173 réponses à ce sujet

[M0keys]

OblivionDawn wrote...

M0keys wrote...

OblivionDawn wrote...
The Starchild is portrayed as a timeless and ultra-intelligent being. So you can assume that he knows what he's talking about when he says synthesis is the final stage of evolution.

except it's written by men who aren't timeless, ultra-intelligent beings, and if you're going to delve into scientific concepts, you better do a little research and not say something so blatantly wrong that even the most basically-trained scientists can laugh quite loudly and smugly in your face.

This a game. The writers use fiction in this game.

but when you abandon your rules so carelessly, you might as well go all out and have shepard fly around like superman and toss starchild into the sun, and then blow up all the reapers with his heat vision

[ArchDuck]

OblivionDawn wrote...

ArchDuck wrote...

Could synthesis cause mass suicides?
Most definitely. Among those who would be the first to jump (as it were): the highly religious & those severely afraid of huskification.

Also for those people who say it would make people better... uh, it obviously doesn't provide much in the way of physical improvements as Joker still had his limp after.

Also I would like to point out that taking only the positive spin on an unprovable, unscientific and illogical statement such as "the final evolution of life" from an amoral being claiming responsibility for the genocide of trillions is a pretty desperate move.

They aren't husks. Calling them husks is completely false/exaggeration, plain and simple. Husks are mindless and only have the instinct to kill. What we see in the Sythesis ending aren't husks.

And "unscientific?" What exactly does that mean? Whether or not you can understand how we reach the apex of evolution means nothing in this context. All the endings are "unscientific."

The Starchild is portrayed as a timeless and ultra-intelligent being. So you can assume that he knows what he's talking about when he says synthesis is the final stage of evolution.

Trying to take the negative spin on an ending that is ultimately portrayed as a "happy" ending is a pretty desperate move, considering there's no reason to.

Well let me dive right in.
1) I said "afraid of huskification" not it is huskification.  So that hopefully clears that up.
2) Unscientific as in any claim of a final evolution is not based in science. Evolution is a continual ongoing process. The only way to make a final stage of evolution would be to calculate the most successful adaptation to a given environment and then propagate that environment across the universe and freeze it in that state.
3) Starchild is either delusional or a liar. Unless you are willing to claim that it somehow possesses 100% accurate precognition. Otherwise the fact that it even thinks that there is such a thing as final evolution is proof of the statement "Starchild is either delusional or a liar". Also I saw no evidence that Starchild is ultra-intelligent as it did not use correct logic or science.
4) It is not taking a negative spin. It is trying to logically extrapolate what might happen. Since you can't tell the difference here is a negative spin (which, while a possibility is not one that I actually believe likely): The synthesis ending allows the Reapers to control all life so that they willingly walk into the liquefaction machines. With a grin on their faces because all peoples' minds are deleted as well.


And finally I will say again...

I would like to point out that taking only the positive spin on an improvable, unscientific and illogical statement such as "the final evolution of life" from an amoral being claiming responsibility for the genocide of trillions is a pretty desperate move.


Edit: As to your statement of: "Trying to take the negative spin on an ending that is ultimately portrayed as a "happy" ending is a pretty desperate move, considering there's no reason to." I will point out your flaw in bold.

There are plenty of reasons to doubt the Starchild and his view point of synthesis being a positive thing (he is your enemy, resposible for mass genocide, no reason to tell the truth, provides false information, uses flawed circular reasoning, etc.) and few reasons to trust the starchild (the writers give you no option not to, because its easier than doubting, uh... that is all I got).

Also I am not putting a negative spin on it, I am only extrapolating from the information given.

Modifié par ArchDuck, 23 mai 2012 - 06:45 .

[OblivionDawn]

ArchDuck wrote...

OblivionDawn wrote...

ArchDuck wrote...

Could synthesis cause mass suicides?
Most definitely. Among those who would be the first to jump (as it were): the highly religious & those severely afraid of huskification.

Also for those people who say it would make people better... uh, it obviously doesn't provide much in the way of physical improvements as Joker still had his limp after.

Also I would like to point out that taking only the positive spin on an unprovable, unscientific and illogical statement such as "the final evolution of life" from an amoral being claiming responsibility for the genocide of trillions is a pretty desperate move.

They aren't husks. Calling them husks is completely false/exaggeration, plain and simple. Husks are mindless and only have the instinct to kill. What we see in the Sythesis ending aren't husks.

