4520 réponses à ce sujet

[Leafs43]

Jamie9 wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

TIM wanted to control the reapers.

Shepard, if choosing control, would want to control the reapers.


Ergo, they are both lighting the house on fire.  You're just too hard headed to see it.  Your ego is in the way.

I'm not explaining it again, there are 30 pages of solid reasoning on why control isn't "that thing that TIM wanted".

Besides, because TIM wanted it, you'll never ever consider it? Even if the situation changes? That seems rather stubborn and close-minded. Your ego is in the way?

Different reasons, same result.


TIM was tricked into thinking he could control the reapers.


Yet somehow Shepard is impervious.  Anyone who thinks Shepard is impervious is an egomaniac.

Modifié par Leafs43, 02 juin 2012 - 06:00 .

[Lord Goose]

Leafs43 wrote...

It''s not an association when the result is the same.

No, you were saying "Shepard wants the same thing that TIM wanted. So they are the same". That's association fallacy is.

Shepard wanted to control the reapers.
TIM wants to control the reapers.
So, the Shepard is the same as Ilusive Man.

I want to have a gun.
Murderer would want to have a gun.
So, I'm the same as the murderer? Completely?

[Jamie9]

Leafs43 wrote...

Different reasons, same result.

TIM was tricked into thinking he could control the reapers.

Yet somehow Shepard is impervious.  Anyone who thinks Shepard is impervious is an egomaniac.

Writers' intent!

They intended for Control to be possible, as well as synthesis to be plausible. Despite the execution somewhat failing, this is what they intended.

Control is possible because all 3 choices end the Reaper threat. It's just how you get to that point. And control harms the least number of parties.

[Leafs43]

Just use common sense.

The reapers have spent countless cycles mentally manipulating countless species, and you believe you can suddenly control them and they aren't going to manipulate you.


This is the peak of egotistical thought.

[Lord Goose]

TIM was tricked into thinking he could control the reapers.

Actually...
He was tricked into thinking that he could control the Reapers, while wouldn't be able to do so, because he is indoctrinated.
And it is questionable if Shepard is indoctrinated or not.

[Lord Goose]

The reapers have spent countless cycles mentally manipulating countless species, and you believe you can suddenly control them and they aren't going to manipulate you..

*usiming common sense*

The reapers have spent countless cycles mentally manipulating countless species, and you believe you can suddenly destroy them and they aren't going to manipulate you.

Modifié par Lord Goose, 02 juin 2012 - 06:07 .

[Leafs43]

Lord Goose wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

It''s not an association when the result is the same.

No, you were saying "Shepard wants the same thing that TIM wanted. So they are the same". That's association fallacy is.

Shepard wanted to control the reapers.
TIM wants to control the reapers.
So, the Shepard is the same as Ilusive Man.

I want to have a gun.
Murderer would want to have a gun.
So, I'm the same as the murderer? Completely?

If you choose control, you want to control the reapers. 


There is no semantics there.

TIM just desired using the reapers for different purposes.  But it is the same result.

[Lord Goose]

If you choose control, you want to control the reapers.

I want to have a gun.
Murderer would want to have a gun.
So, I'm the same as the murderer? Completely?

[Leafs43]

Lord Goose wrote...

The reapers have spent countless cycles mentally manipulating countless species, and you believe you can suddenly control them and they aren't going to manipulate you..

*usiming common sense*

The reapers have spent countless cycles mentally manipulating countless species, and you believe you can suddenly destroy them and they aren't going to manipulate you.

Destroy is the option of determination.  That is what Shepard is known for.  Not giving into the easy way out and trusting the reapers.


You choose control, you trust the reapers.  If you think trusting the reapers is a good idea, you haven't learned a single thing through out the franchise.

[The Night Mammoth]

Leafs43 wrote...

Lord Goose wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

It''s not an association when the result is the same.

No, you were saying "Shepard wants the same thing that TIM wanted. So they are the same". That's association fallacy is.

Shepard wanted to control the reapers.
TIM wants to control the reapers.
So, the Shepard is the same as Ilusive Man.

I want to have a gun.
Murderer would want to have a gun.
So, I'm the same as the murderer? Completely?

If you choose control, you want to control the reapers. 


There is no semantics there.

TIM just desired using the reapers for different purposes.  But it is the same result.

Well isn't that a woefully simple way to look on things. 

If you choose destroy, you want the same thing Balak wants, a terrorist. 

[Leafs43]

Lord Goose wrote...

If you choose control, you want to control the reapers.

I want to have a gun.
Murderer would want to have a gun.
So, I'm the same as the murderer? Completely?

lmao, you you were saying I was doing a fallacy, yet here you are......


Talk about ironic.

[Leafs43]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Lord Goose wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

It''s not an association when the result is the same.

No, you were saying "Shepard wants the same thing that TIM wanted. So they are the same". That's association fallacy is.

Shepard wanted to control the reapers.
TIM wants to control the reapers.
So, the Shepard is the same as Ilusive Man.

