1256 réponses à ce sujet

[clennon8]

Yes, all the endings suck balls. But at least Destroy is defensible. All you need to say in defense of Destroy is "brutal calculus of war," and discussion over.

You might even be able to mount some sort of defense for Control, although I think the idea of grabbing two plasma lamps and disintegrating yourself in the hope of controlling the Reapers from beyond the grave is pretty dumb. But, whatever. I don't have special vitriol for that choice.

Synthesis, on the other hand? Well, I've said my piece, more than once.

Modifié par clennon8, 12 juin 2012 - 05:17 .

[Taboo]

That's the trap the Synthesis fans are in. It either changes people's brain chemistry or has no effect on the issue at hand. You can't have both.

Both are unacceptable. Take your pick, I'll wait.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 12 juin 2012 - 05:17 .

[o Ventus]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

In much the same fashion that Synth-lovers headcanon or just make up reasons as to why Synthesis is good, just like jtav has done here.

So you agree that anti-Synthesis is invalid too for making sh*t up as reasons why it's bad?

Not at all. I still haven't seen a Synthesis supporter give solid, irrefutable evidence (Both scientific or social) that Synthesis does anything to stop the Reapers or a tech singularity. Hell, I haven't even seen two different Synthesis supporters give consistent reasoning. 1 tends to support 1 idea, while another doesn't and supports another.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

I was wrong, you're not 10 years old, you're 7.

Remember that.

"Get a reality-check. People with political power make decisions affecting people's health, well-being, life and death on an everyday basis."

Yes, and so?

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Democracy is not mutually exclusive with Fascism or Communism. The
latter are policies that can be implemented into democratic societies.
Plenty of fascist and communist principles exist in democracies today.

If the argument is Democracy always being better than Dictatorship, I'd
argue otherwise. Democracy is only viable if that society's populace is
not stupid. Political leaders in democracies support policies that are
popular, what people want. But if the people are stupid, what's popular
won't often be what's best. Politicians trying to do what's best, but
not popular, in a democracy will not last long.

Why hasn't democracy taken hold where the US tries to implement it? Lots of
reasons, but I'd say chief among those reasons is that those people need
to be lead, they are not capable of leading themselves.

Look at the krogan in this game. Wrex is basically a dictator, but what he's
doing is probably best for the krogan people. If they decided things
democratically, you'd probably end up with Wreav's policies, which are
pretty awful for the krogan people.

First of all, the offer was to find a post in THAT thread where you walked in and claimed that I was endorsing my supposed dictatorship. But we'll bend the rules a little bit just for you.

Now then, you've found a post where I claim that democracy is not the ideal for every culture, in which place dictatorship is a solid solution. So, still not meeting my criteria of trying to prove that I want to impose my own universal dictatorship on the galaxy.

You either have ******-poor reading comprehension or are clutching at straws in a very desperate attempt to prove yourself. Or both!

My post was also referring to other posts you were making
that day or the day before. Your posts are there, they exist.

Well I'm still waiting to see it.

So, I can't prove my negatives, and pro-synthites have to resort to ignoring in-game canon and inserting their own, unprovable assertions to muster any semblance of a defense. What have we learned? It's all indefensible. BioWare says it's a "winning" ending, but it's a stupid concept that cannot be defended.

Well no one here is talking about how good/bad the ending is, so take that convo in a relevant thread.

At least ALL of my questions are grounded in actual queries of what is actually happening. Very few have any actual response outside of hand-waving saying "it'll be ok, it must be - look at the silent 5 second clip: they're happyhappyhappy!"

At least that's some concrete evidence, something that anti-Synthesis does not have.

I might still be overestimating your age now that I think about it.

And you're getting dominated by someone you think is less than 7 years old? How sad.

[Taboo]

The only thing that would make this worse for the Synthesis people is if it really does mix DNA.

You'll NEVER live that down.

[lillitheris]

Taboo-XX wrote...

That's the trap the Synthesis fans are in. It either changes people's brain chemistry or has no effect on the issue at hand. You can't have both.

Both are unacceptable. Take your pick, I'll wait.

I don’t agree that altering brain chemistry is unacceptable — it’s a hard decision to make, with a completely unknown effect.

I just don’t think it’s acceptable to straddle both sides of the fence, or to obfuscate it into some kind of nonissue.

But what I’m more irritated about is that every single one of these ‘Synthesis’ theories is 80% headcanon and has nothing to do with the game.

[Taboo]

Also, stop presenting fallacies. The ethical ramifications are in the choice.

Don't try and worm your way out of this.

[lillitheris]

Destroy is the best option because it doesn’t destroy the geth, EDI, nor the relays. The Reapers are completely AIs, there’s nothing organic about them. Everybody survives, woo hoo!

