1256 réponses à ce sujet

[Taboo]

MisterJB wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

All people are perfect the way they are. There is no need to change for anyone.

That is just plain wrong. There are people out there who were born with horrible, crippling diseases that prevents them from enjoying the simplest things in life.
Would you tell them they are perfect the way they are? That they don't need to change?

Do not straw man the argument to fit your own designs.

There is a difference between fixing somethin in utero, such as a heart defect or spina bifita and rewriting DNA.

You enact a change on everything. Absolutely everything. That is NOT the same as fixing a hole in the spinal cord.

[Sisterofshane]

MisterJB wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

All people are perfect the way they are. There is no need to change for anyone.

That is just plain wrong. There are people out there who were born with horrible, crippling diseases that prevent them from enjoying the simplest things in life.
Would you tell them they are perfect the way they are? That they don't need to change?

You're misinterpreting.  We want them to do what THEY want - they shouldn't need to change just to please us.

Case in point, I work with children with Autism - I help them in managing their disability, but I couldn't love them any more than I already do if they had managed to find a "cure" for them.

What is plain wrong is forcing a change upon individuals who are at peace with who they are for the sake of those who would enjoy the change.  And it's ****** for tat now, because you either believe that you are not in the position to make such a decision (as any paragon would), or you do and  you are going to make the decision regardless (you badass renegade you!).

Modifié par Sisterofshane, 12 juin 2012 - 01:22 .

[The Edge]

MisterJB wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

All people are perfect the way they are. There is no need to change for anyone.

That is just plain wrong. There are people out there who were born with horrible, crippling diseases that prevent them from enjoying the simplest things in life.
Would you tell them they are perfect the way they are? That they don't need to change?

Assuming that Synthesis cures these diseases...

It doesn't matter if what you do will help a person out (how helpful Synthesis is is up for debate) if that person has no say in it. Synthesis is forcibly changing the entire galaxy, which I suppose is similar to forcing a treatment or surgery on someone without their consent (assuming they are able to give it, obviously). It isn't right no matter how you slice it.

[Nightwriter]

Taboo-XX wrote...

All people are perfect the way they are.

Ehm. No.

I really can't figure out if you're saying that a person's free will should not be violated -- which I agree with -- or whether we should all remain the way we are born because Change Is Bad and we're all perfect natural snowflakes. Which I don't agree with. We are born with cleft palates and cancer and AIDS. Nature is cruel. Sometimes it is downright monstrous.

A person should not be violated against their will, but that doesn't mean we should rejoice in suffering.

[Taboo]

Nightwriter wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

All people are perfect the way they are.

Ehm. No.

I really can't figure out if you're saying that a person's free will should not be violated -- which I agree with -- or whether we should all remain the way we are born because Change Is Bad and we're all perfect natural snowflakes. Which I don't agree with. We are born with cleft palates and cancer and AIDS. Nature is cruel. Sometimes it is downright monstrous.

A person should not be violated against their will, but that doesn't mean we should rejoice in suffering.

Strawmanning. Again. Pay attention. Either read all of what I say or don't quote it.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 12 juin 2012 - 01:29 .

[akenn312]

MisterJB wrote...

akenn312 wrote...
Why do you avoid the consent part of this? No matter what procedure we both put out there. Consent and choice is the main issue. Why do you feel it's okay force your ideals and to mess with everyones DNA? 

Because I don't care about their consent! How can I make that more obvious?
If someone has cancer and I have the cure, then that person should be cured. If that person does not wish to be cured of cancer, clearly that person is either not thinking correctly or is just plain stupid and its opinions should not be taken into account. It is for that person's good!
Should I allow you to kill yourself because you want to rather than help you? Of course not!

There it is again...You imposing your will on someone else and not caring if they want it or not. Then you should have no problem with the original cycle of the Reapers. They were the all-knowing galactic power with the ability to impose their will on the galaxy. We had no say in this. Synthesis is not any different. You impose your will on what you think the galaxy should be.

The Reapers had the cure for the organic problem and eradication was the solution. Now you think that as long as you force organics to merge with synthetics it is okay? Just because you head cannon it to some type of advantage or an end to a cycle?

