689 réponses à ce sujet

[Carlthestrange]

Bill Casey wrote...

That's because it's in Shepard's mind...

Doesn't matter to me really, I just felt that would be amusing.

[Sisterofshane]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

If we are going to take him only at absolutes, he never says that all synthetic life will die, either.

We can't pick and choose to believe that some of what he implies is true, and the rest is false, until we are shown that they are.

And we never see the Geth or EDI die.

Which would leave us with "Despite everything else he said being true, I believe this part was a lie" and "Despite everything else he said being true, I believe this part here was also true as I have no other reason to believe it wasn't."

If that leads to a stalemate on whose beliefs are right, we can simply say we'll have to ignore it for right now and go on what we know is true (aka everything else).

No, it leaves us questioning everything that he hasn't given us in the strictest, absolute terms.

He says the Catalyst will destroy the Reapers.  He implies that it will destroy all synthetic life and Shepard. (Hence, the conclusion that EDI and the Geth and Shepard will die should be taken with a grain of salt).

One of the two things he implies turns out NOT to be true - this give us a stronger basis for not believing his other implied conclusion.  However, we are not shown either way if it is true or false.

[Jamie9]

tekkaman fear wrote...

Some truths are Universal. Destroy is truth.

Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.

[frylock23]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Shepard Wins wrote...

Inb4 control people storming in with pitchforks and torches.

And Synthesis people.

We're not you.

That statement makes NO sense in correlation to mine, but ok then.

It means, non-Destroy camps are not intolerant and don't go crazy railing on others' decisions. We're at peace with our own path.

You'll notice there has been minimal criticism from Green/Blue supporters to this thread. Compare that to the Synthesis and Control threads where half of every page is "NO NO NO DESTROY IS THE ONLY OPTION!"

You're invalidating your own moral high road simply by being here and pointing this out. If you really were what you claim, you wouldn't even be bothering to post this. You'd simply be content to notice that no one is arguing against destroy, but as some people are and this thread is devolving the way the others have, I'd say that your observation is false.

[Sisterofshane]

Ji99saw wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Ji99saw wrote...

So we resort to name calling now?  Once more, Losing a few casualties in war and Genocide are completly different. It doesn't matter who he was talking to the reaper threat was still very much present and you tried to make it seem as though it was not. And by the way Genocide is the complete oppisite of Sheps and everyone elses beliefs throught ou the entie trilogy even the reapers preseve life in the reaper ship. But if you believe that Commiting Genocide To Prevent Genocide is right then that Speaks volumes about you.

You are comparing unequal genocides as equal ones. That's a pretty fallacious comparison.

Irrelevant,  Using you argument one could say Wiping out one race is not as bad as wiping out as others because they vary in size.? Genocide is bad no matter how you try to twist it.

Competely relevant.  On one side we have an accrument of at least 20,000 genocides, on the other side we have one possible genocide.

[Clayless]

Sisterofshane wrote...

No, it leaves us questioning everything that he hasn't given us in the strictest, absolute terms.

He says the Catalyst will destroy the Reapers.  He implies that it will destroy all synthetic life and Shepard. (Hence, the conclusion that EDI and the Geth and Shepard will die should be taken with a grain of salt).

One of the two things he implies turns out NOT to be true - this give us a stronger basis for not believing his other implied conclusion.  However, we are not shown either way if it is true or false.

Incorrect, he at best the Shepard may die. In both cases (Shepard dying and Shepard survivng) he is telling the truth.

[MisterJB]

Being proud of close-mindedness. Why am I even surprised?

Modifié par MisterJB, 27 mai 2012 - 08:42 .

[frylock23]

Seival wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Destroy, the lesser of three evils...

Lesser?

Do you know why I choose Control? Becouse Destroy kills not just Reapers, Geth and EDI, it also kills everyone on the Citadel, and everyone with vital synthetic implants - i.e. all Quarians and a lot of people from other races... Well, and I don't want to destroy even Geth and EDI actually.

Except it doesn't because Shepard survives with vital implants. If Shepard survives, what else were we lied to about? Geth? EDI? Other synthetics?

[Jamie9]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Again, not enough evidence to suppose that.  We don't see Shepard take control of all synthetic life, and yet we have the exact same machine emmiting a wave that encompasses everything when control takes place.  Why are we not also assuming that if the Crucible targets Reaper code, that control would not effect EDI and the Geth?

