4520 réponses à ce sujet

[Lord Goose]

Just scroll up.

I asked you a question. Please, give me an answer. Based on this premises, are I'm completely same as the murderer or not?

[Leafs43]

Lord Goose wrote...

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.

OMG, are you retarded?  Serious question.


Look I can put a deductive fallacy into a question too (provided by the link I gave you)



Most Rimnars are Jornars.
Most Jornars are Dimnars.
Therefore,  are most Rimnars Dimnars?
Now compare that with what you said:

I want to have a gun.
Murderer would want to have a gun.
So, I'm the same as the murderer?
I don't know how dumb you are going to get on this, but you already provided a good idea the extent you are willing to go.

Modifié par Leafs43, 02 juin 2012 - 06:29 .

[Lord Goose]

Look I can put a deductive fallacy into a question too (provided by the link I gave you)

A deductive fallacy is defined as a deductive argument that is invalid.

In philosophy and logic, an argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something, by giving reasons or evidence for accepting a particular conclusion.

I'm not trying to persuade you by giving reasons or evidence right now. I'm just asking, what do you think of me based on these premises?

Therefore, it's not an argument and cannot be deductive fallacy.

Modifié par Lord Goose, 02 juin 2012 - 06:30 .

[Ageless Face]

Leafs43 wrote...

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


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.

Of course there are!!! But you tell us why not to choose control from the stupidest reason ever! We have claimed thousends of times on this thread why we are not TIM by picking control. You can still claim we are wrong for choosing control, but don't tell us we are being egoistical when this is clearly not the case. Most of us don't want domination, we want to save the synthetics. and some of us want to control the reapers, yes. But to protect the galaxy and the people in it. Not to dominate it.

Everything we have been taught at the last five mintes of the game changes. There is nothing to do about that, and we are basing everything on what we are told. You can believe what the series has taught you. But don't think you are being better with selectiveness over what we, or I am choosing. You are basing your choice on th series, I am basing it on the last most important minutes of the hole game.

Modifié par HagarIshay, 02 juin 2012 - 06:34 .

[Leafs43]

Lord Goose wrote...

Look I can put a deductive fallacy into a question too (provided by the link I gave you)

A deductive fallacy is defined as a deductive argument that is invalid.

In philosophy and logic, an argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something, by giving reasons or evidence for accepting a particular conclusion.

I'm not trying to persuade you or anything. I'm just asking, what do you think of me based on these premises.

You've lost this tiny littel debate.


Sad part is, you don't even know it.  

[Uncle Jo]

Lord Goose wrote...

The point I was trying to make, is that unlike you have said, Shepards
objects not idea about controlling the Reapers in general, but doing it
as Illusive Man wishes (for the sake of humanity). I don't see her
claiming that it is totally impossible and beyound any human's
abilities. Her arguments are personal.

Are you serious?

"You playing with things you don't understand, with a power you shouldn't be able to use"  Doesn't sound to you that Shepard (rightly) doubts a little about the abilities of a human taking control of the Reapers?
"If we destroy the Reapers this ends today, but if you can't control them..." Not doubting ?
"Are you wanting to bet humanity's existence on it ?" Not doubting?

The point I was trying to make, that they did found something on the
Sanctuary, what made Reapers attack it. That means that something like
control is possible, because discovery made Reapers launch preemptive
strike.

They found a way to control husks at short range but were far away to apply it to the Reapers. Anyway TIM thought that the Crucible could allow him to control the Reapers. With naturally absolutely no guarantee.

"TIM's intentions were as pure as raindrops". Sorry but I loled hard. To think that this insane, megalomaniac racist had pure intentions, is really naive.

1)Yes, I believe him. And he is supposed to be being of light. Read this article and twit.

 http://masseffect.wi...m/wiki/Klencory
https://twitter.com/...420195968847873

If I didn't believed him, I would rather have critical mission failure.

2)Also, destroy (if you spared the geth) is exactly "the end justify means" in comparison to other solutions.

1)Thanks but headcanon.

Merizan is a Community Manager not a game developer. Since when did she played any role in the writing of Mass Effect ? She just gives her opinion as player. Nothing that comes from her can be seen as canon. Period.

