1256 réponses à ce sujet

[akenn312]

MisterJB wrote...

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.

Yes we are and that is the way this stuff goes, but I hope we both have given each other a little insite on the debate/discussion. Thanks for the debate very good one. Thanks for the convo.

[Taboo]

That's what debate is, circular and repetitive.

It's fun, even if you can't convince the other side.

[Bill Casey]

akenn312 wrote...

Just because the cutscene shows EDI and Joker embracing does not validate everyone else that did not want this.

It's especially creepy when you add in the fact that Joker refuses to use a medical exoskeleton because "he's not him" with it, and that he blames himself for Shepard being half robot...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 12 juin 2012 - 02:42 .

[WhiteKnyght]

Taboo-XX wrote...

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.

So I should genocide a race of beings who are arguably slaves to the Starchild's will? Or take his place and make the Reapers my slaves?

In a time period where EVERYONE uses genetic modification to improve themselves. From amplfying biotic abilities to getting rid of acne, the worst reaction to synthesis would be "Okay, how I do I hide the green stuff?"

Also how is it any different than when the governments have it required by law for children to be vaccinated against diseases in their youth? Booster shots hurt a lot more than synthesis does. And they'll hold you down and jam the needle in your leg if you resist. But it's for your own good.

Modifié par The Grey Nayr, 12 juin 2012 - 02:47 .

[jla0644]

akenn312 wrote...

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. 

Did you ask anyone before you made your choice? Please do not say "yes they wanted me to destroy the Reapers", because no one has any idea what that choice brings with it. They might change their minds if they knew what Shepard knew.

If you made peace between the geth and quarians, and they are working together, would the quarians want to you choose Destroy and wipe out the geth?

Would the galaxy, particularly the non-humans, want Shepard to be the new Reaper King/Queen? Would they trust him/her with that power?

Shepard is the one that makes the choice. The game does not allow you to ask anyone's opinion. No matter which color you choose, you are forcing your decision on the galaxy. No matter which you choose, someone is probably going to pissed that you did it. This problem is not exclusive to the green option. Choosing Destroy or Control is no more ethical or unethical than Synthesis. They all involve Shepard forever changing the galaxy without asking anyone about it. If you think merging organics and synthetics is worse than what happens with the other two, then by all means, don't choose it.

But for god's sake, enough grandstanding already. Believe me, we're all real impressed at the virtuous, ethical freedom fighters in this thread. You've made your point: Synthesis is reprehensible and anyone who chose it clearly has no ethics, is a dangerous individual bent on submitting us all to their will and genetically raping us. Keep fighting the good fight, comrades. lol

Modifié par jla0644, 12 juin 2012 - 02:45 .

[Bill Casey]

Synthesis is by far the most unethical choice...
By far...

[Taboo]

Stop straw manning the argument. It's very hard to take you seriously when you cannot even debate in a logical manner.

The prevention of the opposing force from destroying us was the goal. Destroying them is the lest harmful to the state of the galaxy.

A Synthesized Reaper is completely free from the Catalysts control and will regain some semblance of free will. How would a being like that react to knowing what it was made out of?

And no, the reaction would not be "green stuff", you affect ALL beings. Beings who have no contact with technology will panic, as will animals.

[Taboo]

jla0644 wrote...

akenn312 wrote...

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. 

Did you ask anyone before you made your choice? Please do not say "yes they wanted me to destroy the Reapers", because no one has any idea what that choice brings with it. They might change their minds if they knew what Shepard knew.

If you made peace between the geth and quarians, and they are working together, would the quarians want to you choose Destroy and wipe out the geth?

Would the galaxy, particularly the non-humans, want Shepard to be the new Reaper King/Queen? Would they trust him/her with that power?

Shepard is the one that makes the choice. The game does not allow you to ask anyone's opinion. No matter which color you choose, you are forcing your decision on the galaxy. No matter which you choose, someone is probably going to pissed that you did it. This problem is not exclusive to the green option. Choosing Destroy or Control is no more ethical or unethical than Synthesis. They all involve Shepard forever changing the galaxy without asking anyone about it. If you think merging organics and synthetics is worse than what happens with the other two, then by all means, don't choose it.