And "unscientific?" What exactly does that mean? Whether or not you can understand how we reach the apex of evolution means nothing in this context. All the endings are "unscientific."

The Starchild is portrayed as a timeless and ultra-intelligent being. So you can assume that he knows what he's talking about when he says synthesis is the final stage of evolution.

Trying to take the negative spin on an ending that is ultimately portrayed as a "happy" ending is a pretty desperate move, considering there's no reason to.

Well let me dive right in.
1) I said "afraid of huskification" not it is huskification.  So that hopefully clears that up.
2) Unscientific as in any claim of final evolution is no based in science. Evolution is a continual ongoing process. The only way to make a final stage of evolution would be to calculate the most successful adapatation to a given environment and then propogate that environment across the universe and freeze it in that state.
3) Starchild is either delusional or a liar. Unless you are willing to claim that it somehow possesses 100% accurate precognition. Other wise the fact that it even thinks that there is such a thing as final evolution is proof of the statement "Starchild is either delusional or a liar".
4) It is not taking a negative spin. It is trying to logically extrapolate what might happen. Since you can't tell the difference here is a negative spin (which, while a possibity is not one that I actually believe likely): The synthesis ending allows the Reapers to control all life so that they willingly walk into the liquification machines. With a grin on their faces because all peoples minds are deleted as well.


And finally I will say again...

I would like to point out that taking only the positive spin on an
unprovable, unscientific and illogical statement such as "the final
evolution of life" from an amoral being claiming responsibility for the
genocide of trillions is a pretty desperate move.

Whether or not Synthesis actually is the final stage of evolution is an argument of semantics. The point is that everyone is more evolved than they were before the Crucible fired.

Also:
The Synthesis ending shows the Reapers ending their attack and leaving Earth and it shows Joker and EDI walking out of the wrecked Normandy and embracing. If you add in the Stargazer scene, it shows that people began to repopulate and still retain very human qualities.

Based on this information, assuming that people are going to begin killing themselves off in droves isn't particularly logical (they aren't losing their **** over glowing green in the cutscenes), especially considering that they just survived a war that would have certaintly done the job for them anyway.

As for your edit, the Starkid may be your enemy, but he clearly doesn't consider you one. Sure he could be lying to you about the entire function of the Crucible, but that's a different argument entirely.

If we assume that ME3's current ending is the true and final ending to the trilogy, then we can also assume that the Crucible does exactly what Starkid says it does, because we see it for ourselves. Therefore, there really is no good reason to try to "extrapolate" that the Starkid tricked us into throwing the galaxy into some kind of techno-organic hell. If that's what happened, they probably would have showed it.

[xsdob]

Wouldn't they kill themselves out of fear of being rejected from society and of the changes being a stigma?

As soon as they begin to piece together that this affected everyone I think they're going to pull together and pretty much accept this as the new norm of life. I really do not think that they will become lemmings and all rush off the closest elevated structure they can find.

Also stargazer scene pretty much shows them being normal human beings, even if altered to have green circutry skin and such. The quarians have the something similar with their cybernetic aumentations to help them survive and adapt to life on the flotilla and they don't seem all that inhuman and devoid of emotion or free expresion.

Or are you going to call them dolls acting out a role like you did with joker and edi? Because if your just going to dismiss all arguments like that than there's no sense in debating.

Modifié par xsdob, 23 mai 2012 - 07:14 .

[kookie28]

M0keys wrote...

And I don't believe that there is more to "being human" than being a member of the species.

i am confused... you mean you believe "being human" only functions as a correct state of mind when you are human? that it is improper to behave in a human-like manner if you are, say, an asari?

Let me re-word that.

"Being human" is an irrelevant phrase.  You're a human because you're a ****** sapien.

There's nothing magical or pseudo-philosophical about it.

And to answer your question, yes.  Imperfections are just that, imperfections.  The end goal is to remove those. 

You see imperfections as part of "being human."  I see them as what they are at face value.  Flaws.  Which is why you see this as some sort of moral abomination and I see it as progress.

[nightcobra]

let's look at this from another perspective

what is the pinnacle of evolution?

to shepard, organics with green linings frolicking in the woods might be what he thinks the final stage of evolution is all about.

but...for the catalyst, what is the final stage of evolution, or rather, what is the final stage of evolution to...a reaper?

the answer is this

the final stage of evolution to a reaper Is a reaper.

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 23 mai 2012 - 10:02 .

