9089 réponses à ce sujet

[mass perfection]

Taboo-XX wrote...

I wouldn't like being evolved. Having the old part of my brain flare up gives me OCD. I'm not changing that, for me or anywhere else. Having self aware Reapers isn't going to help either. You assume they are going to be guilt ridden enough to help you. You force them to accept the horrors of their existence. Terrible.

Control is just as bad. I was called "liberal" yesterday for caring about the feelings of the Reapers. I will not continue the cycle of abuse here.

You're still keeping your emotions.Imagine the possibilities with Synthesis.You're just making your advancement as fast as the synthetics'.

Control is a better version of Destroy.You can fly the Reapers into a sun and you still havethe Citadel and the mass Relays are only damaged,not destroyed.

[The Night Mammoth]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Why did they cut it? I've been asking myself that for the last three months. They had a setup that made sense and replaced it with one that doesn't make sense. I see three possible reasons:

(1) They thought the singularity would be too complicated for players to understand. Players are morons, after all.

Or maybe at the end they realized they hadn't ever brought up the subject, so it had absolutely no basis to be in the game at all as a theme, let alone the defining conflict of the series. 

(2) They wanted to change the ending after it was leaked, and this was considered more important than making sense.

Implying it would have made sense anyway. 

That implication is wrong. I've read the leaked script, I wouldn't have it either. 

(3) It was part of the effort to make the Catalyst conversation "high-level" (Casey Hudson), omitting things we supposedly don't need to know. Only they simplified things so much that they ceased to make sense.

There was nothing complicated about the singularity, it was just stupid and made no more sense than what we have now. 

As for what the Synthesis does to synthetics, there has been much speculation about that. Letting organics keep up is one part, letting synthetics understand organics better may be another, for instance by giving them empathy and similar organic traits.

All of which are things the synthetics in the game already have. So why do I need synthesis again? 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 15 juin 2012 - 03:57 .

[The Night Mammoth]

mass perfection wrote...
You're still keeping your emotions.Imagine the possibilities with Synthesis.You're just making your advancement as fast as the synthetics'.

I am.

Can't wait to plundge the entire galaxy into anarchy because the foundations of existence have been overturned.

It's that or subjugate everyone and take away their free-will. 

[Taboo]

Emotions are not the issue. Ethics are.

One person being upset over Synthesis is bad. Several thousand is unforgivable. Shepard won't be around to tell people what happened. He/She makes takes no responsibility. You have zero right to interfere with the way the Galaxy works. The amount of hubris required is so staggering it makes me wonder what the hell Bioware was thinking. You change everything in a fundamental manner. You were supposed to stop the Reapers, not stop a hypothetical conflict provided by a machine in a loop. He presents a fallacy as well, which makes it even worse.

Why would you take Control of the Reapers JUST to kill them? That makes ZERO sense. The point of Control was to do just that. Twist them to your own ends. Patrick Weekes has talked about it on Twitter. No one dies, but you still enslave a race of all powerful beings. No one is just going to let that go to waste.

Success is NOT the determining factor between right and wrong, which is why I detest Cerberus so. Any advancement is made at the cost of individual liberties. TIM didn't care about how he got to his greater good, so as long as he did it.

Moral Relativism does not factor in one thing, what a "good" and "bad" life is. As advanced beings being able to distinguish between that is what gives us humanity. Sure, people may be evolved, but they will change. That's what evolution is. No more old brain factoring in? There goes primal instincts. No more mutations? There go blue eyes. We are substrate dependant beings. To make someone evolve is to change them. Ieldra's nanites would have to do JUST that.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 15 juin 2012 - 04:04 .

[mass perfection]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

mass perfection wrote...
You're still keeping your emotions.Imagine the possibilities with Synthesis.You're just making your advancement as fast as the synthetics'.

I am.

Can't wait to plundge the entire galaxy into anarchy because the foundations of existence have been overturned.

It's that or subjugate everyone and take away their free-will. 

How are you taking away their free will?

[Taboo]

Control takes away the free will of the Reapers.

Synthesis violates everyone and everything that happens to be alive.

[mass perfection]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Emotions are not the issue. Ethics are.

One person being upset over Synthesis is bad. Several thousand is unforgivable. Shepard won't be around to tell people what happened. He/She makes takes no responsibility. You have zero right to interfere with the way the Galaxy works. The amount of hubris required is so staggering it makes me wonder what the hell Bioware was thinking. You change everything in a fundamental manner. You were supposed to stop the Reapers, not stop a hypothetical conflict provided by a machine in a loop. He presents a fallacy as well, which makes it even worse.

Why would you take Control of the Reapers JUST to kill them? That makes ZERO sense. The point of Control was to do just that. Twist them to your own ends. Patrick Weekes has talked about it on Twitter. No one dies, but you still enslave a race of all powerful beings. No one is just going to let that go to waste.

Success is NOT the determining factor between right and wrong, which is why I detest Cerberus so. Any advancement is made at the cost of individual liberties. TIM didn't care about how he got to his greater good, so as long as he did it.