But for god's sake, enough grandstanding already. Believe me, we're all real impressed at the virtuous, ethical freedom fighters in this thread. You've made your point: Synthesis is reprehensible and anyone who chose it clearly has no ethics, is a dangerous individual bent on submitting us all to their will and genetically raping us. Keep fighting the good fight, comrades. lol

Stop straw manning the argument. Absolutely ridiculous.

[WhiteKnyght]

Bill Casey wrote...

Synthesis is by far the most unethical choice...
By far...

You force an improvement on someone and it's a bad thing?

Then I guess it's wrong that our governments force us to be vaccinated against dieases as children.

And it's wrong that they force us against our will to go to school and learn.

And wrong that they force us to work, make money, and pay for everything we need.

And wrong that hunger is forced on us by our bodies when we don't eat.

Modifié par The Grey Nayr, 12 juin 2012 - 02:50 .

[Taboo]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Synthesis is by far the most unethical choice...
By far...

You force an improvement on someone and it's a bad thing?

Then I guess it's wrong that our governments force us to be vaccinated against dieases as children.

And it's wrong that they force us against our will to go to school and learn.

And wrong that they force us to work, make money, and pay for everything we need.

Straw manning. Can you do anything to defend your position correctly?

There is a differnce between a viral infection and a rewriting DNA.

Stop straw manning.

[akenn312]

Bill Casey wrote...

akenn312 wrote...

Just because the cutscene shows EDI and Joker embracing does not validate everyone else that did not want this.

It's especially creepy when you add in the fact that Joker refuses to use a medical exoskeleton because "he's not him" with it, and that he blames himself for Shepard being half robot...

Very true I remember the Joker cockpit aside with James and James is trying to convince Joker that he should use a exoskeleton to be better, but Joker says he want to pilot the Normandy as is, because it would feel wrong. Joker has found a better way to be the best pilot within his disability. James understands and does not try to convince him or get Shepard to change what Joker can do, now cut to synthesis. That goes against everything they set up. 
Again synthesis is bad on all levels. It's an easy out.

[WhiteKnyght]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Synthesis is by far the most unethical choice...
By far...

You force an improvement on someone and it's a bad thing?

Then I guess it's wrong that our governments force us to be vaccinated against dieases as children.

And it's wrong that they force us against our will to go to school and learn.

And wrong that they force us to work, make money, and pay for everything we need.

Straw manning. Can you do anything to defend your position correctly?

There is a differnce between a viral infection and a rewriting DNA.

Stop straw manning.

Not really. Since the Reapers winning and horrifically harvesting and processessing the organics to make more of themselves is a lot worse than a virus. And the other choices have you resort to genocide or enslavement.

If you could barely tell the difference after synthesis is done of t, besides noticing that you're smarter and probably stronger, what would be the downside to living with it?

The circumstances might be different, but the action is the same. You claim its wrong to force something on someone in any case, but the principle is used so commonly in our society that we barely notice it. A lot of things are forced on us that we don't have any choice in. This is really no different.

The only downside is that Shepard has to die to make it happen.

Also I'd like to point out that according to stabrat, Synthesis is just the final stage of evolution. We're already evolving, so technically we'd reach that point anyway if we were allowed to live. By your logic, we should let the Reapers kill us all to spare us our natural fate.

Modifié par The Grey Nayr, 12 juin 2012 - 03:03 .

[Taboo]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Not really. Since the Reapers winning and horrifically harvesting and processessing the organics to make more of themselves is a lot worse than a virus. And the other choices have you resort to genocide or enslavement.

If you could barely tell the difference after synthesis is done of t, besides noticing that you're smarter and probably stronger, what would be the downside to living with it?

The circumstances might be different, but the action is the same. You claim its wrong to force something on someone in any case, but the principle is used so commonly in our society that we barely notice it. A lot of things are forced on us that we don't have any choice in. This is really no different.

The only downside is that Shepard has to die to make it happen.

You continue to straw man. Address the issue at hand or do not speak.

Synthesis is premenent. I do not wear a seat belt at home. I do not have to stop at red lights in my house. 

Certain things must be done to keep society functioning. This is the difference.

Society functions as it should right now, without Synthesis.

[WhiteKnyght]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Not really. Since the Reapers winning and horrifically harvesting and processessing the organics to make more of themselves is a lot worse than a virus. And the other choices have you resort to genocide or enslavement.

If you could barely tell the difference after synthesis is done of t, besides noticing that you're smarter and probably stronger, what would be the downside to living with it?

