1256 réponses à ce sujet

[Tealjaker94]

MisterJB wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...
Sorry. I guess rather than doing what every one of my allies has told me to do, I should have changed everyone's base genetic makeup, without any input from them, because I know what's good for them. That's not self-righteous or arrogant at all.

I call self-righteous your claim that there is only one way to end the war and that discussing the others is a waste of time. Not the choice itself.

And none of Shepard's allies had acess to the new information and possibilities that were given to Shepard. It is outdated information.

 
I don't believe I ever claimed there was only one option. I've said nothing at all about control.

[Taboo]

Populism. Your're damn ****ing right. One man, one choice. You eschew all others in your view of the world. Except in the case of Synthesis, you change all life in a fundamental manner. I think it's right and other people will too because it's good! That idealism is the issue. Your pervertd ideaology.

Fascism is opposed to other cultures and broad learning. Your choice forces people to see new things. They don't have to learn. They are forced. Creativity will diminish due to a new insight. There will be no need for art.

That appeal to xenophobia is pretty bad too. We can't let those Synthetics get too advanced, they might kill us!

The philosophical idealism the stake to the heart here though, you care nothing for the rights of others in the pursuit of your goal is what is matters.

Success is all that matters to you, the cost means nothing.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 11 juin 2012 - 04:01 .

[Ticonderoga117]

Tealjaker94 wrote...
I don't believe I ever claimed there was only one option. I've said nothing at all about control.

Control isn't an option. Not fuve minutes before you told TIM he's a moron for trying to control them. Now suddenly it is? Nope.

[jaktuk]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Let's address what you've done shall we?

Selective Populism
Elimination of Liberal or Mass Democracy
Contempt for the Weak
Voluntarism Idealology
Anti-Modern
A skewed attitude towards equality and hierarchy

"Fascism is a political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism." -Roger Griffin

That statement refers to a rebirth in the terms of the creation of a new state by force.

Wow just wow. Comparing people who chose synthesis to fascists...
No offense dude but you look like a ****ing idiot when you start insulting people who have reasonable arguments but with opinions which are not your own. Besides why would synthesis even eliminate all those things? There is no reason to believe that in a synthesised society people would suddenly lose all their rights and democracy would suddenly disappear.

[Taboo]

The choice is the fascist ideology. Pay attention. I said nothing about the aftermath jaktuk.

[MisterJB]

Tealjaker94 wrote...
I don't believe I ever claimed there was only one option. I've said nothing at all about control.

"Dead Reapers is how we win this...We destroy them or they destroy us."

Absolutes both.

[Sal86]

...Dude, is that really what the labels are?

I'm totally calling myself a Destroyer, that's awesome.

We're like warships

Banner idea! O_O



OP posts like this make me interested to see what will be in the EC DLC. The way you play your Shep sounds incredibly similar to the way i play mine and yet we each came to radically different conclusions come the finale. (it doesn't need to be said but yes both of our interpretations are equally valid)

Modifié par Sal86, 11 juin 2012 - 04:08 .

[Taboo]

One of the goals of Fascism is the opposite of Marxism, social, economical, and political issues will be resolved by a single organic entity exalting the being above all else. It promotes cults of unity and strength through a genetic purity.

That addition to people's bodies to make them see new things makes me pretty angry when I think about it, as the only way to make people see new things is to force it on them. You'd need to change brain chemistry to do that.

[MisterJB]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Populism. Your're damn ****ing right. One man, one choice. You eschew all others in your view of the world. Except in the case of Synthesis, you change all life in a fundamental manner. I think it's right and other people will too because it's good! That idealism is the issue. Your pervertd ideaology.

Populism is the belief the power should be in the hands of the "people" as opposed to a select few. I have zero clue how you think Synthesis represents this.

At best, you could claim it is statism but the same can be said of the other endings.
Shepard doesn't have the option to conduct a democratic vote; and, honestly, I don't believe in the masses resides wisdom; he as to make a choice and he has to do it now. Independently of what he picks, the galaxy will be changed in a fundamental manner.

Fascism is opposed to other cultures and broad learning. Your choice forces people to see new things. They don't have to learn. They are forced. Creativity will diminish due to a new insight. There will be no need for art.

You assume introducing a new perspective will force people to accept it. Our world proves this is wrong.

That appeal to xenophobia is pretty bad too. We can't let those Synthetics get too advanced, they might kill us!

Technologically superior civilizations dominate inferior ones. This is not xenophobia, it's a fact.

The philosophical idealism the stake to the heart here though, you care nothing for the rights of others in the pursuit of your goal is what is matters.

Success is all that matters to you, the cost means nothing.

The cost means much but, sometimes, sacrifices are necessary.

[Tealjaker94]

MisterJB wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...
I don't believe I ever claimed there was only one option. I've said nothing at all about control.

"Dead Reapers is how we win this...We destroy them or they destroy us."