[Jamie9]

Blacklash93 wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Suicide is responding to adversity with "I give up!" Javik is little different if you ask me. He doesn't belong to this time period and faces culture-shock, so he decides it's just easier to put a gun to his head and pull the trigger. Basically a giver-upper's attitude.

I'm not going to argue that the act of suicide is selfish, but calling those rendered deceased from suicide "weak-mided idiots" is utter disrespect for the dead. They don't need insults.

That ties into those living with suicidal thoughts. Essentailly calling them weak-minded idiots is going to make it much more likely they don't admit their problem to others and seek help.

It's also funny you say suicide is *sometimes* caused by mental illness. Depression which is a key component in almost all suicides is, by definition, a mental illness. Javik, for example, is very likely suffering from severe depression himself considering his circumstances.

Yeah, it's a highly ironic statement to call the suicidal weak-minded. Many psychologists have argued that people who commit suicide have the strongest wills, as surely if you can end one's own life, you can be willing to do anything you put your mind to?

One could even say that your reaction proves that you would never be able to do it - most people are fearful of death, and why not? We know NOTHING about it.

[MakeMineMako]

kookie28 wrote...

M0keys wrote...

And I don't believe that there is more to "being human" than being a member of the species.

i am confused... you mean you believe "being human" only functions as a correct state of mind when you are human? that it is improper to behave in a human-like manner if you are, say, an asari?

Let me re-word that.

"Being human" is an irrelevant phrase.  You're a human because you're a ****** sapien.

There's nothing magical or pseudo-philosophical about it.

And to answer your question, yes.  Imperfections are just that, imperfections.  The end goal is to remove those. 

You see imperfections as part of "being human."  I see them as what they are at face value.  Flaws.  Which is why you see this as some sort of moral abomination and I see it as progress.

There will never be "perfection". Evolution is an ongoing process.

And I see "synthesis" as a ethical and moral problem because it implies the creation of 'supermen', and creating the impression that uniformity solves all the world's problems. Something like "synthesis" would do guys like these proud:




Sorry, but struggling against our faults and the unending battle to better ourselves, is how we evolve in all areas, as individuals and as groups. So, the philosophy behind "synthesis" holds the same appeal to me as a pile of cow sh*t. Which is none.

[Jamie9]

MakeMineMako wrote...

There will never be "perfection". Evolution is an ongoing process.

And I see "synthesis" as a ethical and moral problem because it implies the creation of 'supermen', and creating the impression that uniformity solves all the world's problems. Something like "synthesis" would do guys like these proud:

[Image snip]

Sorry, but struggling against our faults and the unending battle to better ourselves, is how we evolve in all areas, as individuals and as groups. So, the philosophy behind "synthesis" holds the same appeal to me as a pile of cow sh*t. Which is none.

I agree. Legion's sentiment in ME2 sums it up best. You can get there the easy way, it being given to you, or you can actually EVOLVE as a species, by doing it the hard way. Both paths get you to the same end, but only one is the correct path.

For some reason, BioWare decided that Legion doesn't believe this in ME3... Oooh! Shiny REAPER UPGRADES!! Gimme gimme gimme!

[kookie28]

MakeMineMako wrote...

kookie28 wrote...

M0keys wrote...

And I don't believe that there is more to "being human" than being a member of the species.

i am confused... you mean you believe "being human" only functions as a correct state of mind when you are human? that it is improper to behave in a human-like manner if you are, say, an asari?

Let me re-word that.

"Being human" is an irrelevant phrase.  You're a human because you're a ****** sapien.

There's nothing magical or pseudo-philosophical about it.

And to answer your question, yes.  Imperfections are just that, imperfections.  The end goal is to remove those. 

You see imperfections as part of "being human."  I see them as what they are at face value.  Flaws.  Which is why you see this as some sort of moral abomination and I see it as progress.

There will never be "perfection". Evolution is an ongoing process.

And I see "synthesis" as a ethical and moral problem because it implies the creation of 'supermen', and creating the impression that uniformity solves all the world's problems. Something like "synthesis" would do guys like these proud:




Sorry, but struggling against our faults and the unending battle to better ourselves, is how we evolve in all areas, as individuals and as groups. So, the philosophy behind "synthesis" holds the same appeal to me as a pile of cow sh*t. Which is none.

More baseless emotion-fueled responses.  Excellent.

When you say things like this, uniformity actually sounds like a good idea.  Too bad it's not in synthesis.

Modifié par kookie28, 23 mai 2012 - 12:00 .

[Karolus_V]

Random Jerkface wrote...