I want to have a gun.
Murderer would want to have a gun.
So, I'm the same as the murderer? Completely?

If you choose control, you want to control the reapers. 


There is no semantics there.

TIM just desired using the reapers for different purposes.  But it is the same result.

Well isn't that a woefully simple way to look on things. 

If you choose destroy, you want the same thing Balak wants, a terrorist. 

Not trusting the reapers is generally the right thing to do.  

[Lord Goose]

Destroy is the option of determination. That is what Shepard is known for. Not giving into the easy way out and trusting the reapers.


You choose control, you trust the reapers. If you think trusting the reapers is a good idea, you haven't learned a single thing through out the franchise.

In both cases I trust in Crucible (what it can destroy or control the Reapers).. It's not the question of will power of anything.

[Lord Goose]

lmao, you you were saying I was doing a fallacy, yet here you are......

Name which fallacy is it, and provide description. I was just applying your logic to similiar case. 

Modifié par Lord Goose, 02 juin 2012 - 06:15 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Leafs43 wrote...

Not trusting the reapers is generally the right thing to do.  

Good idea! 

Better let them destroy the Crucible then. 

[Ageless Face]

Leafs43 wrote...



If you choose control, you want to control the reapers. 


There is no semantics there.

TIM just desired using the reapers for different purposes.  But it is the same result.

Okay, It's obvious you don't want to listen to what people tell you. But I will tell you again.

What matters is the reason for what you are doing. Not the result, unless they are the same. In this case, they are not.

The result is controling the reapers. TIM for domination. Shepard for saving the galaxy and the peopple in it (unless your Shepard does not want to). Does it not matter if Shepard will save the galaxy, just because TIM also wanted control, even if it was for different reasons?

Modifié par HagarIshay, 02 juin 2012 - 06:19 .

[Leafs43]

Lord Goose wrote...

lmao, you you were saying I was doing a fallacy, yet here you are......

Name which fallacy is it, and provide description. I was just applying your logic to similiar case. 

It's called a deductive fallacy.


See:  
http://en.wikipedia....ductive_fallacy 

[Leafs43]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Not trusting the reapers is generally the right thing to do.  

Good idea! 

Better let them destroy the Crucible then. 

The crucible is just another form of control anyways.  The crucible is useless.

[The Night Mammoth]

Leafs43 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Not trusting the reapers is generally the right thing to do.  

Good idea! 

Better let them destroy the Crucible then. 

The crucible is just another form of control anyways.  The crucible is useless.

Evidently not, but yes, I'd prefer that. 

[Leafs43]

HagarIshay wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...



If you choose control, you want to control the reapers. 


There is no semantics there.

TIM just desired using the reapers for different purposes.  But it is the same result.

Okay, It's obvious you don't want to listen to what people tell you. But I will tell you again.

What matters is the reason for what you are doing. Not the result, unless they are the same. In this case, they are not.

The result is controling the reapers. TIM for domination. Shepard for saving the galaxy and the peopple in it (unless your Shepard does not want to). Does it not matter if Shepard will save the galaxy, just because TIM also wanted control, even if it was for different reasons?

What are you talking about?


There are a bajillion reasons why to not choose control.  They have been pounded and kicked to death and yet you persist that its right.  


You claim I don't want to listen to anybody, yet here you are going against everythng the Mass Effect series has taught you.

Modifié par Leafs43, 02 juin 2012 - 06:20 .

[Jamie9]

Leafs43 wrote...

The crucible is just another form of control anyways.  The crucible is useless.

Ahhh... you realise you can't beat the Reapers without the Crucible right? <_<

[Taboo]

Leafs43 wrote...

Lord Goose wrote...

lmao, you you were saying I was doing a fallacy, yet here you are......

Name which fallacy is it, and provide description. I was just applying your logic to similiar case. 

It's called a deductive fallacy.


See:  
http://en.wikipedia....ductive_fallacy 

Are you serious? Do you even know what you're talking about?

[Lord Goose]

It's called a deductive fallacy.

It cannot be fallacy.
I didn't make conclusion.

I want to have a gun.
Murderer would want to have a gun.
So, I'm the same as the murderer? Completely?

I asked a question.

Modifié par Lord Goose, 02 juin 2012 - 06:22 .

[Leafs43]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Lord Goose wrote...

lmao, you you were saying I was doing a fallacy, yet here you are......

Name which fallacy is it, and provide description. I was just applying your logic to similiar case. 

It's called a deductive fallacy.


See:  
http://en.wikipedia....ductive_fallacy 

Are you serious? Do you even know what you're talking about?

You obviously didn't read a thing.


Here is the deductive fallacy in question.

I want to have a gun.
Murderer would want to have a gun.
So, I'm the same as the murderer? Completely?

Just scroll up.

[Jamie9]

Please don't think that we don't hold debates in here. Again, 50 pages of nice, sometimes very informative debates have ensued.

You came in here stating a fact that deliberately contradicts what the people in this thread are in here for. If you want to debate with us, debate with us.

But you have to open a dialogue, not just state something, and then argue it continuously.