Absolutes both.

They are. But those are both simply quotes from the game that support my view, not necessarily an expression of personal belief. I see an attraction to control as it avoids the casualties of destroy, but I don't trust myself with that kind of power. It still is a valid option in my eyes. 

[General User]

jtav wrote...
Except it's not just about me. I've been handed an earthshaking revelation about my enemy. The Reapers are controlled by the Catalyst. Not led. Controlled. They have, at worst, diminished consequences for their actions, and may be de facto indoctrinated themselves. They are victims. Killing them isn't justice. It's vengeance. A couple of major choices excepted, I'm a Paragon. I've tried throughout the series to steer people away from vengeance and offer redemption where I could. If I can't offer my enemy mercy, then I become a hypocrite. No matter what I do, the Catalyst is gone, either because I replaced him or because the Citadel blew up. The one responsible for the mass genocides has been dealt with. And the Reapers leave. They are free to do as they please. The geth who are now well and truly alive will live on and hopefully there will be true peace.

Releasing thousands of Reapers into a galaxy that is already hanging on by the thinnest of threads isn't mercy, and it isn't forgiveness.  It's madness.

jtav wrote...
And what about the life that I fought so hard to save? I just altered them in a fundamental way. How dare I? Well, first, humility and seeking consensus really isn't an option here. All choices thrust an enormous change on life in the galaxy. The death of every single synthetic who has chosen to fight by my side. Usurping the power of the closest thing the universe has to a god.

The Catalyst doesn't even understand the creatures it is attempting to control and actually has to get one of them to make it's decisions for it, and even submits itself to that same creature for judgment!  By no stretch of the imagination is it anything like a god.

jtav wrote...
I have to choose and choose alone. I'm a Paragon, so killing synthetics when there are other options on the table is right out. Which means the Reapers are still going to be around. Free or under my control, they're still vastly more advanced than organics or the newly-ascended geth. Not only that, whenever I choose it is going to destroy the relay network (except maybe Control-- evidence is contradictory here). Things are going to be very rough for a long time. I choose the option that I believe will give life the best chance going forward. This whole partly-synthetic deal has worked out fairly well for Shepard, with enhanced strength and resistance to poison, and he seems to be the template for going forward.

Shepard is not, and never was, "partly synthetic."  Shepard was organic with synthetic prostheses.  Big difference.  Gadgets added to a person's body (all of which, btw, were obviously available before Synthesis) do not constitute a "new framework."

jtav wrote...
And if I the player go back to the leaked script, the fact that the Catalyst is trying to stop the technological singularity is made explicit.

"Technological singularity" is an unproveable hypothetical event that may or may not occur.

jtav wrote...
So Synthesis must make it possible for organics to keep up with synthetics. Since the Reapers are still out there, I consider that a very bad thing. And just in case someone decides to create something else along similar lines,organics can contend with them as equals. No more techno-gods cowing us and using technology we can't hope to understand. And we didn't do it by killing them. We took their power for our own and now they must recognize us as equals.

Whether Prometheus gives them fire or not, they're still men.  All the people are still the same people there were before Synthesis, they just have a new... "toolbox."  And, if they aren't, then Synthesis really is a monstrous mutilation.

Modifié par General User, 11 juin 2012 - 04:25 .

[jla0644]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Yes, the truth in the name of a forced progress. An aesthetic so vile it begs the question of who was doing what when they thought of it.

That romantic view of bodies, that aspiration for power, that inherent belief that you supersede everyone has roots in a fascist ideology. It does not surprise me that people who favor Cerberus like Synthesis, as both share similar traits.

Getting a little more brazen in your insinuations, I see. Moved from insinuating that the idea behind Synthesis = fascism, to insinuating the people who choose Synthesis are "vile" people.

I do hope that the irony of your intolerance of other viewpoints on this topic, while you wail and moan about fascism, is not lost on you.

Also, you're still making the mistake of assuming everyone plays their Shepard like you do, using their own values and ethics as Shepard's. Some people intentionally play evil characters. Seeing as how it's all make believe, it doesn't necessarily mean those people are evil themselves.

Taboo-XX wrote...

Let's address what you've done shall we?

Selective Populism
Elimination of Liberal or Mass Democracy
Contempt for the Weak
Voluntarism Idealology
Anti-Modern
A skewed attitude towards equality and hierarchy

Now I'm beginning to suspect you're just trolling. It's easier to think that than to believe this post was serious.

Selective populism? Whatever. Utter nonsense.

Elimination of democracy? How? Why would Synthesis affect this in the slightest? Please explain.

Contempt for the weak? What are you even on about? You having a laugh? You seem to think Synthesis radically changes every single aspect of a person, down to their personality and thoughts. If you want to believe that, go right ahead, but that is YOUR headcanon. There is nothing in the game to suggest this is what occurs.

