1256 réponses à ce sujet

[Taboo]

The problem is the choice. The choice. The choice. The thematic material is in the choice.

The choice.

I cannot stress this in a more blunt manner.

[clennon8]

I'm with you Taboo, but the other side has decided theme be damned, morality be damned, I know what's best for everyone. Step aside Reapers, let me take over!

The two sides of this debate are not inches or feet away from agreement. More like miles. Light years, maybe.

[Heeden]

akenn312 wrote...

Nice try but the meaning of this choice still has in it the basic concept that it's okay to do whatever you want to people if you think you know whats good for them. Video game or not it puts out a message that it's okay to do something like this. Which it is not.

It's definitely a grey area but it's the only choice that doesn't involve the destruction of billions of sentient beings or a single person taking control of the most destructive force in the galaxy.

Pro-Synthesis enders are saying now people with handicaps are weak and need to be fixed, that people with any perceived weakness should be changed even if they don't want it. These are bad seeds to plant in peoples minds.

That isn't implicit in the synthesis ending, my interpretation is more akin to turning on the lights. Some people may prefer to remain in the dark but when there is a real chance of injury or death stumbling around in the gloom it would be irresponsible not to make that choice.

I don't think Bioware or any of you saw it at first, but you see it now and don't care which is a little more disturbing. It actually makes me feel sorry for you in a way. Just to win a game you pick a choice that would violate consent and force something on everyone without their knowledge. Saying it's just a game is irrelevant and just a way to make yourself think it's ok to get behind something like this.

It's called science fiction. Space operas on this scale in particular often explore the philisophical implications of such monumentous decisions being left in the hands of small groups or even individuals. Whether it is right or wrong for the individual to be making this choice is not the point here - quite clearly either fate or coincidence (more likely the two of them working together, the sneaky buggers) has manipulated Shepard to be in this position. All choices have a grey area depending on your character and interpretation of the ME universe.

[akenn312]

Heeden wrote...
It's definitely a grey area but it's the only choice that doesn't involve the destruction of billions of sentient beings or a single person taking control of the most destructive force in the galaxy. 

No this is a violation of rights, nothing is gray about it, once you make the choice you have completely violated everyones right to continue in their original form. Not one person has given you any consent to change this. They have given consent for you to  destroy the Reapers or all die fighting them. The choice is the key issue

Heeden wrote...
That isn't implicit in the synthesis ending, my interpretation is more akin to turning on the lights. Some people may prefer to remain in the dark but when there is a real chance of injury or death stumbling around in the gloom it would be irresponsible not to make that choice. 

This is why it's a bad seed to plant, it allows you to romanticize forcing people into some type of perfection is okay. The results are not the key issue with this, again it's the choice to play god that should not be ignored. Saying people that want to remain who they are as individuals should be forced into a better enlightenment is still a violation of their basic human rights. None of us should play god and do this. This is the basic foundation to why we have rights. Again the choice is always a violation to force people to do what you interpret to be for their own good.

Heeden wrote..
It's called science fiction. Space operas on this scale in particular often explore the philisophical implications of such monumentous decisions being left in the hands of small groups or even individuals. Whether it is right or wrong for the individual to be making this choice is not the point here - quite clearly either fate or coincidence (more likely the two of them working together, the sneaky buggers) has manipulated Shepard to be in this position. All choices have a grey area depending on your character and interpretation of the ME universe.

No, the point is that it is wrong for a single individual to make that choice. That is the most important part of this. Sci-fi is not an excuse, a violation of consent in Sci-Fi is still a violation of consent. Just because now you get to dream up everyone having cool green flashy parts is not an excuse to romanticize this ideal. Again I'm not saying you can't invent a way for people to have green flashy parts. You just cannot force your green flashy parts on all of us. No means no. If one person objects to your green parts and you still force it on them you are the one in the wrong.


The choice is the core issue with this .

Modifié par akenn312, 13 juin 2012 - 02:09 .