Moral Relativism does not factor in one thing, what a "good" and "bad" life is. As advanced beings being able to distinguish between that is what gives us humanity. Sure, people may be evolved, but they will change. That's what evolution is. No more old brain factoring in? There goes primal instincts. No more mutations? There go blue eyes. We are substrate dependant beings. To make someone evolve is to change them. Ieldra's nanites would have to do JUST that.

Why would they be mad for being made the ultimate life form?They're still who they're.It ain't like you're sacrificing  what makes you "you" for more logic.


Iwould Control the Reapers too,but youwant to destroy them,but why not go with Control so you get no  casualties except for the Reapers?They have no emotions so they won't feel guilt for knowing what they have done.

[mass perfection]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Control takes away the free will of the Reapers.

Synthesis violates everyone and everything that happens to be alive.

The Reapers were under control of the Catalyst the whole time.They never had free will.They won't know what it means anyway because they have no emotions or feelings.

How does Synthesis violate everyones rights?

[The Night Mammoth]

mass perfection wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

mass perfection wrote...
You're still keeping your emotions.Imagine the possibilities with Synthesis.You're just making your advancement as fast as the synthetics'.

I am.

Can't wait to plundge the entire galaxy into anarchy because the foundations of existence have been overturned.

It's that or subjugate everyone and take away their free-will. 

How are you taking away their free will?

Situation one: you change the very basic aspects of life. Everything changes, entities completely different because what made then who they were has now been altered. Organics having more 'synthetic' qualities? You've just changed who they were. 

This will create anarchy. 

Or -

Situation two: everyone is made to be okay with it, to understand it. You've taken their free-will away and forced the changes upon them. 

This is abhorrent to me. 

[Taboo]

Take this quote from A Clockwork Orange.

 “Choice... He has no real choice, has he? Self-interest, the fear of physical pain drove him to that grotesque act of self-abasement. Its insincerity was clearly to be seen. He ceases to be a wrongdoer. He ceases also to be a creature capable of moral choice."

It's been mentioned several times, to me, that Synthesis will remove the organic fear of Synthetics. That's a forced understanding. You remove fear, a primal emotion. A forced change is your goal here. You force an evolution to force an understanding. That's what it means.

People have every right to be suspicious of one another and other things. It's absolutely ridiculous that you think you have the right to change the way a being is.

"When a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man."

It isn't about what YOU want, it's about returning the Galaxy to a state of normality after the Reaper threat. You don't do that in Control, and you certainly don't do it in Synthesis.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 15 juin 2012 - 04:17 .

[mass perfection]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

mass perfection wrote...
You're still keeping your emotions.Imagine the possibilities with Synthesis.You're just making your advancement as fast as the synthetics'.

I am.

Can't wait to plundge the entire galaxy into anarchy because the foundations of existence have been overturned.

It's that or subjugate everyone and take away their free-will. 

How are you taking away their free will?

Situation one: you change the very basic aspects of life. Everything changes, entities completely different because what made then who they were has now been altered. Organics having more 'synthetic' qualities? You've just changed who they were. 

This will create anarchy. 

Or -

Situation two: everyone is made to be okay with it, to understand it. You've taken their free-will away and forced the changes upon them. 

This is abhorrent to me. 

Which is why I chose Control.I honestly believed Shepard should have contacted dozens of powerful people seeking all of their permission and recommendations on which to choose before making the choice.

[mass perfection]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Take this quote from A Clockwork Orange.

 “Choice... He has no real choice, has he? Self-interest, the fear of physical pain drove him to that grotesque act of self-abasement. Its insincerity was clearly to be seen. He ceases to be a wrongdoer. He ceases also to be a creature capable of moral choice."

It's been mentioned several times, to me, that Synthesis will remove the organic fear of Synthetics. That's a forced understanding. You remove fear, a primal emotion. A forced change is your goal here. You force an evolution to force an understanding. That's what it means.

People have every right to be suspicious of one another and other things. It's absolutely ridiculous that you think you have the right to change the way a being is.

"When a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man."

It isn't about what YOU want, it's about returning the Galaxy to a state of normality after the Reaper threat. You don't do that in Control, and you certainly don't do it in Synthesis.

You're taking away their fear of synthetics.Not their fear in general.

[Taboo]

Control is a choice born of hubris. You do it to control an incredibly powerful force. You wouldn't take Control of said beings JUST to fly them into a black hole.

Absurd.

[Taboo]

mass perfection wrote...

You're taking away their fear of synthetics.Not their fear in general.

My. ****ing. Point.

You have zero right to do that.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 15 juin 2012 - 04:22 .

[mass perfection]

Taboo-XX wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

You're taking away their fear of synthetics.Not their fear in general.

My. ****ing. Point.

You have zero right to do that.

Which is why I chose Control.I don't like Synthesis,but there are a few things i like about it.Reapers deserve to have their free will taken away.Death is too good for them.

Modifié par mass perfection, 15 juin 2012 - 04:27 .

[Taboo]

mass perfection wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

You're taking away their fear of synthetics.Not their fear in general.

My. ****ing. Point.

You have zero right to do that.

Which is why I chose Control.I don't like Synthesis,but there are a few things i like about it.Reapers deserve to have their free will taken away.Death is too good for them.

