9088 réponses à ce sujet

[clennon8]

And now the idiotic comparisons of imposing your will on a dog to altering DNA on a galaxy-wide level begins. I'll stick with my rape analogy, thank you very much.

The galaxy is not your dog.

Modifié par clennon8, 24 mai 2012 - 08:04 .

[jtav]

And we impose our will on others all the time. Mandatory vaccinations, compulsory seat belt laws, drug laws… The argument is always about what is being forced, and not that it is. Consent should never be disregarded lightly, but there are certain situations where it's deemed necessary to do so. Synthesis, depending on what exactly it does, maybe such a case.

[Taboo]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

There is a big difference between what you are saying and forcing change on everyone in the galaxy.

There's also a big difference between Synthesis and rape, but since we're choosing to paint with broad strokes, two can play that game.

I use a small brush to allow the most control.

That's a painting technique.

Rape is a violation of bodily sovreignty via sexual intercourse without consent.

Synthesis is a violation of bodily sovreignty without consent on a galactic scale.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 24 mai 2012 - 08:08 .

[clennon8]

Oh, good grief. Mandatory vaccinations, telling your dog to sit, blah blah blah. What outrageous rationalizations. How can you keep a straight face?

[PsyrenY]

antares_sublight wrote...

Seriously? Just like TIM was able to Control???

We see him grab the electrodes, which he certainly could have done.
The problem would have come after, when he would have directed them to do exactly what they wanted him to direct them to do, rendering his control meaningless.

antares_sublight wrote... 
Umm... Anderson, despite being physically stunned, was lucid and resistant through the whole ordeal. Shepard held out a gun for a long time and shot Anderson.

Did you even play that sequence? If you choose not to use the persuasion options, you get a renegade interrupt to throw off the indoctrination and shoot TIM. You actually get this twice - once to save Anderson, and once more to save yourself. That's twice Shepard can throw off indoctrination in that sequence.

Optimystic_X wrote...

He was also born in London. So?

Memes are not arguments.
The Catalyst makes it clear that your synthetic parts are what make you a good template for Synthesis.

Optimystic_X wrote...

And yet... he still shot Anderson while under control of indoctrination. Good candidate for Control there.

He did better than Anderson did, kneeling down for the bullet like he deserved it.

Optimystic_X wrote...
Everyone is an individual, except twins. Are you referring to Shepard's physical traits or story-hero-fortitude?

The latter, naturally.

Optimystic_X wrote...

What? And why are you comparing Shepard with TIM in terms of being the hero of the game?

Dying during Control does not invalidate it. We know this because (a) the Reapers leave, and ( you "end the Reaper threat." So the fact that you die is quite irrelevant.

[PsyrenY]

clennon8 wrote...

And now the idiotic comparisons of imposing your will on a dog to altering DNA on a galaxy-wide level begins. I'll stick with my rape analogy, thank you very much.

The galaxy is not your dog.

I'd rather alter DNA than risk having it processed into tubes to make new Reapers, or wait for the tech singularity to render it obsolete entirely.

Taboo-XX wrote...

Synthesis is a violation of bodily sovreignty without consent on a galactic scale.

How is keeping your DNA purely organic "bodily sovereignty?"

[Ieldra]

I don't think Shepard dies in Control. It was meant as "he dies an organic being, losing his body, his friends, his possessions, everything that defined his earlier life" - in order to become some kind of AI god.

[Taboo]

jtav wrote...

And we impose our will on others all the time. Mandatory vaccinations, compulsory seat belt laws, drug laws… The argument is always about what is being forced, and not that it is. Consent should never be disregarded lightly, but there are certain situations where it's deemed necessary to do so. Synthesis, depending on what exactly it does, maybe such a case.

Those laws are created to prevent you from harming others on a small scale. You don't have to be vaccinated nor do you have t o drive a car.

Stop making such things into such big deals.

You sound like the libertarians who complain everytime a new tax is imposed.

[Ieldra]

As for Synthesis: if it made everyone immune to most diseases, would people still think it's "rape"?

Results matter.

[Taboo]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Synthesis is a violation of bodily sovreignty without consent on a galactic scale.

How is keeping your DNA purely organic "bodily sovereignty?"

Then what does Synthesis do you boob?

Does it simply inject me with a large amount of things like Nanites?

I'm pretty sure that violates my bodily sovreignty.

You do not have the right to force that on anyone.

Learn to accept that.

You have NO right.