I think it would be more correct to assume that the CItadel has a direct link to the Reapers themselves (hence why they can "jump" to the Citadel from Darkspace without some explicitly shown secondary relay), which is why the catalyst resides there.  With a properly built crucible, by shooting at the tube you are sending energy through that link to the Reapers and the Reapers only.

Hence why the Geth and EDI may contain Reaper code, but are not destroyed.

My evidence is science. I'm using what I know of science and applying it to Reaper Code. I do, however, agree with some of your points. I'll go into them in a minute.

First, the Citadel is a Mass Relay. That's how the Reapers travel from Dark Space to it. Vigil reveals it's a Mass Relay in ME1. Saren's goal was to activate the Relay.

However, it is a good point to make that the Reaper Code the Geth use and EDI use is significantly different. Perhaps the Catalyst controls the Reapers through a specific piece of the code: I'll call this the Control Piece. This piece of code allows it to control the Reapers.

For obvious reasons, EDI and the Geth don't use this part of the code. Alternatively, that piece of the code could be situated in the Reaper's brain. That would in fact reveal why saving the base in ME2 gives you the control option (You have the Reaper brain) and destroying it gives you the destroy option (you have the Reaper heart.)

So that's a combination of both of our theories. What do you think? The Geth and EDI wouldn't be destroyed.

[o Ventus]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

No, it leaves us questioning everything that he hasn't given us in the strictest, absolute terms.

He says the Catalyst will destroy the Reapers.  He implies that it will destroy all synthetic life and Shepard. (Hence, the conclusion that EDI and the Geth and Shepard will die should be taken with a grain of salt).

One of the two things he implies turns out NOT to be true - this give us a stronger basis for not believing his other implied conclusion.  However, we are not shown either way if it is true or false.

Incorrect, he at best the Shepard may die. In both cases (Shepard dying and Shepard survivng) he is telling the truth.

... No?

He isn't false, nor is he telling the truth. He isn't asserting either notion. He's being neutral, but the words he uses very clearly imply that the catalyst foresees Shepard dying.

Like Sisterofshane said, he makes 2 implications, 1 of which is blatantly false. This gives us NO REASON to believe the other one.

[Carlthestrange]

Sadly at this point the truth is in the eye of the beholder. If you feel destroy was the right choice, then it is.

Maybe the DLC will give us some perspective, but I doubt it.

[o Ventus]

MisterJB wrote...

Being proud of close-mindedness. Why am I even surprised?

Insults without basis. Why am I not surprised?

Literally, you have never, ever, EVER explained why you dislike Destroy. All you do is stroke your Synth-peen and tell yourself how amazing and awesome it is.

You're the embodiment of "I don't like it, therefore it is wrong".

[Clayless]

o Ventus wrote...

... No?

He isn't false, nor is he telling the truth. He isn't asserting either notion. He's being neutral, but the words he uses very clearly imply that the catalyst foresees Shepard dying.

Like Sisterofshane said, he makes 2 implications, 1 of which is blatantly false. This gives us NO REASON to believe the other one.

At best implies Shepard may die.

He makes no statement, or implication, that Shepard will die.

[Grimwick]

Ji99saw wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Ji99saw wrote...

So we resort to name calling now?  Once more, Losing a few casualties in war and Genocide are completly different. It doesn't matter who he was talking to the reaper threat was still very much present and you tried to make it seem as though it was not. And by the way Genocide is the complete oppisite of Sheps and everyone elses beliefs throught ou the entie trilogy even the reapers preseve life in the reaper ship. But if you believe that Commiting Genocide To Prevent Genocide is right then that Speaks volumes about you.

You are comparing unequal genocides as equal ones. That's a pretty fallacious comparison.

Irrelevant,  Using you argument one could say Wiping out one race is not as bad as wiping out as others because they vary in size.? Genocide is bad no matter how you try to twist it.

What the... I don't even...

Are you seriously saying that the death of, say, 20 trillion people is the same as the death of, say, 20 million?

That's completely ridiculous. With that standard of ethics poking somebody could end you in jail for greivous bodily harm and a 20 year sentence...

[dreamgazer]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

No, it leaves us questioning everything that he hasn't given us in the strictest, absolute terms.

He says the Catalyst will destroy the Reapers.  He implies that it will destroy all synthetic life and Shepard. (Hence, the conclusion that EDI and the Geth and Shepard will die should be taken with a grain of salt).

