an entire cycle or through conventional warfare.

Also, being part synthetic makes you harder to kill, stronger, faster-thinking, it confers almost limited military advantages and almost no military disadvantages, assuming that becoming partially synthetic does not completely overwrite your organic consciousness.

A civilization that was already on the cusp of collaborative transhumanism developing this as a tactic makes perfect sense. I could go on for pages about the theoretical tactics that could be employed by a hybrid race or by a transhumanist collaboration between all races in the galaxy.

There is nothing wrong in believing that, but it becomes obscure when it says "it *is* actually the Crucible that makes Synthesis possible".

I recently posted in a thread which was not specifically about synthesis. In that I claim that the Crucible had little to do with the synthesis, other than being a power source.

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Let's see what happens when we reason from the ground up, using what we see and what the brat tells us, without using the distractions of the hypothetical threat and motives of the brat.

In ME3 we learn some important facts from the brat. The first is that it experimented with synthesis before, but that all attempts have failed so far. The second is that the Crucible is merely a power source and that it required the Citadel and the mass relays to make it work. Because the Citadel is part of the brat it must have known about these three platforms that execute the three options. I go as far as to say that it is reaper built. After all, the brat also claims that Shepard is the first organic ever standing there. The brat also knew about the Crucible for several cycles. And the Crucible perfectly interfaces with the platforms on the Citadel. The brat is also the perfect tour guide who is able to provide Shepard with detailed knowledge about the functionality of the three main functions. So, it is obvious that these three functions are dreamed up by that brat and their existence have nothing to do with its power source. One loose end remains. The organics were supposed to have created the Crucible. Obviously it is using reaper tech, because its energy is to be spread using the brat's Citadel and mass relays. And thus it makes sense that just as the reapers dropped knowledge and technology to force the civilizations to develop along the paths the reapers desire, they dropped the basic concepts for the Crucible as well.

That means that reapers were perfectly able to design and implement synthesis. And that is just what they did.

In the above nothing is said about the nature of synthesis, nor whether the brat had good intentions or not. But the fact remains that the three platforms are part of the Citadel and not of the Crucible. And for some reason Shepard is now "ready". I am not saying that this interpretation is the only correct one, but it certainly is just as valid and note worthy.

Edit: Corrected an oddly formed sentence.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 24 juillet 2012 - 05:37 .

[Shaigunjoe]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

There is nothing wrong in believing that, but it becomes obscure when it says "it *is* actually the Crucible that makes Synthesis possible".

So could you explain how synthesis, as inacted at the end of the game, is possible prior to the Crucible?

[Taboo]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

There is nothing wrong in believing that, but it becomes obscure when it says "it *is* actually the Crucible that makes Synthesis possible".

So could you explain how synthesis, as inacted at the end of the game, is possible prior to the Crucible?

The Geth achieved a version of it if Legion or the Geth AI uploaded the Reaper code.

So yes.

[His Name was HYR!!]

Let me give an example of what is presented as fact from the headcanon-police which is actually nothing more than headcanon that needs a lot of assumptions to make it work:

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Agreed. After all "we need each other to make it happen". But before we make [synthesis] happen we violate every right you have, decimate your species in the most horrific way imaginable, destroy your infrastructure and make sure the fleet dies from starvation.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 24 juillet 2012 - 05:30 .

[Shaigunjoe]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

There is nothing wrong in believing that, but it becomes obscure when it says "it *is* actually the Crucible that makes Synthesis possible".

So could you explain how synthesis, as inacted at the end of the game, is possible prior to the Crucible?

The Geth achieved a version of it if Legion or the Geth AI uploaded the Reaper code.

So yes.

I don't think thats the same thing, you said yourself a 'version', I specifically stated inacted at the end of the game, meaning a galaxy wide effect.

In addition, that example doesn't have anything to do with organics right?  I don't know how giving the geth reaper code would help the understand organics.

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 24 juillet 2012 - 05:42 .

[Taboo]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

I don't think thats the same thing, you said yourself a 'version', I specifically stated inacted at the end of the game, meaning a galaxy wide effect.

A "version" is better than nothing, which is what I'd like to stress.

The point is that Synthesis is inevitable.

I would prefer that people remain free of my influence and be allowed to grow as they see fit. Synthesis will occur eventually, but I'm certain my Shepard will be long dead by then.

The right of all life is to self determinate. They will determine their own future, not my Shepard.

As for the now dead Geth, they serve as the final act of destruction that lays at the feet of one person, my Shepard. It is no one elses responsibility. 

A terrible predicament but that's the one Shepard faces in Destroy.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

There is nothing wrong in believing that, but it becomes obscure when it says "it *is* actually the Crucible that makes Synthesis possible".

So could you explain how synthesis, as inacted at the end of the game, is possible prior to the Crucible?

Here is one idea. The brat claimed that earlier attempts failed because the organics were not ready, but now Shepard is ready. Or isn't that what you mean? The platforms and the Crucible were designed at the same time.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 24 juillet 2012 - 05:44 .

[His Name was HYR!!]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

There is nothing wrong in believing that, but it becomes obscure when it says "it *is* actually the Crucible that makes Synthesis possible".

So could you explain how synthesis, as inacted at the end of the game, is possible prior to the Crucible?

Here is one idea. The brat claimed that earlier attempts failed because the organics were not ready, but now Shepard is ready. Or isn't that what you mean? The platforms and the Crucible were designed at the same time.

So tell me now,

... is it true that you use your headcanon as fact while endlessly pointing the finger at others for doing it?

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 24 juillet 2012 - 05:54 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Let me give an example of what is presented as fact from the headcanon-police which is actually nothing more than headcanon that needs a lot of assumptions to make it work:

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Agreed. After all "we need each other to make it happen". But before we make [synthesis] happen we violate every right you have, decimate your species in the most horrific way imaginable, destroy your infrastructure and make sure the fleet dies from starvation.

That's all fine and dandy, but what does that have to do with my origin of synthesis post? If I am wrong in the quote you dug up, which I assume you believe, then that does not invalidate the origin post.