I'm honestly more interested in knowing what primitive species with no knowledge of the reaper war would make of it.

Then again, there's probably some degree of brainwashing involved, so who can tell.

I think, the more primitive, the more accepting of the change. "The gods have smiled on us blah blah etc etc"

[Chaoswind]

I agree with the OP.

Let's do a comparison:

You are living your daily life, nothing out of the ordinary and then one day you wake up and now your skin Color is pink, everyone is pink now, African Americans, latino Americans, Asians, everyone is pink and not different shades of pink either and even the hair and the eyes are pink... Everyone has the same skin Color, the same eye Color and the same hair Color... After this drastic change you don't have anyone to explain to you what happened no one knows so you either deal with it and adapt or refuse to accept it and hold to your individuality (or take the easy way out of a life you no longer understand).

[ArchDuck]

OblivionDawn wrote...

Whether or not Synthesis actually is the final stage of evolution is an argument of semantics. The point is that everyone is more evolved than they were before the Crucible fired.

Also:
The Synthesis ending shows the Reapers ending their attack and leaving Earth and it shows Joker and EDI walking out of the wrecked Normandy and embracing. If you add in the Stargazer scene, it shows that people began to repopulate and still retain very human qualities.

Based on this information, assuming that people are going to begin killing themselves off in droves isn't particularly logical (they aren't losing their **** over glowing green in the cutscenes), especially considering that they just survived a war that would have certaintly done the job for them anyway.

As for your edit, the Starkid may be your enemy, but he clearly doesn't consider you one. Sure he could be lying to you about the entire function of the Crucible, but that's a different argument entirely.

If we assume that ME3's current ending is the true and final ending to the trilogy, then we can also assume that the Crucible does exactly what Starkid says it does, because we see it for ourselves. Therefore, there really is no good reason to try to "extrapolate" that the Starkid tricked us into throwing the galaxy into some kind of techno-organic hell. If that's what happened, they probably would have showed it.

Semantics?!? You don't know what the theory of evolution or evolved means do? More evolved my ass. Different you can claim, maybe even improved (as it is a relative opinion thing), but more evolved is pure BS. All those night animals (predator and prey) are more evolved now that they stand out in the night? All those insects and animals that have instincts that might say that being green and glowy is a sign of desease and thus have huge losses in numbers as mating stops are more evolved? How is everyone more adapted to their evironment? Really everyone? Even the plants we see are changed. So even bacteria and viruses are at their evolution "peak"?

And I know your next arguement is another ill thought out concept like "your being mean and making scenerios where it is bad". Thats called using your brain. The world is very very diverse place, let alone taking into account the diversity of life that would exist on other worlds. So claiming one answer would help everything, let alone saying something as uneducated as that one answer would improve everything to the point of evolutionary perfection, is simple minded wish fulfillment.

As to the star gazer scene, you do realize that for that scene to exist you would need a very small population survival rate right? The earth in its current population levels could lose over 6 billion people and humanity would still be genetically diverse enough to survive.

Also you need to learn how to read. Nowhere did I say "techno-organic hell". I simply stated that an unannounced, unchosen alteration to everyone's genetic make-up, appearance and possibly abilities would not be looked at as a good thing by many people. There are people now that would rather die then receive a blood transfusion. How they hell do you think they would react to green glowing eyes?

Either you have lead a very sheltered life or aren't very observant. There are many many people who do not react to things based off of logic or intelligent arguments. They react to things based off of gut feelings and emotions. They are the primary candidates for panic (a word which maybe you should learn the definition of) and thus actions like rioting, attacking others and suicide. Those are the same people that might drink koolaid or maybe just attack you for saying it was a change brought upon by the Reapers (the most logical answer) instead of saying that god did it (and by god they mean whichever one they believe in not the other gods) or vice versa.

Nowhere did I say "rock falls, everybody dies" or any other blanket statement that I recall. I simply stated that mass suicides would be likely. Mass does not mean all or even the majority. But hey don't let semantics stand in the way of your irrational emotion based arguments.

Even though the glowing kid lies to your face that doesn't mean he is lying right? Obviously I was wrong and "Synthesis = Good" because your previously unrevealed, self righteous, mass murdering, archenemy with no guilt or regret said so.

If you are wondering where he lied you can go with such statements as the destroy option will kill you, final evolution, synthetics will destroy organics, the created always rebel, etc. All bold faced untruths. Destroy most likely will kill you (no guarantee), final evolution = not understand evolution and science, synthetics will destroy organics... all proof points to the opposite, the created always rebel... thats why we enslave and kill our children.