2) Didn't I say that I don't trust the brat? From this point I take the option which he presents as the least appealing.
But that's another point. I can't prove that you're wrong as much as you can't do the same with me. The EC will give us the answer.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 02 juin 2012 - 06:38 .

[Leafs43]

HagarIshay wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

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


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.

Of course there are!!! But you tell us why not to choose control from the stupidest reason ever! We have claimed thousends of times on this thread why we are not TIM by picking control. You can still claim we are wrong for choosing control, but don't tell us we are being egoistical when this is clearly not the case. Most of us don't want domination, we want to save the synthetics. and some of us want to control the reapers, yes. But to protect the galaxy and the people in it. Not to dominate it.

Everything at the last five mintes of the game changes. There is nothing to do about that, and we are basing everything on what we are told. You can believe what the series has taught you. But don't think you are being better with selectiveness over what we, or I am choosing. You are basing your choice on th series, I am basing it on the last most important minutes of the hole game.

It's not just TIM who picks control and loses.


Ever hear of the collectors?  It's explained in ME3 if you have "From Ashes" the collectors are the protheans that opted for control and their reasons may have been different from TIM's all together as well.

And look what happened to them.


The very premise of control is beaten into your head being wrong.  

[Seival]

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?

+1

[Lord Goose]

You've lost this tiny littel debate.

Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This is logically fallacious because it relates to the opponent's personal character, which has nothing to do with the logical merit of the opponent's argument, whereas mereverbal abuse in the absence of an argument is not ad hominem nor any kind of logical fallacy.

Doesn't sounds to you that Shepard (rightly) doubts a little about the abilities of a human taking control of the Reapers?

It's ambigous. "You" can mean "you, mere human" or "you, traitor of humanity, who is probably indoctrinated". Pay attention to: "You can't, can you? They won't let you" at 3.39.

It could be read in both ways.

They found a way to control husks at short range but were far away to apply it to the Reapers.

They also managed to made whole Cerebus army immune to Reaper's "voices". And the point I'm trying to make is that Reapers did launched attack against Horizon, which is meaningless if there was no threat for them.

"TIM's intentions were as pure as raindrops". Sorry but I loled hard. To think that this insane, megalomaniac racist had pure intentions, is really naive.

Being insane megalomaniac and having pure intentions are not mutually exclusive qualities. Hell is full of good meanings, but heaven is full of good works.
At very least villains with noble intentions are not uncommon.

Merizan is a Community Manager not a game developer. Since when did she played any role in the writing of Mass Effect ? She just gives her opinion as player. Nothing that comes from her can be seen as canon. Period.

At very least, ME3 description of Klencory there is such line as " In all likelihood, they will be obliterated by the molten metal of a Reaper orbital bombardment, on its way to somewhere important.".

Modifié par Lord Goose, 02 juin 2012 - 06:49 .

[Ageless Face]

Leafs43 wrote...


It's not just TIM who picks control and loses.


Ever hear of the collectors?  It's explained in ME3 if you have "From Ashes" the collectors are the protheans that opted for control and their reasons may have been different from TIM's all together as well.

And look what happened to them.


The very premise of control is beaten into your head being wrong.  

The protheans did not succeed in building the crucible. The next cycle did. Maybe if the potheans would have build the crucible the number of harvested protheans would have been very low compared to how much prothans actually became harvested.

The protheans placed all their resources or the crucible. That how much it was imprtant to them. If they put all their last resources into one device, it probobly means they figured it will work. However, the crucibe was not built,and others that wanted to control the reaprs have failed because their devices were not right. Only the crucible from what we know can control them, or help to destroy the reapers, or creating a new DNA.

[Leafs43]

Lord Goose wrote...

You've lost this tiny littel debate.

Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This is logically fallacious because it relates to the opponent's personal character, which has nothing to do with the logical merit of the opponent's argument, whereas mereverbal abuse in the absence of an argument is not ad hominem nor any kind of logical fallacy.

You keep trying to use fallacies, but I don't think you know how to use them.


You quoted the wrong post if you are going to say I used an ad hominem.

Me calling you a retard.  Yea that's an ad hominem, but in this case it happens to be true.

[Ramus Quaritch]

HagarIshay wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...


It's not just TIM who picks control and loses.


Ever hear of the collectors?  It's explained in ME3 if you have "From Ashes" the collectors are the protheans that opted for control and their reasons may have been different from TIM's all together as well.