[Heeden]

akenn312 wrote...
No this is a violation of rights, nothing is gray about it, once you make the choice you have completely violated everyones right to continue in their original form. Not one person has given you any consent to change this. They have given consent for you to  destroy the Reapers or all die fighting them. The choice is the key issue

Synthesis is a violation of rights, Destruction is a violation of rights, Control is a violation of rights. There is no unambiguous, morally "right" choice to be made; you have to weigh the pros and cons of each.

This is why it's a bad seed to plant, it allows you to romanticize forcing people into some type of perfection is okay. The results are not the key issue with this, again it's the choice to play god that should not be ignored. Saying people that want to remain who they are as individuals should be forced into a better enlightenment is still a violation of their basic human rights. None of us should play god and do this. This is the basic foundation to why we have rights. Again the choice is always a violation to force people to do what you interpret to be for their own good.

I'm confused as to what you mean by "some type of perfection". Also you have to remember that your one choice applies to everyone in the galaxy - if a few people would prefer to remain in the dark is it fair that everyone has to?

No, the point is that it is wrong for a single individual to make that choice. That is the most important part of this. Sci-fi is not an excuse, a violation of consent in Sci-Fi is still a violation of consent. Just because now you get to dream up everyone having cool green flashy parts is not an excuse to romanticize this ideal. Again I'm not saying you can't invent a way for people to have green flashy parts. You just cannot force your green flashy parts on all of us. No means no. If one person objects to your green parts and you still force it on them you are the one in the wrong.

The choice is the core issue with this .

A violation of consent occurs whichever option you choose, or you have the choice to not choose and allow the harvest to continue.

[jla0644]

akenn312 wrote...

jla0644 wrote...


lol, and hatred of a meaningless choice in a videogame has claimed the rationality of yet another poster.

If you don't like the idea behind it, great. You can pretend it
doesn't exist,  you'll never have to choose it. But this idea that it is
somehow dangerous, that people who choose it are somehow budding
fascists who approve of violating human rights and forcing their will on
people, is competely and totally insane. You are trying to turn this
into something more abstract and general, instead of what it is -- a
video game, a means of entertainment, not a personal statement of one's
political beliefs.

Challenge and discuss all you want. But that's not what you and the other haters are doing. You are trying to prove that your opinion of Synthesis is the only correct one, the only one that a moral and virtuous person could possibly have. And it isn't possible to do that.

The "message and the blind acceptance of this message"? WTF are you even talking about? The endings were horrible. Of course people are trying to make the ending better, even if it's just in their heads. Who are you to tell them they are wrong for doing that, just because you don't care for the choice?

Taboo will never answer this question, so maybe you will, since you seem to be suggesting the same things he does: do you really believe that when Bioware was coming up with the three choices, that they intended Synthesis to be all about violating free will, about fascism, about making life sterile and homogenous, about agreeing with Saren and Harbinger? Do you really think that's what they meant Synthesis to be? Do you really think the people who prefer Synthesis over the other choices are choosing it because they support these things? If your answer is "no", then all this talk about it being dangerous is utter nonsense. If your answer is "yes", then I'm not sure what to say..

IMO, Shepard and Shepard alone is forced to make a decision that will forever change the galaxy. Shepard cannot consult anyone or ask anyone what they want. The galaxy will forever have to live what that choice, red, blue, or green. The galaxy gets no choice, no matter what Shepard decides. If he chooses red, a race of fully evolved AI allies will be wiped out. Maybe in the name of avoiding genocide, in the name of achieving peace, Shepard is willing to accept merging organic and synthetic, even without their consent. If that's not acceptable to your Shepard, if killing the geth is more accpetable, or if becoming the most powerful being in the galaxy is more acceptable, then you have your choice. It's not as black and white as you're making it. You're doing something unethical whichever way you go. The question is which is more acceptable to you.

But please, stop pretending like you're on some great moral crusade to save us from Bioware and all the peope they have converted to their ways through Synthesis.

Nice try but the meaning of this choice still has in it the basic concept that it's okay to do whatever you want to people if you think you know whats good for them. Video game or not it puts out a message that it's okay to do something like this. Which it is not. Pro-Synthesis enders are saying now people with handicaps are weak and need to be fixed, that people with any perceived weakness should be changed even if they don't want it. These are bad seeds to plant in peoples minds. 