I’ve only made one or two small additions to the Destroy presented in the game, surely there’s no problem with that?

[teh DRUMPf!!]

o Ventus wrote...

Not at all. I still haven't seen a Synthesis supporter give solid, irrefutable evidence (Both scientific or social) BLAH BLAH BLAH...

Quit dodging the question.

Does anti-Synth have solid, irrefutable evidence that the change is one for the worse?

The answer is no. (I took it upon myself to answer since I know you won't).

[Taboo]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Not at all. I still haven't seen a Synthesis supporter give solid, irrefutable evidence (Both scientific or social) BLAH BLAH BLAH...

Quit dodging the question.

Does anti-Synth have solid, irrefutable evidence that the change is one for the worse?

The answer is no. (I took it upon myself to answer since I know you won't).

STOP. BEING. FALLACIOUS.

The point is the choice.

STOP. BULL****TING.

[clennon8]

antares_sublight wrote...

jtav wrote...

Bodily sovereignty is important, but the right is not absolute. Granted, it would take extraordinary circumstances to justify it, but we have those. I'll let my belief in "thou shall not kill" override my desire to obtain consent.

Synthesis fundamentally alters the organization of life, environment and inter-species relationships. By choosing Synthesis, you are killing countless species across the galaxy by instantly radically altering their evolutionary niche and forcing their extinction. You are killing far more life than just the geth.

In the feeble hope of perhaps introducing something new and interesting to this stale debate, I would like to see ieldra or jtav or any other Synth supporter offer up a response to the point above.

[jtav]

Let me put it as bluntly as I can: I consider radically altering life perfectly acceptable as long as the situation is grave enough and personhood is retained. I do not consider killing allied people when there are other options on the table justified.

[o Ventus]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Not at all. I still haven't seen a Synthesis supporter give solid, irrefutable evidence (Both scientific or social) BLAH BLAH BLAH...

Quit dodging the question.

Does anti-Synth have solid, irrefutable evidence that the change is one for the worse?

The answer is no. (I took it upon myself to answer since I know you won't).

No one is debating that it's a change for the worse. Just that it's stupid and scientifically impossible.

If you'd like, I can present a LOT of evidence for that.

[jtav]

clennon8 wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

jtav wrote...

Bodily sovereignty is important, but the right is not absolute. Granted, it would take extraordinary circumstances to justify it, but we have those. I'll let my belief in "thou shall not kill" override my desire to obtain consent.

Synthesis fundamentally alters the organization of life, environment and inter-species relationships. By choosing Synthesis, you are killing countless species across the galaxy by instantly radically altering their evolutionary niche and forcing their extinction. You are killing far more life than just the geth.

In the feeble hope of perhaps introducing something new and interesting to this stale debate, I would like to see ieldra or jtav or any other Synth supporter offer up a response to the point above.

Assertion without evidence. Contra the tone of the ending. It ddoesn't wipe out life for the same reason Destroy doesn't turn the end into Arrival on a massive scale. If you want an in-universe explanation, Synthesis allows them to alter (or alters for them in the case of non-sentient life) their niche so they can survive.

[clennon8]

jtav wrote...

Let me put it as bluntly as I can: I consider radically altering life perfectly acceptable as long as the situation is grave enough and personhood is retained. I do not consider killing allied people when there are other options on the table justified.

So, you're okay with any other chain reaction extinctions triggered by Synthesis?  Or are you just dodging that issue entirely?

[Taboo]

They don't need Synthesis to survive.

People are fine without it. I'm fairly certain that people aren't turning into paste without Synthesis.

[clennon8]

jtav wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

jtav wrote...

Bodily sovereignty is important, but the right is not absolute. Granted, it would take extraordinary circumstances to justify it, but we have those. I'll let my belief in "thou shall not kill" override my desire to obtain consent.

Synthesis fundamentally alters the organization of life, environment and inter-species relationships. By choosing Synthesis, you are killing countless species across the galaxy by instantly radically altering their evolutionary niche and forcing their extinction. You are killing far more life than just the geth.

In the feeble hope of perhaps introducing something new and interesting to this stale debate, I would like to see ieldra or jtav or any other Synth supporter offer up a response to the point above.

Assertion without evidence. Contra the tone of the ending. It ddoesn't wipe out life for the same reason Destroy doesn't turn the end into Arrival on a massive scale. If you want an in-universe explanation, Synthesis allows them to alter (or alters for them in the case of non-sentient life) their niche so they can survive.

Wait a minute.  You're going with "assertion without evidence?" after telling us that Synthesis heals everything and gives us all super powers?  Oh, wow, that is rich.  I am having a good laugh over here.  Thank you.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

o Ventus wrote...

No one is debating that it's a change for the worse. Just that it's stupid and scientifically impossible.

If you'd like, I can present a LOT of evidence for that.

