4520 réponses à ce sujet

[The Angry One]

pistolols wrote...

it's not DARWINIAN evolution in any way, shape or form.  But it is evolution.  It is a change which is what evolution literally means.  Perhaps you should look the word up. 

Perhaps you should. What occurs in synthesis is closer to mutation.

And i don't see a problem with forcing it onto people.  It's just upgrades.  There are no down sides to it, unless you want to go ahead and list some for me because i certainly can't think of any.  There is no need for consent.  You don't need someone's consent to give them a million dollars.  They will just happily accept it.

How do you know there's no downside? You say it's an upgrade. Why? Because the Catalyst says it is? Yeah. The Catalyst also considers Reaperisation "ascension".
Who are you to say whether people should want it or not?
The arrogance and naivete here is unbelievable.

Modifié par The Angry One, 31 mai 2012 - 04:36 .

[The Angry One]

MegaSovereign wrote...

What? TF does that even mean.

It means that control is only ever presented as an idea by the indoctrinated and the insanely power hungry.

He was indoctrinated, but wanting to dominate the Reapers and take advantage of their tech seemed to be in character. Before the last Act the Reapers did not know about the Crucible, so they probably didn't think someone taking control of them was even possible. Reapers have been known to twist their indoctrinated victims' ideals against them. Like with Saren and merging synthetics/organics. It was nonsense at the time because it simply wasn't possible.

No, it's nonsense because it's the delusional dream of a power hungry ego maniac.

Yea like how it wasn't an option to control the reapers until right then. When Shepard found out about TIM's plan to control the Reapers and had told Anderson about it, he regarded TIM as insane. The reason why was not because it doesn't seem like a good solution, but because it didn't seem possible. You're given new information at the end that tells you that it IS possible.

EXCEPT IT WAS. The concept was always there! It was never declared impossible.
Also, the scale difference between saving the Collector base and controlling all Reapers is off the charts.

Ofcourse TIM wants to stop you. He's indoctrinated. Renegade Shepard could even tell him to go control the Reapers. "They won't let you do it."

That's not how indoctrination works. You're lead to believe that your goals and the Reaper's goals are one and the same, as with Saren. For TIM to be indoctrinated he would still have to believe he wants the Crucible intact.

[The Angry One]

Seival wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

You're starting to irritate me, you're clearly not reading anything I say.

I'm reading. And I just want to say that not all books can be understood automatically. Some complicated books need a lot of brain power, will, and time to be processed... The same goes to RPG games like ME Trilogy.

A lot of brain power!? How should I respond to this? Wait, I know.

HA. HA. HA.

The ending for ME3 is not complicated. There's nothing to understand. Stop deluding yourself that it is.
I suggest that if you want to consider yourself intelligent, do something useful for the world and prove it that way, rather than claiming that you see something in a piece of fiction that nobody else does. It makes you look like a poser.

Modifié par The Angry One, 31 mai 2012 - 04:38 .

[pistolols]

mauro2222 wrote...

pistolols wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

pistolols wrote...

And i don't see a problem with forcing it onto people. It's just upgrades. There are no down sides to it, unless you want to go ahead and list some for me because i certainly can't think of any. There is no need for consent. You don't need someone's consent to give them a million dollars. They will just happily accept it.

You don't see a problem with forcing things over people?...

Well, I'm gonna cut your left arm and replace it with a blade... see it's an upgrade, you don't need to use a knife anymore.

It may look like an upgrade to me, but for you it may not. I'm forcing it because I think is best, but for others it may not be.

this looks like a straw man argument.

seriously if you could list some downsides to synthesis, i'm all ears. there doesn't appear to be anything negative about it, only enhancement (and apparently not even that much enhancement as Joker still limps).

Indeed it looks like a straw man argument...

I'm talking about the unethical implications of synthesis and you are asking me to list downsides... we don't even know what it does, it could delete the gene that causes mortality if speculation is granted, and that is not a good thing.

Oh, and I forgot about your example, the "million dollar" one... terrible, terrible example. You're giving, not changing there.