My answer to your question is not a simple no or yes. 

I don't think Bioware or any of you saw it at first, but you see it now and don't care which is a little more disturbing. It actually makes me feel sorry for you in a way. Just to win a game you pick a choice that would violate consent and force something on everyone without their knowledge. Saying it's just a game is irrelevant and just a way to make yourself think it's ok to get behind something like this.

The fact that you are trying to defend this thought process because this is just a game and the endings are horrible is pretty much where I say WTF. 

Also I am just pointing out what this violation implies.
You can have your sweet little ascension I just think you are a tyrant for doing it. 

LMAO, "Biowarez putz fashizm n ther game and I choze it, so I guess fashizm is ok.  I can haz dictatur nao?". That is what your are saying. Do you not feel a little bit ridiculous about it?

I, nor anyone else that I have noticed, is defending the idea that violating basic human rights is a good thing. You can kindly get over yourself now.

[PsyrenY]

akenn312 wrote...

This is why it's a bad seed to plant, it allows you to romanticize forcing people into some type of perfection is okay. The results are not the key issue with this, again it's the choice to play god that should not be ignored. Saying people that want to remain who they are as individuals should be forced into a better enlightenment is still a violation of their basic human rights. None of us should play god and do this. This is the basic foundation to why we have rights. Again the choice is always a violation to force people to do what you interpret to be for their own good.

Suppose you have the choice to not use your upgrades, and live as you have before?
Suppose further that a faction of like-minded individuals use their upgrades and develop a way to reverse the process on themselves, along with anyone who wants to join them?
If either or both of these are true, would it still be so heinous?

[Taboo]

Devolving is the first sign of losing an argument. The elements are there whether you like them or not. I seriously doubt Bioware intended it to be interpreted that way. But it has.

Also, you missed the conversation yesterday where we were told that consent didn't matter. People in here are entirely incapable of defending the choice. Entirely. They care nothing for the people, only success.

[jla0644]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The problem is the choice. The choice. The choice. The thematic material is in the choice.

The choice.

I cannot stress this in a more blunt manner.

False. You cannot separate the choice from the consequences.

If all you care about is the choice, then what is your problem? You face a moral and ethical dilemma, no matter which option you choose.

[jtav]

If anything, I want to give people more choice than they had before. I'm one of those handicapped people akenn is so determined to defend. My disease doesn't make me better or nobler. It limits me. It is not a good thing. And unlike issues of race and orientation, the problem is not one of privilege. My life is harder because I can't walk or get out if bed on my own. My choice of college and career was limited. If I could force a cure I would. I can't but if I can plausibly imagine Synthesis brings physical improvement (cf Paul Grayson) without undue cost, then I will make that choice.

[o Ventus]

jtav wrote...

If anything, I want to give people more choice than they had before. I'm one of those handicapped people akenn is so determined to defend. My disease doesn't make me better or nobler. It limits me. It is not a good thing. And unlike issues of race and orientation, the problem is not one of privilege. My life is harder because I can't walk or get out if bed on my own. My choice of college and career was limited. If I could force a cure I would. I can't but if I can plausibly imagine Synthesis brings physical improvement (cf Paul Grayson) without undue cost, then I will make that choice.

So what about the other trillion or so people who don't have the magical AIDS-cancer that you seem to suffer from?

[Taboo]

jla0644 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

The problem is the choice. The choice. The choice. The thematic material is in the choice.

The choice.

I cannot stress this in a more blunt manner.

False. You cannot separate the choice from the consequences.

If all you care about is the choice, then what is your problem? You face a moral and ethical dilemma, no matter which option you choose.

Pay attention. The thematic material I have been discussing is in the choice. I was referring to the politcal aspects. Go back a few pages.

The choice is the act of hubris. Death is the final insult. If one person kills themselves because of the choice, that death is one your shoulders. If one thousand kill themselves it is on your shoulders.

If ten thousand people live unhappy lives because of it it is your fault.

You have a choice. Either some people will be unhappy, or you force everyone to be happy. You can't have both.

[Taboo]

jtav wrote...