Modifié par ArchDuck, 23 mai 2012 - 03:25 .

[Taboo]

kookie28 wrote...

M0keys wrote...

And I don't believe that there is more to "being human" than being a member of the species.

i am confused... you mean you believe "being human" only functions as a correct state of mind when you are human? that it is improper to behave in a human-like manner if you are, say, an asari?

Let me re-word that.

"Being human" is an irrelevant phrase.  You're a human because you're a ****** sapien.

There's nothing magical or pseudo-philosophical about it.

And to answer your question, yes.  Imperfections are just that, imperfections.  The end goal is to remove those. 

You see imperfections as part of "being human."  I see them as what they are at face value.  Flaws.  Which is why you see this as some sort of moral abomination and I see it as progress.

You force a change on billions of people. The entire galaxy.

[mauro2222]

kookie28 wrote...

Let me re-word that.

"Being human" is an irrelevant phrase.  You're a human because you're a ****** sapien.

There's nothing magical or pseudo-philosophical about it.

And to answer your question, yes.  Imperfections are just that, imperfections.  The end goal is to remove those. 

You see imperfections as part of "being human."  I see them as what they are at face value.  Flaws.  Which is why you see this as some sort of moral abomination and I see it as progress.

A pity that synthesis doesn't do that at all, and that perfection is unachievable.
So yeah, you're forcing a supposed progress on everyone.

Modifié par mauro2222, 23 mai 2012 - 03:43 .

[Ieldra]

mauro2222 wrote...

kookie28 wrote...

Let me re-word that.

"Being human" is an irrelevant phrase.  You're a human because you're a ****** sapien.

There's nothing magical or pseudo-philosophical about it.

And to answer your question, yes.  Imperfections are just that, imperfections.  The end goal is to remove those. 

You see imperfections as part of "being human."  I see them as what they are at face value.  Flaws.  Which is why you see this as some sort of moral abomination and I see it as progress.

A pity that synthesis doesn't do that at all, and that perfection is unachievable.
So yeah, you're forcing a supposed progress on everyone.

Yes, but that doesn't change that removing flaws is desirable. I find this tendency to redefine flaws as some kind of virtue utterly disgusting. And to use that as an argument to resist change - well, I'd call that reactionary and, yes I say it, inhuman. Such a philosophy would deny actual humans benefits just because it sees them as "not natural". But I say a good denied is an evil! Should you, for instance, have the option to either make everyone immune to disease or no one, let's say be using nanotech immune system boosters, I say you'd be pretty much morally obligated to push the button. And all those come with stuff like character growth coming from dealing with this kind of adversity can shove their philosophies up their asses. It's contemptible.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 23 mai 2012 - 03:52 .

[ArchDuck]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Yes, but that doesn't change that removing flaws is desirable. I find this tendency to redefine flaws as some kind of virtue utterly disgusting. And to use that as an argument to resist change - well, I'd call that reactionary and, yes I say it, inhuman. Such a philosophy would deny actual humans benefits just because it sees them as "not natural". But I say a good denied is an evil! Should you, for instance, have the option to either make everyone immune to disease or no one, let's say be using nanotech immune system boosters, I say you'd be pretty much morally obligated to push the button. And all those come with stuff like character growth coming from dealing with this kind of adversity can shove their philosophies up their asses. It's contemptible.

I think I understand your point but improving a person without their consensus is not neccesarily a moral thing and it can become a slippery slope.

[mauro2222]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Yes, but that doesn't change that removing flaws is desirable. I find this tendency to redefine flaws as some kind of virtue utterly disgusting. And to use that as an argument to resist change - well, I'd call that reactionary and, yes I say it, inhuman. Such a philosophy would deny actual humans benefits just because it sees them as "not natural". But I say a good denied is an evil! Should you, for instance, have the option to either make everyone immune to disease or no one, let's say be using nanotech immune system boosters, I say you'd be pretty much morally obligated to push the button. And all those come with stuff like character growth coming from dealing with this kind of adversity can shove their philosophies up their asses. It's contemptible.

Not at all, if people like flaws is because they consider those flaws to be part of them, to be part of life, their life. They have every right to conserve them.

And no you aren't morally obliged because you are still forcing it, if people want to die of the disease or fight it in their own terms, you have to allow it, you're job is to explain not to force.

It can go both ways, if you are allowed to change them because is good for you, they have every right to oppose it or to deny you freedom to make changes.