The circumstances might be different, but the action is the same. You claim its wrong to force something on someone in any case, but the principle is used so commonly in our society that we barely notice it. A lot of things are forced on us that we don't have any choice in. This is really no different.

The only downside is that Shepard has to die to make it happen.

You continue to straw man. Address the issue at hand or do not speak.

Synthesis is premenent. I do not wear a seat belt at home. I do not have to stop at red lights in my house. 

Certain things must be done to keep society functioning. This is the difference.

Society functions as it should right now, without Synthesis.

And synthesis must be done in order to resolve the conflict peacefully.

Destroy has you genocide victims of another being's control

Control has you usurping the being and making his slaves your own.

Synthesis does nothing negative to those it is forced upon, and frees the Reapers from their bondage and gives them back their natural right.

The only person who pays any price or consequence for this is Shepard, who dies.

You can call my arguments by that lousy urbandictionary term, but comparing one situation to another has been done since the beginning of time. It's not about what you're doing, its how you're doing it that is the same and being compared.

[akenn312]

jla0644 wrote...
Did you ask anyone before you made your choice? Please do not say "yes they wanted me to destroy the Reapers", because no one has any idea what that choice brings with it. They might change their minds if they knew what Shepard knew.

First of all think all choices are bad and need more everything, but yes they all wanted Shepard to destroy the Reapers and let them live like they wanted to. No compromise. They all stated that over and over. 

jla0644 wrote...If you made peace between the geth and quarians, and they are working together, would the quarians want to you choose Destroy and wipe out the geth?

I wish that Bioware did not make destroy the Geth a genocide but, I feel that an end to one race that you might have already ended is better than and end to every race and not telling all these races that i'm gong to screw with all their DNA just to make sure one race stays intact. That is Bioware's issue not mine. I made the choice, its control or Destroy never Synthesis. Sue me. 

jla0644 wrote...Would the galaxy, particularly the non-humans, want Shepard to be the new Reaper King/Queen? Would they trust him/her with that power?

Again I have no idea, but I would think they would prefer me individually trying to control or destroy the Reapers than forcing them all to change without their consent. Just a hunch,

jla0644 wrote...Shepard is the one that makes the choice. The game does not allow you to ask anyone's opinion. No matter which color you choose, you are forcing your decision on the galaxy. No matter which you choose, someone is probably going to pissed that you did it. This problem is not exclusive to the green option. Choosing Destroy or Control is no more ethical or unethical than Synthesis. They all involve Shepard forever changing the galaxy without asking anyone about it. If you think merging organics and synthetics is worse than what happens with the other two, then by all means, don't choose it. 

Ethics are important, I cannot understand why Bioware thrust us into this position, but all I can do is choose the one that does not violate every species in the galaxy just so I can end the Reaper threat and thrust out my individual ideals. I was put in this position to save everyone and I said I would not sell everyone out to do it. So I must make a choice to stick with what I promised. If you are Renegade then maybe you don't care, but I want to be the one that does not impose some agenda to change everyone. I ask this to you? What did you do? 

jla0644 wrote...But for god's sake, enough grandstanding already. Believe me, we're all real impressed at the virtuous, ethical freedom fighters in this thread. You've made your point: Synthesis is reprehensible and anyone who chose it clearly has no ethics, is a dangerous individual bent on submitting us all to their will and genetically raping us. Keep fighting the good fight, comrades. lol 

I am not grandstanding, this is how I feel, I will not... even if its a video game get behind a concept that is basically against everything that I believe in. Big things have small beginnings and is this horrible concept that must be put down hopefully. We all have no right to force anyone to be what we think they should be. Freedom and individual choice is important to all of us. I wont take it away individuality from you, you should not want to take it away from me. Yes this is an important thing to fight for. Video game or no. My life is my own. No one should ever be able to control it. 

Modifié par akenn312, 12 juin 2012 - 03:29 .

[Rockstarblunt]

OP, why did you beat ME1? Should have let Saren win and stop playing. You lose

[jtav]

Because it isn't what Saren wanted. We aren't slaves; we're equals. And personhood has been retained.

[jla0644]

Taboo-XX wrote...

jla0644 wrote...

akenn312 wrote...

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. 