If anything, I want to give people more choice than they had before. I'm one of those handicapped people akenn is so determined to defend. My disease doesn't make me better or nobler. It limits me. It is not a good thing. And unlike issues of race and orientation, the problem is not one of privilege. My life is harder because I can't walk or get out if bed on my own. My choice of college and career was limited. If I could force a cure I would. I can't but if I can plausibly imagine Synthesis brings physical improvement (cf Paul Grayson) without undue cost, then I will make that choice.

And here is exactly what I've been waiting for. Right here. A legitimate reason for doing so. Right here. I still don't like it, but this is the first time I've ever felt like someone was not doing it out of a sense of hubris.

[akenn312]

Heeden wrote...
Synthesis is a violation of rights, Destruction is a violation of rights, Control is a violation of rights. There is no unambiguous, morally "right" choice to be made; you have to weigh the pros and cons of each.

Synthesis is a choice that violates everyones rights by choosing to play god, Destroy is a violation of the playing god on the Geth's rights and EDI's but not the galaxy, Control well...I don't see how control is a violation. More trying to take over a uncontrollable power.  Either way I will not choose to violate everyones rights without their consent just because the result ends up in some sort of perceived future advantage. I find the choice more immoral than the other two. You can choose it though violate away. Impose your will on everyone in the galaxy.

I'm confused as to what you mean by "some type of perfection". Also you have to remember that your one choice applies to everyone in the galaxy - if a few people would prefer to remain in the dark is it fair that everyone has to? 

When I talk about "some type of perfection" it relates to the argument made that the reason it is okay to make this choice is because everyone will become a prefect man machine race of beings. Doesn't matter you cant force them without consent.

There! Do you see it? Look closely at what you say here:

"If a few people would prefer to remain in the dark is it fair that everyone has to?"
You are saying those individuals are holding everyone back. See how that is a bad road to go down? Individuality does not hold anyone back. People have the right to stay individuals. You can't say a person that wants to stay organic is holding us all back. That person has a inalienable right to have that desire to live the way he wants and to believe in how he should feel. No one should force him to be something they want and he cannot force them to be what he wants.

 But also you never even asked anyone what they wanted you choose it for them. That's even worse.

A violation of consent occurs whichever option you choose, or you have the choice to not choose and allow the harvest to continue. 

Then again, choose your galactic violation and squish away. Have a good time becoming the Reapers. Didn't they start imposing their ideals in the galaxy without anyones consent or knowledge? 

Actually they still are kinda doing that.

Now Shep just pushes the button for them.

Modifié par akenn312, 13 juin 2012 - 03:05 .

[jtav]

o Ventus wrote...

jtav wrote...

If anything, I want to give people more choice than they had before. I'm one of those handicapped people akenn is so determined to defend. My disease doesn't make me better or nobler. It limits me. It is not a good thing. And unlike issues of race and orientation, the problem is not one of privilege. My life is harder because I can't walk or get out if bed on my own. My choice of college and career was limited. If I could force a cure I would. I can't but if I can plausibly imagine Synthesis brings physical improvement (cf Paul Grayson) without undue cost, then I will make that choice.

So what about the other trillion or so people who don't have the magical AIDS-cancer that you seem to suffer from?

Ever had a bad habi you had trouble breaking? Remember how easy it was for EDI to self-modify? Imagine if you could quit smoking/drinking/biting your nails just by deciding to.

[Hey]

"If consequences dictate
my course of action
I should play GOD
and shoot you myself."

[jla0644]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Devolving is the first sign of losing an argument. The elements are there whether you like them or not. I seriously doubt Bioware intended it to be interpreted that way. But it has.

Also, you missed the conversation yesterday where we were told that consent didn't matter. People in here are entirely incapable of defending the choice. Entirely. They care nothing for the people, only success.

It would be nice if you could start quoting the post to which you're replying. Half the time we have no idea who you're talking to. Forum courtesy.

The point of the question about Bioware's intention was to address the idea that Synthesis is somehow planting a "dangrous seed". I find this to be absolutely hilarious. Bioware didn't put in the game to represent autocracy, and people didn't choose becuase they think autocracy is a good thing. There is no dangerous precedent. The people who chose Synthesis aren't going to come knock your door in some day. And if they do, I doubt it was because once upon a time they chose Synthesis in Mass Effect 3.

