1256 réponses à ce sujet

[teh DRUMPf!!]

LOL @ this fruitcake clennon PM-ing suBLIGHT to bow out of our conversation. They were too cowardly to continue and handle losing. xD

Oh, and...

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.

Since you insisted I answer this question while I wasn't talking about it, I will now...

The choice is fine. If the circumstances are that everybody in the galaxy will die if I don't make a decision, and the other options available are judged not to be the right ones to take, then the choice is fine.

The choice is fine.

[OMTING52601]

Wow, it's hot in here...

After reading through all twenty-two pages, I'd still pick Synthesis most of the time - depending on my Shep, of course. While I agree imposing a singular form on all life would never have been a choice I'd make if I had better options, but I don't think Control or Destroy are better options, FWIW.

Taboo makes some strong points about interference and how the Geth don't play into his/her decision because they are dead by that point and perhaps, if I only had EDI to worry about, I might choose differently. But that isn't the case in any of my Sheps. However, the suggestion that choosing the Quarians over the Geth, as a numbers based thing, well, we know there are 17 million Quarians in the galaxy. We know there are several billion sentient geth programs in the consensus. I'd still have to side with the Geth.

I also agree that exactly zero of the 'choices' Shep is offered is anything but morally - and ethically in my purview - reprehensible. Unimaginable power, but no itty, bitty living space? I'll pass. Genocide because it's convenient? No thanks.

One more thing, even if one considers anything the Catalyst says as false, for which there is no in-game support, the Catalyst isn't the only one who states synthetics will always turn on their organic creators. The Prothean VI iterates this earlier in the game. Javik iterates this much earlier in the game. Every cycle has seen the eventually creation of a synthetic species, and said synthetic species inevitably comes to the conclusion that organic life is inefficient, dangerous, and the antithesis of order and so must be eliminated.

Honestly, supposing that somehow *this* time, *this* cycle will somehow manage to avoid that - even IF Shep managed to work out a peace between the Geth and Quarians - is the epitome of hubris. The extreme arrogance, the massive amount of pride it would take to claim that the beings of this cycle are somehow so much BETTER than any that lived before and so, of course, they'll be able to avoid organic extinction... Unless it's more that Shep is saying, 'well, I'll fix it for now and to hell with the future, it's someone else's problem'.

Takes a lot of hubris to say Shep can control the Reapers as well, though I suppose a point in favor of it is that Shep isn't indoctrinated - despite a very good theory that came about AFTER the fact and with zero backing from the devs - might give Shep a little less arrogance in choosing Control. That said, I haven't played a Shep yet that would be inclined to take over not just another sentient species, but actually thousands of sentient civilizations. That's just creepy, IMO.

I have played through all three variations, made all the choices, including seeing the breath. I don't feel 'good' about any of them, but I've picked Synthesis more than the rest.

[Taboo]

I actually had to go searching for my copy of this book. I'm presenting a counter argument here. Making an observation. Note that.

From "Fascist Aesthetics" by Susan Sontag

Fasict art shows an "unlimited aspiration toward the high mystic goal, both beautiful and terrifying.” It celebrates the rebirth of the body and of community... It focuses on the contrast between the clean and the impure, the incorruptible and the defiled, the physical and the mental, the joyful and the critical..."

That goal you aspire to, that limitless power, is the very embodiment of fascist art. You want people to aspire to a limitless goal bound by the wish of one person? The very goal is the issue, as is the choice.

You are not giving people vaccines here, you're striving to make everyone above and beyond what they are and you romaticize it. People didn't ask for it, and you have no right to do it to them. YOU believe that they need to be limitless, they do not. That is the issue.

A great deal of things have fascist elements in them. Dirty Harry does. 2001 A Space Odyssesy does. Saving Private Ryan does. The Dark Knight does. Just because something has aesthetics does not make the entire work art fascist, but it's something I think you should be aware of. That's the issue I wish to stress here.