We have NO right to kill the Geth either, the difference is that the people who favor Destroy have admitted as such.

[antares_sublight]

[quote]Optimystic_X wrote...

[quote]antares_sublight wrote...

Seriously? Just like TIM was able to Control??? [/quote]

We see him grab the electrodes, which he certainly could have done.
The problem would have come after, when he would have directed them to do exactly what they wanted him to direct them to do, rendering his control meaningless.[/quote]
Like when Shepard shot Anderson, got it.

[quote]Optimystic_X wrote...
[quote]antares_sublight wrote... 
Umm... Anderson, despite being physically stunned, was lucid and resistant through the whole ordeal. Shepard held out a gun for a long time and shot Anderson.[/quote]

Did you even play that sequence? If you choose not to use the persuasion options, you get a renegade interrupt to throw off the indoctrination and shoot TIM. You actually get this twice - once to save Anderson, and once more to save yourself. That's twice Shepard can throw off indoctrination in that sequence.[/quote]
So Shep is 2-1 at resisting indoctrination. Good candidate for Control of the most powerful beings in the Galaxy there.


[quote]Optimystic_X wrote...
[quote]antares_sublight wrote...
He was also born in London. So?[/quote]
Memes are not arguments.
The Catalyst makes it clear that your synthetic parts are what make you a good template for Synthesis.[/quote]
I said that because, who is arguing that Anderson had synthetics?

[quote]Optimystic_X wrote...
[quote]antares_sublight wrote...
And yet... he still shot Anderson while under control of indoctrination. Good candidate for Control there.[/quote]

He did better than Anderson did, kneeling down for the bullet like he deserved it.[/quote]
Head bobbling = kneeling down? Again, Shepard is 2-1 at resisting indoc there.

[quote]Optimystic_X wrote...
[quote]antares_sublight wrote...
Everyone is an individual, except twins. Are you referring to Shepard's physical traits or story-hero-fortitude?[/quote]

The latter, naturally.[/quote]
Ok, what does that have to do with Synthesis then?

[quote]Optimystic_X wrote...
[quote]antares_sublight wrote...
What? And why are you comparing Shepard with TIM in terms of being the hero of the game?[/quote]

Dying during Control does not invalidate it. We know this because (a) the Reapers leave, and ( you "end the Reaper threat." So the fact that you die is quite irrelevant.[/quote]
Are you indoctrinated now? This whole line of argument is bizarre. Yes, BioWare wrote the endings such that regardless of what you choose, the reaper threat is ended. Cheers.

But Shep doesn't actually fully die in Control anyway.

Modifié par antares_sublight, 24 mai 2012 - 08:19 .

[Taboo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

As for Synthesis: if it made everyone immune to most diseases, would people still think it's "rape"?

Results matter.

Most diseases have already been wiped out.

Yes, I would consider a large influx of nanites changing me to be a violation.

Results matter, but only when you can get them in an ethical manner in this case.

Was it ethical for the United States Government to inject black pilots with Syphilus just to get the results?

**** No.

[antares_sublight]

Ieldra2 wrote...

As for Synthesis: if it made everyone immune to most diseases, would people still think it's "rape"?

Results matter.

But viruses and bacteria and amoeba are all synthesized too!

[PsyrenY]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Learn to accept that.

You have NO right.

Never claimed to. But some situations transcend rights, as Arrival should have taught you. Deal with it already.

[antares_sublight]

Again, with the information Shepard has up to that point in the game, choosing Synthesis would be the most rash and irresponsible decision in the history of the galaxy. The fact that BioWare waves their hands and says it's a winning ending (they all are, "anyone can do it"), doesn't change that. In that situation, it would be incredibly irresponsible.

[PsyrenY]

antares_sublight wrote...

Head bobbling = kneeling down? Again, Shepard is 2-1 at resisting indoc there.

Which is still a better track record than everyone else in the Galaxy.
But the beauty of the endings is that, hey, if you don't think your Shepard can handle Control, you have two other colors to turn to.

antares_sublight wrote... 
Ok, what does that have to do with Synthesis then?

You were the only individual in the entire universe's history to be resurrected like you were. The process of that resurrection gave you synthetic parts. Your "energy" is thus different than that of every other individual in the galaxy.

antares_sublight wrote... 
Are you indoctrinated now? This whole line of argument is bizarre. Yes, BioWare wrote the endings such that regardless of what you choose, the reaper threat is ended. Cheers.