I think my example is decent. It's not solid, but it is a decent example. It would be changing a poor man into a rich man. Synthesis changes regular people into upgraded people. I'm not seeing how that's unethical unless you could come up with some negatives associated with it that don't include creating a straw man argument scenerio of replacing limbs with knives... lol

But i agree that is a difficult burden to put on you seeing as we don't fully know what synthesis does... but that also means your argument has no evidence in the first place... how can you claim it's unethical to force something onto someone if you aparently don't even know what it is you're forcing on them? This also applies to Angry One's most recent reply to me.

This is a good discussion we are having but i think we should end it as this is a control thread and talking about synthesis is a derailment.

[Seival]

pistolols wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

pistolols wrote...

And i don't see a problem with forcing it onto people. It's just upgrades. There are no down sides to it, unless you want to go ahead and list some for me because i certainly can't think of any. There is no need for consent. You don't need someone's consent to give them a million dollars. They will just happily accept it.

You don't see a problem with forcing things over people?...

Well, I'm gonna cut your left arm and replace it with a blade... see it's an upgrade, you don't need to use a knife anymore.

It may look like an upgrade to me, but for you it may not. I'm forcing it because I think is best, but for others it may not be.

this looks like a straw man argument.

seriously if you could list some downsides to synthesis, i'm all ears. there doesn't appear to be anything negative about it, only enhancement (and apparently not even that much enhancement as Joker still limps).

The main downside of the Synthesis is that it's actually finishes the Reapers' initial job: "storing the old life in a reaper form". You just do it with one explosion instead of hundred years of war. This is the way to stop the war by surrendering, letting the Reapers to do their job much faster. And the other downside it that there is no Catalist after that anymore. What will all those uncontrolled Reapers do next? They have no independent minds. Someone will start to influence them?

...It's too risky cost for stopping the war. Why Reapers' creators didn't launch the Synthesis themselves long ago? It was too dangerous maybe? Too unpredictable? No, I don't wanna think more about the Synthesis till EC, it looks too "O_o" for me right now.

Modifié par Seival, 31 mai 2012 - 05:00 .

[The Angry One]

Pistol, your argument is more like forcibly replacing all cars in the world with cars powered by nuclear fission reactors.
Why would anyone complain? These cars would be more efficient and less polluting. We'll just cheerfully ignore all the potential hazards.

Also... how can I claim it's unethical if I don't know what I'm forcing on people...?
Are you serious? That's even more unethical! You're playing a lottery with the whole galaxy! What will be the long term effects? The negative consequences? Will eco-systems even survive this? You don't know!
That wouldn't just be an immoral act, that would be an outright EVIL act.

[Seival]

The Angry One wrote...

The ending for ME3 is not complicated. There's nothing to understand. 

But your confusion suggests otherwise.

[Lakeshow1986]

"Listen to yourself, you're indoctrinated! You're doing just what they wanted."

[mauro2222]

pistolols wrote...

I think my example is decent. It's not solid, but it is a decent example. It would be changing a poor man into a rich man. Synthesis changes regular people into upgraded people. I'm not seeing how that's unethical unless you could come up with some negatives associated with it that don't include creating a straw man argument scenerio of replacing limbs with knives... lol

But i agree that is a difficult burden to put on you seeing as we don't fully know what synthesis does... but that also means your argument has no evidence in the first place... how can you claim it's unethical to force something onto someone if you aparently don't even know what it is you're forcing on them? This also applies to Angry One's most recent reply to me.

This is a good discussion we are having but i think we should end it as this is a control thread and talking about synthesis is a derailment.

...this is starting to look ridiculous, what part of "forcing change is unethical" do you not understand?

The problem is not if it's a good upgrade or a bad one, is the forcing part... someone who doesn't want those upgrades may see them as wrong or simply as something not necessary, see the difference? You are oppressing people's free will because you see the world in one colour, yours.

And no, your analogy is bad as hell... how does giving something equates to forcing the "gift"?

Again. This is not about if the upgrades are good or not, is about forcing people!

Modifié par mauro2222, 31 mai 2012 - 05:02 .

[The Angry One]

Seival wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

The ending for ME3 is not complicated. There's nothing to understand. 

But your confusion suggests otherwise.

Do point as to where I'm confused as opposed to stating the facts of the situation.
You on the other hand have not made a single argument as to why Shepard is ready and worthy to take on the task of controlling the Reapers other than "Shepard's a good person", which has nothing to do with anything.