I will however, consent to one thing

"Fascism is theater"

-Jean Genet

[PsyrenY]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Devolving is the first sign of losing an argument.

"Losing?" How so? I still pick Synthesis regardless of what you say.
And how am I "devolving?" None of my proposals were ever ruled out. Indeed, the "reverse it later if you don't like it" possibility is present in all of my and Ieldra's posts. Even if it's difficult, so long as the galaxy is alive anything is possible.

Taboo-XX wrote... 
The elements are there whether you like them or not. I seriously doubt Bioware intended it to be interpreted that way. But it has.

Elements of what?

Taboo-XX wrote... 
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.

Consent DOESN'T matter, not when the alternatives are genocide and annihilation. (The latter, as I've previously said, can be mitigated with sufficient clarification.)

[Taboo]

Note the above Optimystic. Note it.

Consent does matter. It always matters. You violate every living thing in Synthesis. You have two other options.

[PsyrenY]

Why should I care about the perfect writings of Susan Sontag? She means nothing to me or my choice.

[Taboo]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Why should I care about the perfect writings of Susan Sontag? She means nothing to me or my choice.

Do I need to get my other books? You will not escape me Optimystic.

This is what it is. This what it has always been. 

[ZIPO396]

Taboo-XX wrote...
Consent does matter. It always matters. You violate every living thing in Synthesis. You have two other options.

I can't help but like this as it's probably the only argument that doesn't have any base on speculation.

[o Ventus]

ZIPO396 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
Consent does matter. It always matters. You violate every living thing in Synthesis. You have two other options.

I can't help but like this as it's probably the only argument that doesn't have any base on speculation.

What about the whole "Synthetics don't have DNA to synthesize" deal?

Or was the Catalyst just being facetious when he said that?

[OMTING52601]

Consent does matter, but it's not like it only really matters in regard to Synthesis. No one got the Geth's consent before annihilating them - whether at the end or on Rannoch. No one asked for the Reaper's consent - once they are freed from the Catalyst's control - before taking them over either.

So consent matters only on an exponential level? It matters when one is considering Synthesis and imposition of one's will on all life? It doesn't matter when imposing one's will on less than all life? Either consent matters in all situations or it doesn't.

To vacillate when it suits makes your argument less impartial because it implies that only when your personal morals/ethics are applied can exceptions can be made, but only by you because only you knows when the appropriate application of morals/ethics should be imposed.

BTW, that's a 'you' in general as the comment applies across the board to any argument, not just the ones offered here.

Modifié par OMTING52601, 13 juin 2012 - 04:44 .

[ZIPO396]

o Ventus wrote...

ZIPO396 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
Consent does matter. It always matters. You violate every living thing in Synthesis. You have two other options.

I can't help but like this as it's probably the only argument that doesn't have any base on speculation.

What about the whole "Synthetics don't have DNA to synthesize" deal?

Or was the Catalyst just being facetious when he said that?

Sadly we can only speculate on what it means by that either way. Generally speculised it seems most likely Bioware thought it's audience was stupid so dumbed it down for us. A little to far it would seem.

[ZIPO396]

OMTING52601 wrote...

Consent does matter, but it's not like it only really matters in regard to Synthesis. No one got the Geth's consent before annihilating them - whether at the end or on Rannoch. No one asked for the Reaper's consent - once they are freed from the Catalyst's control - before taking them over either.

So consent matters only on an exponential level? It matters when one is considering Synthesis and imposition of one's will on all life? It doesn't matter when imposing one's will on less than all life? Either consent matters in all situations or it doesn't.

To vacillate when it suits makes your argument less impartial because it implies that only when your personal morals/ethics are applied can exceptions can be made, but only by you because only you knows when the appropriate application of morals/ethics should be imposed.

BTW, that's a 'you' in general as the comment applies across the board to any argument, not just the ones offered here.

I like your speculation there.

[o Ventus]

ZIPO396 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

ZIPO396 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
Consent does matter. It always matters. You violate every living thing in Synthesis. You have two other options.