No being deserves to have their free will taken away. I will not pervert a being to use it for my own ends. I'd sooner destroy them.

And The Doctor agrees with me. Making them aware of what they are is unethical, as is controlling them.

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...
Moral Relativism does not factor in one thing, what a "good" and "bad" life is. As advanced beings being able to distinguish between that is what gives us humanity.

What has my scenario to do with moral relativism? This appears like yet another link to an ideological position usually considered dishonest in order to paint your opponents' position as bad. First Stalinism, then fascism, now moral relativism? What comes next? I'm getting *really* sick of this.

Sure, people may be evolved, but they will change. That's what evolution is. No more old brain factoring in? There goes primal instincts. No more mutations? There go blue eyes. We are substrate dependant beings. To make someone evolve is to change them. Ieldra's nanites would have to do JUST that.

I have no idea what the writers intended with Synthesis - if they intended anything specific at all and didn't just throw out a few buzzwords carrying the scent of certain themes - but my scenario doesn't end evolutionary change. It gives people the option to end it - if they want. No more old brain factoring in? I have a fanfic scene floating around somewhere where it's possible to temporarily switch off primal instincts. I can't see what's undesirable in having more options.

[Ieldra]

mass perfection wrote...
Which is why I chose Control.I don't like Synthesis,but there are a few things i like about it.Reapers deserve to have their free will taken away.Death is too good for them.

A decision driven by vengeance carries no virtue.

[mass perfection]

Taboo-XX wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

You're taking away their fear of synthetics.Not their fear in general.

My. ****ing. Point.

You have zero right to do that.

Which is why I chose Control.I don't like Synthesis,but there are a few things i like about it.Reapers deserve to have their free will taken away.Death is too good for them.

No being deserves to have their free will taken away. I will not pervert a being to use it for my own ends. I'd sooner destroy them.

And The Doctor agrees with me. Making them aware of what they are is unethical, as is controlling them.

They have to be punished.You guys estimated that they killed 2 quintillion people.That's insane.The Reapers have also taken the free will of many others.They don't have emotions anyway.If they had free will they wouldn't be able to enjoy it.

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...
Making them aware of what they are is unethical, as is controlling them.

Telling someone the truth is unethical? Then we have a fundamental disagreement. I will never, ever agree with that.

[mass perfection]

Ieldra2 wrote...

mass perfection wrote...
Which is why I chose Control.I don't like Synthesis,but there are a few things i like about it.Reapers deserve to have their free will taken away.Death is too good for them.

A decision driven by vengeance carries no virtue.

It's justice.They won't be able to enjoy their free will if they were given it anyway.

Modifié par mass perfection, 15 juin 2012 - 04:44 .

[Taboo]

I said Authoritarianism. I said nothing of Joseph Stalin. You agreed with me remember?

I said that Synthesis had fascist aesthetics, pay attention to what I am saying. If you'd like to talk about the other slices of fascism pie, I would love to talk about the terrible implications of Destroy. We are not doing that here. Just ask. You have never done so. If you'd like me to talk about the fascist aesthetics of Destroy. I'd be happy to do so.

You assume a stance of Relativism, yes. You assume you know what's best for everything that is organic, sentient or not. You assume you know what I and EVERYTHING else wants. You do not differentiate between a good and bad life.

I am not criticizing you as a person, I am bringing up thematic material inherent in the nature of the choices. I am unsure why this is so difficult for people to understand.

[Taboo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
Making them aware of what they are is unethical, as is controlling them.

Telling someone the truth is unethical? Then we have a fundamental disagreement. I will never, ever agree with that.

You are telling a being what they are, created out of millions and millions of lost souls. You then proceed to tell them that they are responsible for two quintillion deaths.

This isn't a bit of whistleblowing at the government in the name of freedom Ieldra. It's a big deal.

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...
I said that Synthesis had fascist aesthetics, pay attention to what I am saying. If you'd like to talk about the other slices of fascism pie, I would love to talk about the terrible implications of Destroy. We are not doing that here. Just ask. You have never done so. If you'd like me to talk about the fascist aesthetics of Destroy. I'd be happy to do so.

"Fascist aesthetics" is a loaded term. If an aesthetic is only accidentally connected with actual fascism, which you appear to imply, then it's dishonest to use the term. I refuse to discuss Synthesis in this context. Please use the actual elements of the aesthetic instead, and we may have something to talk about.
 

You assume a stance of Relativism, yes. You assume you know what's best for everything that is organic, sentient or not. You assume you know what I and EVERYTHING else wants. You do not differentiate between a good and bad life.

That's not relativism. Moral relativism is the stance that cultural context *defines* what's good or bad. Moral absolutism insists that things are good or bad independent of cultural context. The real picture is a little more complicated than both, but also irrelevant to this debate.

I am not criticizing you as a person, I am bringing up thematic material inherent in the nature of the choices. I am unsure why this is so difficult for people to understand.

Perhaps that's because I don't agree that this material is inherent in the nature of the choices. See above.

[antares_sublight]

Here's a question: How exactly is the distinction between sentient life and non-sentient life made by these parasitic nanites? Which species currently on earth would be determined to be sentient and why not others?