Reading comprehension makes me indoctrinated?
"Ended the Reaper threat" is rather simple to parse.

[jtav]

Results matter, yes. It would be different if we had some indication that Synthesis actually caused harm, but we don't. It would have been better for consent to be sought and granted, but that simply wasn't an option here. And quite frankly, Destroy kills synthetics without their consent as well, when there are other options available. Ironically, Control might be the least problematic option from a moral standpoint.

[PsyrenY]

antares_sublight wrote...

Again, with the information Shepard has up to that point in the game, choosing Synthesis would be the most rash and irresponsible decision in the history of the galaxy. The fact that BioWare waves their hands and says it's a winning ending (they all are, "anyone can do it"), doesn't change that. In that situation, it would be incredibly irresponsible.

Only if you don't believe the Catalyst, who has no reason to lie to you. Otherwise he would have been better served leaving you on the floor to bleed out while he kept on reaping.

[Taboo]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Learn to accept that.

You have NO right.

Never claimed to. But some situations transcend rights, as Arrival should have taught you. Deal with it already.

Nothing EVER transcends rights.

Do you honestly believe that in some situations they don't? You sound like an NRA member who shoots somone who goes on his property because he "feared" for his life.

That the most likeyl reason Arrival was written that way was to give a lead in to the third game?

Regardless of what you choose the Batarians die, even if you choose to warn them.

You have a choice on which outcome you get in the endings in the third game. The choice is whose rights you violate and in what capacity?

[antares_sublight]

Optimystic_X wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

Again, with the information Shepard has up to that point in the game, choosing Synthesis would be the most rash and irresponsible decision in the history of the galaxy. The fact that BioWare waves their hands and says it's a winning ending (they all are, "anyone can do it"), doesn't change that. In that situation, it would be incredibly irresponsible.

Only if you don't believe the Catalyst, who has no reason to lie to you. Otherwise he would have been better served leaving you on the floor to bleed out while he kept on reaping.

That has NOTHING to do with believing the Catalyst is lying. His few sentences to you about Synthesis are almost entirely content-free, you know absolutely nothing about what you're about to impose on EVERY LIFE FORM in the galaxy. Nothing. Maximum irresponsibility.

But to your point, why doesn't the Catalyst have a reason to lie? If he has a survival instinct and you might end him, of course he has a reason to lie. If he has any self-motivation, then he has reason to lie. Notice how negatively he speaks about destroy and how positively he speaks of the other two options.

[antares_sublight]

jtav wrote...

Results matter, yes. It would be different if we had some indication that Synthesis actually caused harm, but we don't. It would have been better for consent to be sought and granted, but that simply wasn't an option here. And quite frankly, Destroy kills synthetics without their consent as well, when there are other options available. Ironically, Control might be the least problematic option from a moral standpoint.

You don't have any real indication of what Synthesis will do. You are naively assuming it will result in what you want it to result in.

[jtav]

Some actions are intrinsically immoral, but most come down to prudential judgment. Synthesis is drastic, so the benefits must be equally huge in order to justify it. But it doesn't strike me at first glance as something that would be wrong always and everywhere.

[antares_sublight]

jtav wrote...
Synthesis is drastic, so the benefits must be equally huge in order to justify it.

What logic is that?

[PsyrenY]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Nothing EVER transcends rights.

This is quite false. Incarceration allows courts to override another individual's right to freedom. Search warrants allow law enforcement to override an individual's right to privacy. And self-defense allows anyone to override an attacker's right to life.

Which brings us to Arrival, and (as Garrus would call it) "cruel calculus." Those 300,000 Batarians all had the right to life - which you rightfully overrode to save the trillions beyond them. The situation clearly transcended their rights.

Taboo-XX wrote... 
Do you honestly believe that in some situations they don't? You sound like an NRA member who shoots somone who goes on his property because he "feared" for his life.

So are all instances of self-defense carried out by NRA members?

Taboo-XX wrote...  
Regardless of what you choose the Batarians die, even if you choose to warn them.

Let's say you DID manage to get the warning off. Do you really think 300,000 Batarians would have been able to evacuate the system in 2 hours? And that's even assuming they all got the message right away, and all believed you (a human in the Alliance) right away. Believing that Kenson's interruption was the only thing stopping mass murder/sacrifice on your part is purely naive.

[Taboo]

antares_sublight wrote...

jtav wrote...
Synthesis is drastic, so the benefits must be equally huge in order to justify it.

What logic is that?

I'd say something but......