Modifié par The Angry One, 31 mai 2012 - 05:02 .

[Ageless Face]

Wow. Seem like everybody are having fun here.

Okay, let me just say that all the endings are forcing idealism. Control is forcing the reapers into slavery, and to forcing the galaxy into living with the reapers. Destroy is forcing the synthetic to die. Synthesis is forcing to change the DNA.

Synthesis is only the most seenable. But all the choices are forcing idealism.

[mauro2222]

Seival wrote...

The main downside of the Synthesis is that it's actually finishes the Reapers' initial job: "storing the old life in a reaper form". You just do it with one explosion instead of hundred years of war. This is the way to stop the war by surrendering, letting the Reapers to do their job much faster. And the other downside it that there is no Catalist after that anymore. What will all those uncontrolled Reapers do next? They have no independent minds. Someone will start to influence them?

...It's too risky cost for stopping the war. Why Reapers' creators didn't launch the Synthesis themselves long ago? It was too dangerous maybe? Too unpredictable? No, I don't wanna think more about the Synthesis till EC, it looks too "O_o" for me right now.

You seem to be the confused one.
Synthesis is not the same as destroy all synthetics and preserve organics in a shell. After StarChild reveals his plan, the Reapers (the ships) can't be considered AI anymore. Synthesis, with some magic, fuses organics with synthetics. Organics preserved in reaper form are just that... a powerful ship which works as container.

This is not ME2 anymore. The reaper larva simply never existed in ME3.

[pistolols]

The Angry One wrote...

Pistol, your argument is more like forcibly replacing all cars in the world with cars powered by nuclear fission reactors.
Why would anyone complain? These cars would be more efficient and less polluting. We'll just cheerfully ignore all the potential hazards.

Okay.. so what are the potential hazards of synthesis that we can realistically speculate about? That is what i'm asking. Again, i am a control guy... so I have no problem with finding reasons to be critical of synthesis. it's just that thus far i have not been impressed with most people's arguments against it. Still ain't.

The Angry One wrote...
Also... how can I claim it's unethical if I don't know what I'm forcing on people...?
Are you serious? That's even more unethical! You're playing a lottery with the whole galaxy! What will be the long term effects? The negative consequences? Will eco-systems even survive this? You don't know!
That wouldn't just be an immoral act, that would be an outright EVIL act.

Yeah and i agree with the community that the choice itself is poorly presented and not enough information is given beforehand. But what synthesis supporters have going for them is what is seen in the end after making the choice. The leaves appear to have been successfully augmented with circuitry, lol, so evidently the eco-system will be okay.

Seival wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

The ending for ME3 is not complicated. There's nothing to understand. 

But your confusion suggests otherwise.

I agree a lot of people lack understanding when it comes to the ending but Angry One in particular i have observed to have a very solid grasp of the story and events, etc.

[Jamie9]

mauro2222 wrote...

You seem to be the confused one.
Synthesis is not the same as destroy all synthetics and preserve organics in a shell. After StarChild reveals his plan, the Reapers (the ships) can't be considered AI anymore. Synthesis, with some magic, fuses organics with synthetics. Organics preserved in reaper form are just that... a powerful ship which works as container.

This is not ME2 anymore. The reaper larva simply never existed in ME3.

The Reaper's form of reproduction wasn't retconned in ME3. It's still exactly the same as shown at the end of ME2.

All that ME3 reveals is that there is a different class of Reaper (Destroyers), and that they are controlled by the Catalyst, who seems to be an AI, but we are never specifically told exactly what he is.

[The Angry One]

pistolols wrote...

Okay.. so what are the potential hazards of synthesis that we can realistically speculate about? That is what i'm asking. Again, i am a control guy... so I have no problem with finding reasons to be critical of synthesis. it's just that thus far i have not been impressed with most people's arguments against it. Still ain't.

We have no idea what impact synthesis will have on eco-systems. You cannot just mix in synthetic components and fundamentally change all life forms without consequences.
Will plants still photosynthesize? Will they pollenate? Will animals still need to eat? What about lifespans?