Again another hypothetical, I am a doctor, I feel that animals should be merged with humans characteristics. Because I have had enough of dogs and cats fighting or them crapping on the carpet, I have the knowledge to make them higher beings and I just impose my experiments on the animals to force my ideal of animal ascension. Well I have now turned in to Dr. Moreau. Forcing animals to change no matter what they wanted to be, so I can force them into my ideal of what an animal should be. This is a horrible concept, Dr. Shepard cannot do this to us all. 

This is basic degeneration and organic/synthetic vivisection to make sure we follow on the lines the Reapers want. This is not good. This is against everything we all understand about freedom, rights, choice and consent.

Modifié par akenn312, 12 juin 2012 - 01:33 .

[MisterJB]

Taboo-XX wrote...
Do not straw man the argument to fit your own designs.

There is a difference between fixing somethin in utero, such as a heart defect or spina bifita and rewriting DNA.

You enact a change on everything. Absolutely everything. That is NOT the same as fixing a hole in the spinal cord.

You did not mention Synthesis in your post. You claim that everyone was perfect and did not need to change and i simply pointed out how wrong you are.

Sisterofshane wrote...
What is plain wrong is forcing a change upon individuals who are at peace with who they are for the sake of those who would enjoy the change. 

Being at peace does not equal being happy. Joker has accepted his disease, does that mean he wouldn't like to be able to walk or dance without fear of breaking a leg?
It's not about changing them to meet a standard that pleases us. It's about improving the lives of these people.

The Edge wrote...
Assuming that Synthesis cures these diseases...

It doesn't matter if what you do will help a person out (how helpful Synthesis is is up for debate) if that person has no say in it. Synthesis is forcibly changing the entire galaxy, which I suppose is similar to forcing a treatment or surgery on someone without their consent (assuming they are able to give it, obviously). It isn't right no matter how you slice it.

Right and wrong are entirely subjective. I believe it is wrong to let someone kill himself out of misguided respect.
It doesn't matter if you respected his wishes, that person is still dead. Or simply still sick.

[Nightwriter]

Taboo-XX wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

All people are perfect the way they are. There is no need to change for anyone.

That is just plain wrong. There are people out there who were born with horrible, crippling diseases that prevents them from enjoying the simplest things in life.
Would you tell them they are perfect the way they are? That they don't need to change?

Do not straw man the argument to fit your own designs.

There is a difference between fixing somethin in utero, such as a heart defect or spina bifita and rewriting DNA.

You enact a change on everything. Absolutely everything. That is NOT the same as fixing a hole in the spinal cord.

It's not straw manning. You said all people are perfect the way they are and there is no need for anyone to change. It is a blanket statement that is vulnerable to counterargument.

If you maintain that there is an understandable distinction between rewriting someone's DNA and correcting a congenital disease, then your original statement must be amended.

[WhiteKnyght]

Xellith wrote...

The catalyst is lying. You just lost the game.

Game: "Commander Shepard has become a legend by stopping the Reaper threat."

Human Boy: "Did all that really happen?"

Human Stargazer: "Yes, but many of the details are lost to time. It all happened so very long ago."

This happens no matter your choice. Catalyst isn't lying. He's just submitting.

[me308f1cd5c]

MisterJB wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
Do not straw man the argument to fit your own designs.

There is a difference between fixing somethin in utero, such as a heart defect or spina bifita and rewriting DNA.

You enact a change on everything. Absolutely everything. That is NOT the same as fixing a hole in the spinal cord.

You did not mention Synthesis in your post. You claim that everyone was perfect and did not need to change and i simply pointed out how wrong you are.

Sisterofshane wrote...
What is plain wrong is forcing a change upon individuals who are at peace with who they are for the sake of those who would enjoy the change. 

Being at peace does not equal being happy. Joker has accepted his disease, does that mean he wouldn't like to be able to walk or dance without fear of breaking a leg?
It's not about changing them to meet a standard that pleases us. It's about improving the lives of these people.

The Edge wrote...
Assuming that Synthesis cures these diseases...