Modifié par mauro2222, 23 mai 2012 - 04:01 .

[Tom Lehrer]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Yes, but that doesn't change that removing flaws is desirable. I find this tendency to redefine flaws as some kind of virtue utterly disgusting. And to use that as an argument to resist change - well, I'd call that reactionary and, yes I say it, inhuman. Such a philosophy would deny actual humans benefits just because it sees them as "not natural". But I say a good denied is an evil! Should you, for instance, have the option to either make everyone immune to disease or no one, let's say be using nanotech immune system boosters, I say you'd be pretty much morally obligated to push the button. And all those come with stuff like character growth coming from dealing with this kind of adversity can shove their philosophies up their asses. It's contemptible.

These same arguments get used to justify genocide.

[Gyroscopic_Trout]

Ieldra2 wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

kookie28 wrote...

Let me re-word that.

"Being human" is an irrelevant phrase.  You're a human because you're a ****** sapien.

There's nothing magical or pseudo-philosophical about it.

And to answer your question, yes.  Imperfections are just that, imperfections.  The end goal is to remove those. 

You see imperfections as part of "being human."  I see them as what they are at face value.  Flaws.  Which is why you see this as some sort of moral abomination and I see it as progress.

A pity that synthesis doesn't do that at all, and that perfection is unachievable.
So yeah, you're forcing a supposed progress on everyone.

Yes, but that doesn't change that removing flaws is desirable. I find this tendency to redefine flaws as some kind of virtue utterly disgusting. And to use that as an argument to resist change - well, I'd call that reactionary and, yes I say it, inhuman. Such a philosophy would deny actual humans benefits just because it sees them as "not natural". But I say a good denied is an evil! Should you, for instance, have the option to either make everyone immune to disease or no one, let's say be using nanotech immune system boosters, I say you'd be pretty much morally obligated to push the button. And all those come with stuff like character growth coming from dealing with this kind of adversity can shove their philosophies up their asses. It's contemptible.

Are you writing these posts from your secret genetics laboratory?  Because you sound like a comicbook supervillain right there.  Really.  I'm pretty sure saying stuff like this is how Mister Sinister got started.

[Ieldra]

mauro2222 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Yes, but that doesn't change that removing flaws is desirable. I find this tendency to redefine flaws as some kind of virtue utterly disgusting. And to use that as an argument to resist change - well, I'd call that reactionary and, yes I say it, inhuman. Such a philosophy would deny actual humans benefits just because it sees them as "not natural". But I say a good denied is an evil! Should you, for instance, have the option to either make everyone immune to disease or no one, let's say be using nanotech immune system boosters, I say you'd be pretty much morally obligated to push the button. And all those come with stuff like character growth coming from dealing with this kind of adversity can shove their philosophies up their asses. It's contemptible.

Not at all, if people like flaws is because they consider those flaws to be part of them, to be part of life, their life. They have every right to conserve them.

And no you aren't morally obliged because you are still forcing it, if people want to die of the disease or fight it in their own terms, you have to allow it, you're job is to explain not to force.

It can go both ways, if you are allowed to change them because is good for you, they have every right to oppose it or to deny you freedom to make changes.

Suppose I can't ask them all, but also that I have reason to believe most would appreciate the change. In that case, I'd do more wrong by not pressing the button. I can understand the objection against Synthesis in that regard, but in the example above I would totally press the button. 

As I said elsewhere, an individual's right is not absolute. Here's another example: if by refusing to be inoculated, you endanger a whole community, then you're in the wrong.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 23 mai 2012 - 04:13 .

[xsdob]

This thread is a hate orgy.

Im outta here.

[Brother Takka]

I think I'd snap. I'd want blood. Anything reaper would die. Then I'd go looking for them. I'd probably go looking for the person who did this. and kill them. and anyone who helped them. But that's just me.

[Taboo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

As I said elsewhere, an individual's right is not absolute. Here's another example: if by refusing to be inoculated, you endanger a whole community, then you're in the wrong.

If you choose not to receive a mumps vaccine, you pose no risk to everyone one who has one. Most people are, so the point is moot.

Unless we are visiting isolated tribes in the Australian outback.

They to, are innoculated.

That's why we don't have smallpox anymore.

[mauro2222]

Ieldra2 wrote...

As I said elsewhere, an individual's right is not absolute. Here's another example: if by refusing to be inoculated, you endanger a whole community, then you're in the wrong.

Again, it goes both ways.