The person who I directed my post at WAS debating that point. antares_sublight going all !!!!AHHH WE'RE BEING MADE PUPPETS INTO AHHH!!!!

And Taboo seriously STFU. You always freak out about things no one is even talking about, like me accusing you of being a Naz1.

Be back in 20.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 12 juin 2012 - 05:39 .

[clennon8]

Those dreaded two words are bubbling back up into my consciousness. I can't help it. You know which two words I'm talking about.

[o Ventus]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

No one is debating that it's a change for the worse. Just that it's stupid and scientifically impossible.

If you'd like, I can present a LOT of evidence for that.

The person who I directed my post at WAS debating that point. antares_sublight going all !!!!AHHH WE'RE BEING MADE PUPPETS INTO AHHH!!!!

And Taboo seriously STFU. You always freak out about things no one is even talking about, like me accusing you of being a Naz1.

Be back in 20.

And? You're replying to me, and I only brought up the scientific facepalms brought upon by Synthesis.

You still want your evidence?

[jla0644]

o Ventus wrote...

In much the same fashion that Synth-lovers headcanon or just make up reasons as to why Synthesis is good, just like jtav has done here.

That is all anyone can do, with any of the endings.

They all suck. The entire ending sucks. It sucked before you were given your 3 choices, it sucked after you were given the choices, and it sucked after you made your choice. There is no way to objectively and definitvely prove that one is better or more ethical than the others. It's all a matter of opinion. No matter what you choose, you are forever changing the galaxy without getting anyone's consent. There is no way around this fact, for any of the choices. This argument that Synthesis haters keep harping on applies to all three endings.

As bad as the ending is, the one thing Bioware did right was give us a choice of how we wanted to **** over the galaxy. If you don't like Synthesis (which I can understand, only 1 one of my Sheps has taken it), you don't have to choose it. You're free to commit genocide or become a Reaper, whichever one you think is more ethical, lol.

I will never understand why some of you, and you know who you are, cannot tolerate the fact that others choose not to take Synthesis in the direction you took it. If you're so damn concerned about choice and free will, let them have theirs without calling them fascists for it.  Does it really hurt you that they wanted to take it in a positive direction, that they were able to get something positive out of this trainwreck of an ending? Why does it offend you if they do that? It does not affect you in the slightest. You're only coming off as intolerant and self-righteous. And some of you are becoming quite unhinged in your hatred.

Modifié par jla0644, 12 juin 2012 - 05:48 .

[jtav]

But at least mine are in keeping with the tone clen.

Here's my reasoning: All three endings are supposed to be good. Catalyst wants to stop a singularity--that is, he wants it to be impossible for synthetics to treat organics the way we treat animals. This requires an alteration of organic life. So, how might we be changed so that they can't surpass us? Maybe the ability to self-modify as consciously and rapidly as they do. Seems reasonable.

[Leafs43]

jtav wrote...

But at least mine are in keeping with the tone clen.

Here's my reasoning: All three endings are supposed to be good. Catalyst wants to stop a singularity--that is, he wants it to be impossible for synthetics to treat organics the way we treat animals. This requires an alteration of organic life. So, how might we be changed so that they can't surpass us? Maybe the ability to self-modify as consciously and rapidly as they do. Seems reasonable.

The catalyst wants synthetics to treat organics nice so he created the reapers......


wut?

[akenn312]

jtav wrote...

Let me put it as bluntly as I can: I consider radically altering life perfectly acceptable as long as the situation is grave enough and personhood is retained. I do not consider killing allied people when there are other options on the table justified.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
You can't violate everyone so you can save one group. Especially without their knowledge.

Everyone should not have to pay a price just because of one groups possible fate. No matter what you think is best for them. Even the result argument makes no sense, before the choice you have no idea what the result would be, you just put blind faith in a child of light who previously came up with a solution to kill organics every 500,000 years. That's more reason to not make none of the choices at all.

The problem is the choice you pick it will always boil down to that.

Again

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of one select few, allied or not.

You can't play god with everyone just to save one group of people.

Modifié par akenn312, 12 juin 2012 - 06:23 .

[clennon8]

@jtav: Look, if you and ieldra can put all that effort into explaining what Synthesis does, then I and others should be able to put some effort into poking holes in it. Trust me, I've read ieldra's 5000-word wall of text. Frankly, we're doing you a favor by even discussing it at that level, instead of once again beating you over the head about the morality issue that casts a huge shadow over the whole thing. If you're just going to hand-wave every possible negative consequence of choosing Synthesis with more space magic, then what are we doing here, really? We can't talk to you about the morality of the choice, and we can't talk to you about real world consequences that don't fit your 'No one dies and everyone lives happily ever after' paradigm. You just want your fantasy. Fine, have it. But I'm not going to share it.