Did you ask anyone before you made your choice? Please do not say "yes they wanted me to destroy the Reapers", because no one has any idea what that choice brings with it. They might change their minds if they knew what Shepard knew.

If you made peace between the geth and quarians, and they are working together, would the quarians want to you choose Destroy and wipe out the geth?

Would the galaxy, particularly the non-humans, want Shepard to be the new Reaper King/Queen? Would they trust him/her with that power?

Shepard is the one that makes the choice. The game does not allow you to ask anyone's opinion. No matter which color you choose, you are forcing your decision on the galaxy. No matter which you choose, someone is probably going to pissed that you did it. This problem is not exclusive to the green option. Choosing Destroy or Control is no more ethical or unethical than Synthesis. They all involve Shepard forever changing the galaxy without asking anyone about it. If you think merging organics and synthetics is worse than what happens with the other two, then by all means, don't choose it.

But for god's sake, enough grandstanding already. Believe me, we're all real impressed at the virtuous, ethical freedom fighters in this thread. You've made your point: Synthesis is reprehensible and anyone who chose it clearly has no ethics, is a dangerous individual bent on submitting us all to their will and genetically raping us. Keep fighting the good fight, comrades. lol

Stop straw manning the argument. Absolutely ridiculous.

lol pretty sure you have no idea what that word means. It's not a synonym for any argument you'd rather not consider.

[clennon8]

No, he's using the term correctly. There are so many straw men in this thread, that, um... Well, there's a lot of straw men.

[Sisterofshane]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

You force an improvement on someone and it's a bad thing?

Then I guess it's wrong that our governments force us to be vaccinated against dieases as children.

And it's wrong that they force us against our will to go to school and learn.

And wrong that they force us to work, make money, and pay for everything we need.

And wrong that hunger is forced on us by our bodies when we don't eat.

Actually, yes...Yes it is wrong to force another individual to do something against their will.  Take vaccines for example - in America they can't legally FORCE you to get them, or to vaccinate your children.  Why?  Because it doing so can violate the first of ten unalienable rights that we acknowledge for every individual.  There has been great public backlash against the government trying to mandate vaccinations for children (looking at you, Texas).  Vaccines are an example of what happens when the society as a whole naturally comes to an agreement and understanding that it is generally far better to have vaccines than not.  Even then, you have rights to abstain from them due to philosophical and religious disagreement (which is written into law, by the way).  The same thing can be said of every medical treatment - such as a DNR order.  Doctors are not allowed to decide if we should even be alive or not - if we tell them we want to stay dead, they must abide by our wishes.

And while I would make the argument that public education is anything but beneficial (well, it does provide respite care for bewildered parents who can't make sense of or tolerate their children screaming YOLO all of the time:sick:), it technically falls into the same category.  Children are sent to school because we as a society have decided that it is better for them to be there and recieve an "education", as opposed to working in a mill getting black lung or losing digits.  However, it is not forced.  Parents have just as much right to keep their children at home and provide their education themselves.

And nobody is forced to work.  They aren't allowed to throw you in jail because you don't have a job.  Needing to make money to survive is a consequence of having civilization in which people specialize in services and recieve compensation, as opposed to taking care of your own/family's needs.  And that has been thousands of years in the making - again it is a societal shift in viewpoints.

Your last line is funny.

[Bill Casey]

jtav wrote...

Because it isn't what Saren wanted. We aren't slaves; we're equals. And personhood has been retained.

Saren believed he was working with the Reapers...
He didn't want to be a slave...

That's why he was studying the effects of indoctrination on Virmire...

"The transformation from ally to servent is subtle. I will not let it happen to me."

Modifié par Bill Casey, 12 juin 2012 - 03:44 .

[jtav]

"Is submission not preferable to extinction?" He was hoping that if we made ourselves useful they'd spare us.

When I read Retribution, I wanted to have what Grayson did without the crazy. Now I can.

[Bill Casey]

jtav wrote...

"Is submission not preferable to extinction?

And then he goes on to say he won't let it happen to him...

[KeraWildmane]

jtav wrote...

"Is submission not preferable to extinction?" He was hoping that if we made ourselves useful they'd spare us.

When I read Retribution, I wanted to have what Grayson did without the crazy. Now I can.

You want what happened to Grayson? You want to be husk? Even retaining my own mind and free will, I can think of few worse fates. Far better to put a bullet in one's head than to become like that.