It doesn't matter if what you do will help a person out (how helpful Synthesis is is up for debate) if that person has no say in it. Synthesis is forcibly changing the entire galaxy, which I suppose is similar to forcing a treatment or surgery on someone without their consent (assuming they are able to give it, obviously). It isn't right no matter how you slice it.

Right and wrong are entirely subjective. I believe it is wrong to let someone kill himself out of misguided respect.
It doesn't matter if you respected his wishes, that person is still dead. Or simply still sick.

So if right and wrong to you are just subjective, does that mean you see good as evil as subjective as well?

[Taboo]

There are things that are always wrong. ALWAYS.

It isn't your right. You have no right to do that to people. The hubris is so high I cannot fathom it.

[Taboo]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Xellith wrote...

The catalyst is lying. You just lost the game.

Game: "Commander Shepard has become a legend by stopping the Reaper threat."

Human Boy: "Did all that really happen?"

Human Stargazer: "Yes, but many of the details are lost to time. It all happened so very long ago."

This happens no matter your choice. Catalyst isn't lying. He's just submitting.

He presents a fallacy. There is a difference.

[me308f1cd5c]

Taboo-XX wrote...

There are things that are always wrong. ALWAYS.

It isn't your right. You have no right to do that to people. The hubris is so high I cannot fathom it.

Agreed, for example rape is ALWAYS wrong/evil.

It is scary that some people here think that right and wrong are just subjective.....that way of thinking.....can lead to tyrants trying to take over parts of the world.

[MisterJB]

akenn312 wrote...
 Then you should have no problem with the original cycle of the Reapers. They were the all-knowing galactic power with the ability to impose their will on the galaxy. We had no say in this. Synthesis is not any different. You impose your will on what you think the galaxy should be.

Except Synthesis doesn't kill anyone.
The Reapers did. They killed quite a number of people and while sacrifices are sometimes necessary, there comes a point where you just have to look for a different solution.

[Taboo]

me308f1cd5c wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

There are things that are always wrong. ALWAYS.

It isn't your right. You have no right to do that to people. The hubris is so high I cannot fathom it.

Agreed, for example rape is ALWAYS wrong/evil.

It is scary that some people here think that right and wrong are just subjective.....that way of thinking.....can lead to tyrants trying to take over parts of the world.

I'm awaiting the justification of rape from them. I really am.

[MisterJB]

me308f1cd5c wrote...
So if right and wrong to you are just subjective, does that mean you see good as evil as subjective as well?

Morality is subjective, all of it.

[me308f1cd5c]

MisterJB wrote...

me308f1cd5c wrote...
So if right and wrong to you are just subjective, does that mean you see good as evil as subjective as well?

Morality is subjective, all of it.

Hate to say it, but Evil does exist, just look at history.

I'm sure that monster who started that war in 1939, didn't see himself as evil, but if morality was just subjective, then him viewing himself as good, has the same weight as other people viewing him as evil.

There is such a thing as Good Men and Evil Men.

Modifié par me308f1cd5c, 12 juin 2012 - 01:49 .

[Taboo]

What kind of Nietzhchian bull**** are you playing at? You sound like the people who think they understand how the world works because they've read a few books and keep a copy of the pocket Nietzsche in their back pocket.

Absolutely everything you have said fits into the mantra I espoused on the first pages. You care nothing for people so as long as you're satisfied.

Moral Relativism is laughed at in philosophy circles. It's about much more than you.

[me308f1cd5c]

If there is no evil....then there are no monsters in this world. Though that would be a stupid claim to argue.

[MisterJB]

me308f1cd5c wrote...
Hate to say it, but Evil does exist, just look at history.
I'm sure that monster who started that war in 1939, didn't see himself as evil, but if morality was just subjective, then him viewing himself as good, has the same weight as other peopel viewing him as evil.

Sadly, it has. Can you, objectively, determine the value of a life? of course not.
Does that mean measures should not be taken to stop men like him? Again, of course not.

[Taboo]

All sapient life has the same validity.

To ensure the destruction of people in droves, some will have to be destroyed. But any interference beyond the intervention is unethical, unless it is asked for. The US intervening in WWII was justified because it saved millions, but the treatment of others afterwords is unethical. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were unethical. As was Vietnam.