And look what happened to them.


The very premise of control is beaten into your head being wrong.  

The protheans did not succeed in building the crucible. The next cycle did. Maybe if the potheans would have build the crucible the number of harvested protheans would have been very low compared to how much prothans actually became harvested.

The protheans placed all their resources or the crucible. That how much it was imprtant to them. If they put all their last resources into one device, it probobly means they figured it will work. However, the crucibe was not built,and others that wanted to control the reaprs have failed because their devices were not right. Only the crucible from what we know can control them, or help to destroy the reapers, or creating a new DNA.

According to Javik, the Protheans failed to build the Crucible because it was sabotaged by an extremist group that favored control.  Javik also says that its leaders were indoctrinated.  Sounds familiar to me.

[Uncle Jo]

Seival wrote...

I really don't know why don't you want to understand... The Trilogy show you facts of its story, but you prefer to take some of these facts as a hallucinations or lies.

...I'm sure you read Lord of the Rings. Did you ever think it was written not good enough? Why the Ring didn't manage to show its exact location on some kind of "Magic Mirror", so the Sauron will be able to find and take it back much easier?

Because I like to argue with you or I don't want to understand or you're quite the smarty-pants... Is it a good answer? Seriously, none of your aguments makes a little bit sense. Furthermore you wrap them with a condescending, arrogant tone that discourages any friendly conversation and makes you sound like a presumptuous idiot.
It's enough for me to say that this conversation is over. I'm done with you.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 02 juin 2012 - 06:59 .

[Jamie9]

Leafs43 wrote...

You keep trying to use fallacies, but I don't think you know how to use them.

You quoted the wrong post if you are going to say I used an ad hominem.

Me calling you a retard.  Yea that's an ad hominem, but in this case it happens to be true.

The moment you resort to insults, your opinions become meaningless to everybody involved. Stop, or I'll report you. There's no need for it.

[Ageless Face]

Ramus Quaritch wrote...


According to Javik, the Protheans failed to build the Crucible because it was sabotaged by an extremist group that favored control.  Javik also says that its leaders were indoctrinated.  Sounds familiar to me.

Sure it's sound familiar. But why does it matter? are all the people who were indoctrinated wanted to control the reapers? No. And TIM didn't want to control the reapers because he was indoc. Power hungry.

The repaers attacked sanctuary because they realised TIM wanted to control them. So Do you honestly think the reapers would tell the indoc people to try and control them?

Modifié par HagarIshay, 02 juin 2012 - 07:03 .

[Seival]

Uncle Jo wrote...

Seival wrote...

I really don't know why don't you want to understand... The Trilogy show you facts of its story, but you prefer to take some of these facts as a hallucinations or lies.

...I'm sure you read Lord of the Rings. Did you ever think it was written not good enough? Why the Ring didn't manage to show its exact location on some kind of "Magic Mirror", so the Sauron will be able to find and take it back much easier?

Because I like to argue with you or I don't want to understand or you're quite the smarty-pants... Is it a good answer? Seriously, none of your aguments makes a little bit sense. Furthermore you wrap them with a condescending, arrogant tone which discourage any friendly conversation and makes you sound like a presomptuous idiot.
It's enough for me to say that this conversation is over. I'm done with you.

"None of my arguments makes a little bit sense" to you... Please, don't forget about this part.

I wish you could take complicated stories as they are, instead of "I think I could write them much better".

[Leafs43]

Jamie9 wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

You keep trying to use fallacies, but I don't think you know how to use them.

You quoted the wrong post if you are going to say I used an ad hominem.

Me calling you a retard.  Yea that's an ad hominem, but in this case it happens to be true.

The moment you resort to insults, your opinions become meaningless to everybody involved. Stop, or I'll report you. There's no need for it.

Stop being a nancy.


And your tone is threatening.  maybe I should report you.

[Ramus Quaritch]

HagarIshay wrote...

Ramus Quaritch wrote...


According to Javik, the Protheans failed to build the Crucible because it was sabotaged by an extremist group that favored control.  Javik also says that its leaders were indoctrinated.  Sounds familiar to me.

Sure it's sound familiar. But why does it matter? are all the people who were indoctrinated wanted to control the reapers? No. And TIM didn't want to control the reapers because he was indoc. Power hungry.