Those are just basic things. Then there's how it may alter the minds of sapient beings, and the societal impact on the population of the galaxy. Will there be mass hysteria?
What about primitive worlds? 20th century level? Medieval level? What will they think? Will there be panic? Inquisitions? War? This is NOT a decision that can be made on the spot for everyone, everwhere.

Yeah and i agree with the community that the choice itself is poorly presented and not enough information is given beforehand. But what synthesis supporters have going for them is what is seen in the end after making the choice. The leaves appear to have been successfully augmented with circuitry, lol, so evidently the eco-system will be okay.

That really tells us nothing other than the actual act of synthesis was successful. The long term effects are not shown.
Hell, not even the short term benefits are shown, as Joker is still limping.

[pistolols]

mauro2222 wrote...

pistolols wrote...

I think my example is decent. It's not solid, but it is a decent example. It would be changing a poor man into a rich man. Synthesis changes regular people into upgraded people. I'm not seeing how that's unethical unless you could come up with some negatives associated with it that don't include creating a straw man argument scenerio of replacing limbs with knives... lol

But i agree that is a difficult burden to put on you seeing as we don't fully know what synthesis does... but that also means your argument has no evidence in the first place... how can you claim it's unethical to force something onto someone if you aparently don't even know what it is you're forcing on them? This also applies to Angry One's most recent reply to me.

This is a good discussion we are having but i think we should end it as this is a control thread and talking about synthesis is a derailment.

...this is starting to look ridiculous, what part of "forcing change is unethical" do you not understand?

The problem is not if it's a good upgrade or a bad one, is the forcing part... someone who doesn't want those upgrades may see them as wrong or simply as something not necessary, see the difference? You are oppressing people's free will because you see the world in one colour, yours.

And no, your analogy is bad as hell... how does giving something equates to forcing the "gift"?

Again. This is not about if the upgrades are good or not, is about forcing people!

...and now we're back to square 1 of my argument.  Evolution has always been forced anyway.  Shepard being the one to force it instead of nature is not something that concerns me.  In fact, it's cool.  It has greatly enhanced Shepard's story by having that incredibly compelling option be left to him.

Modifié par pistolols, 31 mai 2012 - 05:18 .

[mauro2222]

Jamie9 wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

You seem to be the confused one.
Synthesis is not the same as destroy all synthetics and preserve organics in a shell. After StarChild reveals his plan, the Reapers (the ships) can't be considered AI anymore. Synthesis, with some magic, fuses organics with synthetics. Organics preserved in reaper form are just that... a powerful ship which works as container.

This is not ME2 anymore. The reaper larva simply never existed in ME3.

The Reaper's form of reproduction wasn't retconned in ME3. It's still exactly the same as shown at the end of ME2.

All that ME3 reveals is that there is a different class of Reaper (Destroyers), and that they are controlled by the Catalyst, who seems to be an AI, but we are never specifically told exactly what he is.

Every single Reaper is controlled by the Catalyst, they are not AIs. Just VI like Avina on the Citadel.

[The Angry One]

pistolols wrote...

...and now we're back to square 1 of my argument.  Evolution has always been forced anyway.  Shepard being the one to force it instead of nature is not something that concerns me.  In fact, it's cool.  It has greatly enhanced Shepard's story by having that incredibly compelling option be left to him.

Again, evolution is not ethical.
Survival of the fittest is not moral. It is a natural process. Morals are concepts held by sapient beings.
People who attempt social Darwinism are often unethical.

Shepard, as a sapient being has no moral right to impose change on all others, it's that simple.

[Jamie9]

pistolols wrote...

...and now we're back to square 1 of my argument.  Evolution has always been forced anyway.  Shepard being the one to force it instead of nature is not something that concerns me.  In fact, it's cool.  It has greatly enhanced Shepard's story by having that incredibly compelling option be left to him.

That's not how evolution works. Like I said earlier, mutation of genes happens in the embyonic stages, and so the individuals themselves never change. They are born with slightly different genetics than their parents (very slightly) and they die with those same genes.

Synthesis changes genetics DURING people's lives. They actually experience the change. That is completely different, and in my opinion, morally repungent.

[mauro2222]

pistolols wrote...