Shepard faces a moral dilemma no matter what. He/she has to choose which option violates his/her values the least, and what will become of him/her doing that.

Is keeping everyone's genetic code intact at the cost of committing genocide acceptable?

Is Shepard willing to risk controlling the Reapers, becoming the most powerful entity in the galaxy?

Is merging organics and synthetics, without their consent, acceptable if it means everyone still has a chance to live, and be free from the threat of the Reapers and future synthetics?

Which combination of positives and negatives is more acceptable? No one can answer that question for anyone else.

This is apparently a simple question for many of you. Good for you. But get off your soap box and stop pretending your Shepard's hands aren't dirty just because you opted against Synthesis. You either already have a genocide on your hands, or you became a Reaper.

It's not as black and white as you are trying to make it. There is no completely moral and ethical choice to make here.

[akenn312]

jla0644 wrote...

akenn312 wrote...

jla0644 wrote...


lol, and hatred of a meaningless choice in a videogame has claimed the rationality of yet another poster.

If you don't like the idea behind it, great. You can pretend it
doesn't exist,  you'll never have to choose it. But this idea that it is
somehow dangerous, that people who choose it are somehow budding
fascists who approve of violating human rights and forcing their will on
people, is competely and totally insane. You are trying to turn this
into something more abstract and general, instead of what it is -- a
video game, a means of entertainment, not a personal statement of one's
political beliefs.

Challenge and discuss all you want. But that's not what you and the other haters are doing. You are trying to prove that your opinion of Synthesis is the only correct one, the only one that a moral and virtuous person could possibly have. And it isn't possible to do that.

The "message and the blind acceptance of this message"? WTF are you even talking about? The endings were horrible. Of course people are trying to make the ending better, even if it's just in their heads. Who are you to tell them they are wrong for doing that, just because you don't care for the choice?

Taboo will never answer this question, so maybe you will, since you seem to be suggesting the same things he does: do you really believe that when Bioware was coming up with the three choices, that they intended Synthesis to be all about violating free will, about fascism, about making life sterile and homogenous, about agreeing with Saren and Harbinger? Do you really think that's what they meant Synthesis to be? Do you really think the people who prefer Synthesis over the other choices are choosing it because they support these things? If your answer is "no", then all this talk about it being dangerous is utter nonsense. If your answer is "yes", then I'm not sure what to say..

IMO, Shepard and Shepard alone is forced to make a decision that will forever change the galaxy. Shepard cannot consult anyone or ask anyone what they want. The galaxy will forever have to live what that choice, red, blue, or green. The galaxy gets no choice, no matter what Shepard decides. If he chooses red, a race of fully evolved AI allies will be wiped out. Maybe in the name of avoiding genocide, in the name of achieving peace, Shepard is willing to accept merging organic and synthetic, even without their consent. If that's not acceptable to your Shepard, if killing the geth is more accpetable, or if becoming the most powerful being in the galaxy is more acceptable, then you have your choice. It's not as black and white as you're making it. You're doing something unethical whichever way you go. The question is which is more acceptable to you.

But please, stop pretending like you're on some great moral crusade to save us from Bioware and all the peope they have converted to their ways through Synthesis.

Nice try but the meaning of this choice still has in it the basic concept that it's okay to do whatever you want to people if you think you know whats good for them. Video game or not it puts out a message that it's okay to do something like this. Which it is not. Pro-Synthesis enders are saying now people with handicaps are weak and need to be fixed, that people with any perceived weakness should be changed even if they don't want it. These are bad seeds to plant in peoples minds. 

My answer to your question is not a simple no or yes. 

I don't think Bioware or any of you saw it at first, but you see it now and don't care which is a little more disturbing. It actually makes me feel sorry for you in a way. Just to win a game you pick a choice that would violate consent and force something on everyone without their knowledge. Saying it's just a game is irrelevant and just a way to make yourself think it's ok to get behind something like this.

The fact that you are trying to defend this thought process because this is just a game and the endings are horrible is pretty much where I say WTF. 