One of the two things he implies turns out NOT to be true - this give us a stronger basis for not believing his other implied conclusion.  However, we are not shown either way if it is true or false.

Incorrect, he at best the Shepard may die. In both cases (Shepard dying and Shepard survivng) he is telling the truth.

This is true. It does prove, however, that the catalyst slants his language towards the worst-case scenario instead of the best-case.  He wouldn't bring it up without the intention of Shepard contemplating his synthetic nature and whether s/he'd die.  What else is he slanting in this fashion?

[o Ventus]

Carlthestrange wrote...

Sadly at this point the truth is in the eye of the beholder. If you feel destroy was the right choice, then it is.

Maybe the DLC will give us some perspective, but I doubt it.

Here's  to hoping...

[Sisterofshane]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

No, it leaves us questioning everything that he hasn't given us in the strictest, absolute terms.

He says the Catalyst will destroy the Reapers.  He implies that it will destroy all synthetic life and Shepard. (Hence, the conclusion that EDI and the Geth and Shepard will die should be taken with a grain of salt).

One of the two things he implies turns out NOT to be true - this give us a stronger basis for not believing his other implied conclusion.  However, we are not shown either way if it is true or false.

Incorrect, he at best the Shepard may die. In both cases (Shepard dying and Shepard survivng) he is telling the truth.

I would call that to imply.  Either way, he never directly states that Shepard will die, and we know it is possible for Shepard to live.  He also never directly states that EDi and the Geth will die.  Therefore, it may be possible for them to live.

[o Ventus]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

... No?

He isn't false, nor is he telling the truth. He isn't asserting either notion. He's being neutral, but the words he uses very clearly imply that the catalyst foresees Shepard dying.

Like Sisterofshane said, he makes 2 implications, 1 of which is blatantly false. This gives us NO REASON to believe the other one.

At best implies Shepard may die.

He makes no statement, or implication, that Shepard will die.

"You can destroy all synthetic life if you want. Even you are partly synthetic."

If he wasn't saying that to stress the notion that Shepard can die, then why did he bother?

When he says those words, one would normally take it as meaning "Ok then, Shepard is going to die." If they pick the Destroy ending and see Shepard survive, they're likely going say to themselves- "Huh. What else was he lying to me about?"

Modifié par o Ventus, 27 mai 2012 - 08:49 .

[frylock23]

xsdob wrote...

Shepard Wins wrote...

Inb4 control people storming in with pitchforks and torches.

Well you did storm our thread first and steal the idea IMO.

But I'm just glad you guys have gotten into the spirit of things, hope you don't get flamed and trolled as much as you guys did us.

Is this like comparing the size of e-peens or something?

[Sisterofshane]

MisterJB wrote...

Being proud of close-mindedness. Why am I even surprised?

Speak for yourelf, you're the one that believes that synthetics will always wipe out organics.

By picking destroy, I am putting my faith in the fact that Synthetics will not always trend toward genocide.  You won't even give them the benefit of the doubt.

[dreamgazer]

MisterJB wrote...

Being proud of close-mindedness. Why am I even surprised?

Where you see strictly closed-mindedness, I see people accepting a non-best-case scenario.  Most arguments that involve the other two options imply constant, normal variables and a positive outcome, when we have no anchor to prove as such.  Only faith, in the catalyst's language. 

[Archontor]

MisterJB wrote...

Being proud of close-mindedness. Why am I even surprised?

 

The Cerberus banners make that so gosh darn amusing you know.

[MisterJB]

o Ventus wrote...
Insults without basis. Why am I not surprised?

Literally, you have never, ever, EVER explained why you dislike Destroy. All you do is stroke your Synth-peen and tell yourself how amazing and awesome it is.

You're the embodiment of "I don't like it, therefore it is wrong".

I don't like Destroy because it presents the most simplistic solution to an incredibly complex problem, it's primitive, neanderthal. It disregards the warnings of the Catalyst and gvies up amazing knowledge out of fear.

And yes, claiming that the only possible solution to a conflict with another sentient species is the destruction of one of the sides is close-minded. If I tried to say the same about the turians, I would be savagely attacked and yet, I'm sure they seemded just as hostile during the FCW as the Reapers do now.

[Carlthestrange]

I really wish I could be given the "Doctor Who" style option.

"Leave now, or i'll stop you."