The repaers attacked sanctuary because they realised TIM wanted to control them. So Do you honestly think the reapers would tell the indoc people to try and control them?

That, my friend, is one of the many plot holes in ME3 courtesy of Mac Walters.  The Illusive Man is definitely indoctrinated.  It was confirmed in Thessia and, of course, at the end.  Heck, his exposure even begins as far back as ME: Evolution when he encountered the Reaper object there.  Despite that, the Reapers still attack Sanctuary and Cerberus.  On top of that the Illusive Man, under the effects of indoctrination, warns the Reapers about the Crucible, causing them to take the Citadel to Earth.  This makes it so much harder for the allies to get the Crucible to the Catalyst and, consequently, harder for him to put his control plan into effect.  Yet he insists, to his last breath, that control is right as if he were not indoctrinated.  You see the flip-flopping here?  It all boils down to the writing team failing with the long term story.  

Modifié par Ramus Quaritch, 02 juin 2012 - 07:10 .

[Lord Goose]

Despite that, the Reapers still attack Sanctuary and Cerberus.

But not TIM himself.
Maybe its because TIM isn't danger for them, but, say, Henry Lawson (assuming he isn't indoctrinated) is?

[Jamie9]

Leafs43 wrote...

Stop being a nancy.

And your tone is threatening.  maybe I should report you.

...

Please contribute to the thread. Please.

I'll even start for you. Do you think that sacrificing an entire race (the Geth) is worth destroying the Reapers? Is that not the most direct route? Why not try alternatives first, and save an entire sentient race?

[The Angry One]

Seival wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

Seival wrote...

I really don't know why don't you want to understand... The Trilogy show you facts of its story, but you prefer to take some of these facts as a hallucinations or lies.

...I'm sure you read Lord of the Rings. Did you ever think it was written not good enough? Why the Ring didn't manage to show its exact location on some kind of "Magic Mirror", so the Sauron will be able to find and take it back much easier?

Because I like to argue with you or I don't want to understand or you're quite the smarty-pants... Is it a good answer? Seriously, none of your aguments makes a little bit sense. Furthermore you wrap them with a condescending, arrogant tone which discourage any friendly conversation and makes you sound like a presomptuous idiot.
It's enough for me to say that this conversation is over. I'm done with you.

"None of my arguments makes a little bit sense" to you... Please, don't forget about this part.

I wish you could take complicated stories as they are, instead of "I think I could write them much better".

Dude. You're not making any arguments!
All you're doing is saying that people don't understand, that the ending is "complicated" and that the EC will explain everything.

That's not an argument, at best you're spreading propaganda.

[TMA LIVE]

HagarIshay wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...


Well, Shepard becomes a VI or AI. Or dies after briefly controlling the Reapers. It's still a sacrifice ending, which I think is the point of the endings in general. That you're willing to make a final sacrifice just to stop the Reapers. Whether it's yourself, the galaxy, or the Geth. Which is why I think such an ending still balances everything out. That there is no ending without a final sacrifice.

But again, I wanted it to be a choice. Some want to Control the Reapers because they think they can forever. So it should be a choice.

I also believe it should be a choice. However, if BioWare will do that, then they should also make the synthetics live in destroy. Meaning, there would be no difference between the choices. I will support it if it will be possible, but I don't think it's likely. Unless BioWare will let us headconon everything.

But that's unbalanced. In Destroy Plus, Shepard lives. Same with the synthetics in your suggestion. If such an ending exists, then there's no reason to destroy the Reapers with Control. Not only that, it's an ending without sacrifice, which makes a lot of the other options poinltess. Like why did Shepard die in the other endings, but not this one. Why did the Geth live, despite being told otherwise. You can only believe that it's because of indoctrination, but if you believe that, then Control being an option is pointless. It's just a lie. Same with Synthesis.

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 02 juin 2012 - 07:28 .

[Ageless Face]

Ramus Quaritch wrote...