Also I am just pointing out what this violation implies.
You can have your sweet little ascension I just think you are a tyrant for doing it. 

LMAO, "Biowarez putz fashizm n ther game and I choze it, so I guess fashizm is ok.  I can haz dictatur nao?". That is what your are saying. Do you not feel a little bit ridiculous about it?

I, nor anyone else that I have noticed, is defending the idea that violating basic human rights is a good thing. You can kindly get over yourself now.

I would think you should do the same. Sorry I have a right to feel how I feel. Why get upset because I have a belief? Again pick your synthesis have fun with your galactic violation.  Sorry pal i'm not going to jump down your tiny hole of insults. 

[jla0644]

Taboo-XX wrote...

jla0644 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

The problem is the choice. The choice. The choice. The thematic material is in the choice.

The choice.

I cannot stress this in a more blunt manner.

False. You cannot separate the choice from the consequences.

If all you care about is the choice, then what is your problem? You face a moral and ethical dilemma, no matter which option you choose.

Pay attention. The thematic material I have been discussing is in the choice. I was referring to the politcal aspects. Go back a few pages.

The choice is the act of hubris. Death is the final insult. If one person kills themselves because of the choice, that death is one your shoulders. If one thousand kill themselves it is on your shoulders.

If ten thousand people live unhappy lives because of it it is your fault.

You have a choice. Either some people will be unhappy, or you force everyone to be happy. You can't have both.

And I am telling you this is not exclusive to Synthesis. Control and Destroy are not free from their own moral dilemmas. Everything you have said can apply to all three.

[akenn312]

Optimystic_X wrote...

akenn312 wrote...

This is why it's a bad seed to plant, it allows you to romanticize forcing people into some type of perfection is okay. The results are not the key issue with this, again it's the choice to play god that should not be ignored. Saying people that want to remain who they are as individuals should be forced into a better enlightenment is still a violation of their basic human rights. None of us should play god and do this. This is the basic foundation to why we have rights. Again the choice is always a violation to force people to do what you interpret to be for their own good.

Suppose you have the choice to not use your upgrades, and live as you have before?
Suppose further that a faction of like-minded individuals use their upgrades and develop a way to reverse the process on themselves, along with anyone who wants to join them?
If either or both of these are true, would it still be so heinous?

The choice is if you don't give them the right to choose it for themselves. You should always give people the right to choose for themselves.

[o Ventus]

jtav wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

jtav wrote...

If anything, I want to give people more choice than they had before. I'm one of those handicapped people akenn is so determined to defend. My disease doesn't make me better or nobler. It limits me. It is not a good thing. And unlike issues of race and orientation, the problem is not one of privilege. My life is harder because I can't walk or get out if bed on my own. My choice of college and career was limited. If I could force a cure I would. I can't but if I can plausibly imagine Synthesis brings physical improvement (cf Paul Grayson) without undue cost, then I will make that choice.

So what about the other trillion or so people who don't have the magical AIDS-cancer that you seem to suffer from?

Ever had a bad habi you had trouble breaking? Remember how easy it was for EDI to self-modify? Imagine if you could quit smoking/drinking/biting your nails just by deciding to.

I still wouldn't.

Surely hitting the off switch wouldn't be the pu**y way out, right? You bring yourself up to the standard, you don't drag everyone else down to yours.

Having a fatal disease is a different story than having a bad habit, so your analogy falls flat on its ass.

Modifié par o Ventus, 13 juin 2012 - 03:14 .

[jla0644]

akenn312 wrote...

Sorry I have a right to feel how I feel. Why get upset because I have a belief?

LOL, this is almost word for word what I've been saying to Synthesis haters, and it's getting thrown back at me by a Synthesis hater. Gotta love it.

And FYI, I think Synthesis is easily the worst of three absolutely terrible options.

Modifié par jla0644, 13 juin 2012 - 03:14 .

[Heeden]

akenn312 wrote...
Synthesis is a choice that violates everyones rights by choosing to play god, Destroy is a violation of the playing god on the Geth's rights and EDI's but not the galaxy, Control well...I don't see how control is a violation. More trying to take over a uncontrollable power.  Either way I will not choose to violate everyones rights without their consent just because the result ends up in some sort of perceived future advantage. I find the choice more immoral than the other two. You can choose it though violate away. Impose your will on everyone in the galaxy.