...and now we're back to square 1 of my argument.  Evolution has always been forced anyway.  Shepard being the one to force it instead of nature is not something that concerns me.  In fact, it's cool.  It has greatly enhanced Shepard's story by having that incredibly compelling option be left to him.

And you didn't understood square 1 either... EVOLUTION IS PART OF BEING AN ORGANIC BEING, SYNTHESIS IS NOT!

The nerve!

Forcing is bad no matter the result

Modifié par mauro2222, 31 mai 2012 - 05:24 .

[Jamie9]

mauro2222 wrote...

Every single Reaper is controlled by the Catalyst, they are not AIs. Just VI like Avina on the Citadel.

No, they're not even AIs, they're sentient life

To what capacity of control the Catalyst has, we can't answer. They didn't retcon the Reapers sentience.

[The Angry One]

Jamie9 wrote...

pistolols wrote...

...and now we're back to square 1 of my argument.  Evolution has always been forced anyway.  Shepard being the one to force it instead of nature is not something that concerns me.  In fact, it's cool.  It has greatly enhanced Shepard's story by having that incredibly compelling option be left to him.

That's not how evolution works. Like I said earlier, mutation of genes happens in the embyonic stages, and so the individuals themselves never change. They are born with slightly different genetics than their parents (very slightly) and they die with those same genes.

Synthesis changes genetics DURING people's lives. They actually experience the change. That is completely different, and in my opinion, morally repungent.

Also, evolution is a generational change based on having life forms better able to adapt to and exploit their enviroment. It's required for survival.
Synthesis is not required for survival, there is no enviromental drive whatsoever for any being, let alone EVERY being to be merged with synthetics. It's purely a philosophical issue.

[Jamie9]

The Angry One wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

pistolols wrote...

...and now we're back to square 1 of my argument.  Evolution has always been forced anyway.  Shepard being the one to force it instead of nature is not something that concerns me.  In fact, it's cool.  It has greatly enhanced Shepard's story by having that incredibly compelling option be left to him.

That's not how evolution works. Like I said earlier, mutation of genes happens in the embyonic stages, and so the individuals themselves never change. They are born with slightly different genetics than their parents (very slightly) and they die with those same genes.

Synthesis changes genetics DURING people's lives. They actually experience the change. That is completely different, and in my opinion, morally repungent.

Also, evolution is a generational change based on having life forms better able to adapt to and exploit their enviroment. It's required for survival.
Synthesis is not required for survival, there is no enviromental drive whatsoever for any being, let alone EVERY being to be merged with synthetics. It's purely a philosophical issue.

Indeed. Evolution is often classified as a natural evil, as opposed to a moral evil.

If evolution did not happen, the human race would have died out a long time ago. It's required for life to continue, as you very clearly stated.

If you believe in the technological singularity, and you have a prejudice against AI, then synthesis could be perceived as required for life to continue. That's what the Catalyst is ultimately. He's a racist. And if you agree with his logic, then pick synthesis.

[mauro2222]

Jamie9 wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

Every single Reaper is controlled by the Catalyst, they are not AIs. Just VI like Avina on the Citadel.

No, they're not even AIs, they're sentient life

To what capacity of control the Catalyst has, we can't answer. They didn't retcon the Reapers sentience.

If you are controlled you don't have free will, if they are sentient the catalyst risks rebellion of his own creations. If he controls them, why give them sentience at all? That's why I don't think they are even sentient or aware of their existance.

[Ageless Face]

Jamie9 wrote...

Indeed. Evolution is often classified as a natural evil, as opposed to a moral evil.

If evolution did not happen, the human race would have died out a long time ago. It's required for life to continue, as you very clearly stated.

If you believe in the technological singularity, and you have a prejudice against AI, then synthesis could be perceived as required for life to continue. That's what the Catalyst is ultimately. He's a racist. And if you agree with his logic, then pick synthesis.

Jamie9, There can be people who simply think it's cool to make every person inside a game half synthetic. It does not mean they agree with the catlayst, however. And if they do, It's becuase of a reason. Even if we think the catalyst it a crazy racist, it does not necerecly mean he has nothing to base his craziness on.

Even if you don't agree with synthesis, there should not be so much insults over picking it. It's just someone's opinion.