And more importantly, the people who choose Synthesis are not doing so with your understanding of Synthesis. I do not think you understand this, otherwise, why would you be so personally offended by everyone who makes a positive thread for Synthesis?

Also, I've asked this before and never got an answer: do you really think Bioware intended Synthesis to mean what you have interpreted it to mean?

[Taboo]

The ideal of populism. Pay attention. The "people" will be able to make their new choices based upon your gift.You are glamorizing the people ability to make new decisions based upon your choice. Pay attention.

Pay attention to xenophobia too. You are enforcing the policy based upon your choice. That fear you mention of Synthetics is disproven once the Geth accept that they can coexist with Organics. Once again, you Synthesize beings to become equal with Synthetics because you fear destruction more than anything. You're afraid of other beings.

And that sacrifice, that sacrifice you mention. Do you have any idea who said that quote ANY idea? That success is the only thing that matters, and that good and evil mean nothing. Do you have ANY idea?

[Taboo]

Pay. Attention. I will state one last time. One last time. The choice is the issue. I said nothing of the aftermath. YOU are assigning this meaning to my posts, not I.

[CautionLust]

because that seems to be the closest target and I hate the slow crawling so much...

[Taboo]

The choice eliminates democracy. It overlooks the weak. You force things, all things in a promotion of your new place for the people. A populist view. Glamorized because they will have new ways of life. Where they not perfect before?

The choice is the issue.

[MisterJB]

Tealjaker94 wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...
I don't believe I ever claimed there was only one option. I've said nothing at all about control.

"Dead Reapers is how we win this...We destroy them or they destroy us."

Absolutes both.

They are. But those are both simply quotes from the game that support my view, not necessarily an expression of personal belief. I see an attraction to control as it avoids the casualties of destroy, but I don't trust myself with that kind of power. It still is a valid option in my eyes. 

That reminds me of a joke.
"No, madam. Simply because you dress like a prostitute, does not mean you are one. But you can see why I would be confused."

[Taboo]

Power corrupts. It always does. People will always abuse it. Always.

Give any one species too much rope and they'll **** it up.

Roger Waters sang that, and he was right. It doesn't matter if you're Muslim, Christian, Mullah or Pope. Preacher or Poet.

[MisterJB]

You see our preocupation regarding synthetics then.

[jtav]

Power is a neutral force and always depends on its wielder. And every single choice imposes Shepard's will on the galaxy. Every single one. And there is no possibility to take a poll here. I have just as much right to make this choice as I did to cure the genophage or leave the Council to die. I did the best I could with the hand I was dealt. Because not choosing is extinction.

[Taboo]

MisterJB wrote...

You see our preocupation regarding synthetics then.

Yes. But I won't enact Synthesis out of fear and hubris either.

Synthetics deserve the same amount of consideration that organics do. Someone is always going to surpass someone else regardless of what happens. Given the propensity for organic hostility, I'd imagine a great deal of out issues here comes from a misunderstanding, one that can be resolved via compromise and talk, not Synthesis. Coexist, not Co-adapt.

[jtav]

I'm not choosing Synthesis out of fear. I'm choosing it out of optimism that tomorrow can be better than today. We can use the energy of the Crucible to become better than we--organic and synthetic--were before. Not for destruction or to assume power.

[Taboo]

That's the issue. All impose a will. All are actions out of fear. All have authoritarian overtones. Only one creates a new world. That's the issue.

I don't think any of the choices are ethical, but I cannot tolerate the shameless promotion that Synthesis gets. It's romanticized to the nth degree.

I will never justify Destroy, ever. I choose to live with the consequences, but only because the Geth are already dead, a victim of my failures in ME2. I have a great deal of weight on my shoulders. The galaxy will remain as it is, untouched and prone to chaos. I will enact a force of will temporarily, but only to remove the opposing force, the other two choices leave the galaxy in a new state, which I find unacceptable.

I will not intervene past what is necessary.

[MisterJB]

I can easily label it as necessary. Without either Control or Synthesis, synthetics will destroy all organics.

Ultimately, I don't see anything sacred about the world that would make changing it immoral or unnaceptable. I will enact a force of will temporarily to change it to a state I consider to be an improvement.
You can call it authoritarianism but that is but a word that possesses no inherent value. Shepard is not in a position to conduct a democratic vote to decide the next course of action.

[The Night Mammoth]

MisterJB wrote...

I can easily label it as necessary. Without either Control or Synthesis, synthetics will destroy all organics.

Prove it. 

Ultimately, I don't see anything sacred about the world that would make changing it immoral or unnaceptable. I will enact a force of will temporarily to change it to a state I consider to be an improvement.

Yes, that you consider to be an improvement, based on the words of the enemy. Hence the issues. 

You can call it authoritarianism but that is but a word that possesses no inherent value. Shepard is not in a position to conduct a democratic vote to decide the next course of action.

She's in a position not the choose it. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 11 juin 2012 - 05:52 .