Don't forget the Reapers are also a race of sentient beings, qualatively each individual could be equal to a whole civilisation. Destroy or Control will either wipe out or keep them enslaved.

When I talk about "some type of perfection" it relates to the argument made that the reason it is okay to make this choice is because everyone will become a prefect man machine race of beings. Doesn't matter you cant force them without consent.

To be honest I'm not a fan of man-machine hybrid theory, it seems more like a possible result of the Control option whereas I'd expect Synthesis to be more on the mystical side of ME lore.

"If a few people would prefer to remain in the dark is it fair that everyone has to?"
You are saying those individuals are holding everyone back. See how that is a bad road to go down? Individuality does not hold anyone back. People have the right to stay individuals. You can't say a person that wants to stay organic is holding us all back. That person has a inalienable right to have that desire to live the way he wants and to believe in how he should feel. No one should force him to be something they want and he cannot force them to be what he wants.

Yet the advancement of humanity - and in ME sentient species as a whole - often comes at the expense of individuality in some way. Advancement in life-forms came when individal cells lost their individuality to become parts of a greater organism.

But also you never even asked anyone what they wanted you choose it for them. That's even worse.

I never got the chance, although I have pretty much been declared champion of the galaxy (or avatar of the cycle as Javik put it)

Then again, choose your galactic violation and squish away.

Actually I chose the destroy option which morally I consider far worse than the other choices, but the similarities between Synthesis / Control (i.e. taking a helping-hand from a technologically superior entity) smelled too much of up-lift for my liking.

Have a good time becoming the Reapers. Didn't they start imposing their ideals in the galaxy without anyones consent or knowledge?

Um, nope?

[akenn312]

jla0644 wrote...

akenn312 wrote...

Sorry I have a right to feel how I feel. Why get upset because I have a belief?

LOL, this is almost word for word what I've been saying to Synthesis haters, and it's getting thrown back at me by a Synthesis hater. Gotta love it.

And FYI, I think Synthesis is easily the worst of three absolutely terrible options.

Ah the bravery to throw out childish insults behind the safety of computer screens. I love that part myself. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/joyful.png[/smilie]

Modifié par akenn312, 13 juin 2012 - 03:37 .

[akenn312]

Heeden wrote...

Don't forget the Reapers are also a race of sentient beings, qualatively each individual could be equal to a whole civilisation. Destroy or Control will either wipe out or keep them enslaved. 

Also it's been told in the story with Shepards conversation with the Reaper on Rannoch that each Reaper has a civilization trapped wthin each Reaper.  So actually not destryong them is allowing those souls to remain trapped and  enslaved. More reason to destroy all Reapers I would think. You can free all those trapped souls. 

Here is the lik to that conversation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhUM8v3dD3I

"To be honest I'm not a fan of man-machine hybrid theory, it seems more like a possible result of the Control option whereas I'd expect Synthesis to be more on the mystical side of ME lore. 

Yet the advancement of humanity - and in ME sentient species as a whole - often comes at the expense of individuality in some way. Advancement in life-forms came when individal cells lost their individuality to become parts of a greater organism.

Nope, you can't avoid the choice issue by tyring to get off track talking about results. The choice is the main issue. You cannot totally change everyone without their consent. Humans had the choice to advance it was a natural evolution. The Reapers violate that by causing them to advance in the way they wished with no say in it. 

"I never got the chance, although I have pretty much been declared champion of the galaxy (or avatar of the cycle as Javik put it) 

Just because you are considered a hero does not give you a free licence to play god.

Actually I chose the destroy option which morally I consider far worse than the other choices, but the similarities between Synthesis / Control (i.e. taking a helping-hand from a technologically superior entity) smelled too much of up-lift for my liking. 

Weird so you can see the bad implications of violating the Geth though a choice, but not changing everyone on the genetic level. hmmm interesting.

Modifié par akenn312, 13 juin 2012 - 04:12 .