The Reapers need to be stopped, and that's it. Nothing else needs to be done.

[akenn312]

MisterJB wrote...

akenn312 wrote...
 Then you should have no problem with the original cycle of the Reapers. They were the all-knowing galactic power with the ability to impose their will on the galaxy. We had no say in this. Synthesis is not any different. You impose your will on what you think the galaxy should be.

Except Synthesis doesn't kill anyone.
The Reapers did. They killed quite a number of people and while sacrifices are sometimes necessary, there comes a point where you just have to look for a different solution.

Killing is not the point, the Reapers thought ascension and merging with a synthetic being into a better framework is changing people without their consent, and no say in it. The ideal is what makes synthesis bad. Death is bad, but living in a framework you possibly despise is even worse.

Just because the cutscene shows EDI and Joker embracing does not validate everyone else that did not want this. So you are changing everyone because two beings you know are happy now? That is again forcing our ideal on the masses. Araia likes being a criminal as an Asari, Bailey likes being a human cop, Miranda, Grunt ect had no need to merge with synthetics. No one ever said they wanted to merge with the Geth before your choice. 

Why betray them and force them to merge? You cannot do this, Shepard can not do this no matter what he has done. He should run away from anything synthesis. A different solution might be death but better that than compromise. Did you ask anyone if that is what they would prefer? No you assumed they would love all the new upgrades. That is not Shep or Fem Shep. 

Give the people a choice. Choice is the thing that makes us better than the Reapers. Upgrades just because they are exactly what the Reapers want us to do and are bad. Geth anyone?

Modifié par akenn312, 12 juin 2012 - 02:14 .

[MisterJB]

akenn: We're just going in circles.
You say forcing Synthesis on people is wrong, I say that the fact their opinion was not asked is irrelevant and what matters are the results.
We're never going to convince each other.

Modifié par MisterJB, 12 juin 2012 - 02:21 .

[WhiteKnyght]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Xellith wrote...

The catalyst is lying. You just lost the game.

Game: "Commander Shepard has become a legend by stopping the Reaper threat."

Human Boy: "Did all that really happen?"

Human Stargazer: "Yes, but many of the details are lost to time. It all happened so very long ago."

This happens no matter your choice. Catalyst isn't lying. He's just submitting.

He presents a fallacy. There is a difference.

The difference being that instead of winning, he's agreeing to end the cycle, saving infinite numbers of innocent organics from being melted down painfully, indoctrinated, and bended to his will.

Synthesis doesn't hurt people

Synthess doesn't take away their free will(Joker and EDI had their own minds in the scene, and with the Citadel destroyed, Starboy bites it along with Shepard.)

Synthesis has no asthetic changes other than some green circuit-like filming in their skin and glowing eyes.

Comparing it to rape, which is a brutal and taumatic violation of someone is plain stupid.

[Taboo]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Xellith wrote...

The catalyst is lying. You just lost the game.

Game: "Commander Shepard has become a legend by stopping the Reaper threat."

Human Boy: "Did all that really happen?"

Human Stargazer: "Yes, but many of the details are lost to time. It all happened so very long ago."

This happens no matter your choice. Catalyst isn't lying. He's just submitting.

He presents a fallacy. There is a difference.

The difference being that instead of winning, he's agreeing to end the cycle, saving infinite numbers of innocent organics from being melted down painfully, indoctrinated, and bended to his will.

Synthesis doesn't hurt people

Synthess doesn't take away their free will(Joker and EDI had their own minds in the scene, and with the Citadel destroyed, Starboy bites it along with Shepard.)

Synthesis has no asthetic changes other than some green circuit-like filming in their skin and glowing eyes.

Comparing it to rape, which is a brutal and taumatic violation of someone is plain stupid.

Then there is no reason to do it. In your version it just kills Shepard and gives everyone a window dressing.

You also fail to address the fallacy he presents, rendering Synthesis moot.

Violation of consent is the issue, and if that leads to a suicide due to the inability to cope with, that's worse than rape. You're responsible for the destruction of a mind AND a body.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 12 juin 2012 - 02:36 .