That, my friend, is one of the many plot holes in ME3 courtesy of Mac Walters.  The Illusive Man is definitely indoctrinated.  It was confirmed in Thessia and, of course, at the end.  Heck, his exposure even begins as far back as ME: Evolution when he encountered the Reaper object there.  Despite that, the Reapers still attack Sanctuary and Cerberus.  On top of that the Illusive Man, under the effects of indoctrination, warns the Reapers about the Crucible, causing them to take the Citadel to Earth.  This makes it so much harder for the allies to get the Crucible to the Catalyst and, consequently, harder for him to put his control plan into effect.  Yet he insists, to his last breath, that control is right as if he were not indoctrinated.  You see the flip-flopping here?  It all boils down to the writing team failing with the long term story.  

TIM was not nesecerly indoctrinated, but he did have reaper tech in him. Shepard exposured to reaper tech, but s/he was not indoc (unlees you believe the IT, of course. But let's not get into it). He was ALMOST fully indoc at the ending, true. But him wanting to control was the only part that was not indoctrinated. TIM giving the reapers information about shepard was the part that was indoc. But before that TIM didn't do anyting like that. TIM was corrupted at ME3, something that was really not like him at ME2. He was a bastard, but with good intentions. In ME3 he became the evil guy. It was unlike TIM to say he wants to control the reapers, and how he put as to why doing it, that people believe he was indoctrinated the hole game. In fact, making TIM indoctrinated was taking the easy route with him. "Enemie that don't agree with Shepard? He should be indoctrinated!" Well, at least that is how I see it.   

I agree with you that there was very bad writing there. Very, very bad writing. Only I believe there was a bad writing from different reasons. But many things with TIM in ME3 were bad. And that is sad. He was written very well in ME2 .

Modifié par HagarIshay, 02 juin 2012 - 07:37 .

[Seival]

Ramus Quaritch wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...

Ramus Quaritch wrote...


According to Javik, the Protheans failed to build the Crucible because it was sabotaged by an extremist group that favored control.  Javik also says that its leaders were indoctrinated.  Sounds familiar to me.

Sure it's sound familiar. But why does it matter? are all the people who were indoctrinated wanted to control the reapers? No. And TIM didn't want to control the reapers because he was indoc. Power hungry.

The repaers attacked sanctuary because they realised TIM wanted to control them. So Do you honestly think the reapers would tell the indoc people to try and control them?

That, my friend, is one of the many plot holes in ME3 courtesy of Mac Walters.  The Illusive Man is definitely indoctrinated.  It was confirmed in Thessia and, of course, at the end.  Heck, his exposure even begins as far back as ME: Evolution when he encountered the Reaper object there.  Despite that, the Reapers still attack Sanctuary and Cerberus.  On top of that the Illusive Man, under the effects of indoctrination, warns the Reapers about the Crucible, causing them to take the Citadel to Earth.  This makes it so much harder for the allies to get the Crucible to the Catalyst and, consequently, harder for him to put his control plan into effect.  Yet he insists, to his last breath, that control is right as if he were not indoctrinated.  You see the flip-flopping here?  It all boils down to the writing team failing with the long term story.  

Reapers attack Sanctuary and Cerberus to stop them from mass hask-controlling tech. Because such tech could give us an advantage against the Reapers' ground forces, which will eventually slow the Reapers' harvesting progress a little.

TIM is indoctrinated, and Reapers might found out about the Crucible through him. But I think you should understand that TIM doesn't think that he is indoctrinated. He didn't tell Reapers about the Crucible literally. They could find out, because they read his mind. Or they could find out it from some other sources.

...Nothing illogical here. The story is fine.

Modifié par Seival, 02 juin 2012 - 07:32 .

[Ageless Face]

TMA LIVE wrote...


But that's unbalanced. In Destroy Plus, Shepard lives. Same with the synthetics in your suggestion. If such an ending exists, then there's no reason to destroy the Reapers with Control. Not only that, it's an ending without sacrifice, which makes a lot of the other options poinltess. Like why did Shepard die in the other endings, but not this one. You can only believe that it's because of indoctrination, but if you believe that, then Control being an option is pointless. It's just a lie. Same with Synthesis.

Yeah, guess you are right. The fact that Shepard is only having that tiny surviving scene got a lot of people to choose destroy. Not everyone of course, but still many. 

I guess if the EC will go by your suggestion, the question when you need to decide will be: Do you perfer the synthetics, or Shepard?

Got a feeling there will still be a lot of people that will choose destroy . Esspecially if there will only be a reunion with the LI there.