I can't help but like this as it's probably the only argument that doesn't have any base on speculation.

What about the whole "Synthetics don't have DNA to synthesize" deal?

Or was the Catalyst just being facetious when he said that?

Sadly we can only speculate on what it means by that either way. Generally speculised it seems most likely Bioware thought it's audience was stupid so dumbed it down for us. A little to far it would seem.

Until my iMac starts speaking to me in ABAB or archaic English, I'm going to take it at face value.

Really, why would a nearly omnipotent VI or AI program speak in metaphors?

[Taboo]

What's REALLY amazing is how everyone left when I brought out the quotes.

Do I smell...The Anti-Synthesis Compendium coming on?

[clennon8]

Brutal calculus of war. I would rather sacrifice a few million geth and permanently eliminate the Reapers than biologically alter quadrillions of organisms and keep the Reapers around.

Aside from the looming issue of consent, there is the matter of simply not knowing what Synthesis does. Any Shepard who chooses it is taking a ridiculous and unwarranted leap of faith. Shepard can't possibly know what it does. Even the short term consequences of it are a completely unknown to Shepard. All he has are vague reassurances from the master of the Reapers. Never mind the long term consequences of the decision, which can't possibly be known even to a super-intelligent AI. It's just absurd.

Modifié par clennon8, 13 juin 2012 - 04:57 .

[ZIPO396]

o Ventus wrote...

ZIPO396 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

What about the whole "Synthetics don't have DNA to synthesize" deal?

Or was the Catalyst just being facetious when he said that?

Sadly we can only speculate on what it means by that either way. Generally speculised it seems most likely Bioware thought it's audience was stupid so dumbed it down for us. A little to far it would seem.

Until my iMac starts speaking to me in ABAB or archaic English, I'm going to take it at face value.

Really, why would a nearly omnipotent VI or AI program speak in metaphors?

And I couldn't blame you for doing so. In fact that's half the reaosn people take Synthesis to be a good or bad choice to begin with as you don't get anything to with it. People seem to swing more towards good thou based on it being the one Bioware have tried (despite failing) set up as such.

[Vigilant111]

Taboo-XX wrote...

What's REALLY amazing is how everyone left when I brought out the quotes.

Do I smell...The Anti-Synthesis Compendium coming on?

We don't need s**t like that... synthesis falls apart on its own

[ZIPO396]

clennon8 wrote...

Brutal calculus of war. I would rather sacrifice a few million geth than biologically alter quadrillions of organisms.

You would rather potentialy sacrifice. The Geth aren't guaranted to die in destroy as Shepard can live and the thing said he would die to. So it's just a high probability that could infact swing out to be the only sacrifice of Destroy is the relays. But that's just speculation no more than what you get with the pro-synthesis argument either.

Modifié par ZIPO396, 13 juin 2012 - 04:59 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

ZIPO396 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
Consent does matter. It always matters. You violate every living thing in Synthesis. You have two other options.

I can't help but like this as it's probably the only argument that doesn't have any base on speculation.

I'm still not sold. The absense of consent alone doesn't make it a worse option to me than Destroy, Control, or making no decision/continuing the cycles.

[Taboo]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

What's REALLY amazing is how everyone left when I brought out the quotes.

Do I smell...The Anti-Synthesis Compendium coming on?

We don't need s**t like that... synthesis falls apart on its own

You're right unfortunately.

One quote was enough to disband the entire brigade.

[o Ventus]

ZIPO396 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

ZIPO396 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

What about the whole "Synthetics don't have DNA to synthesize" deal?

Or was the Catalyst just being facetious when he said that?

Sadly we can only speculate on what it means by that either way. Generally speculised it seems most likely Bioware thought it's audience was stupid so dumbed it down for us. A little to far it would seem.

Until my iMac starts speaking to me in ABAB or archaic English, I'm going to take it at face value.

Really, why would a nearly omnipotent VI or AI program speak in metaphors?

And I couldn't blame you for doing so. In fact that's half the reaosn people take Synthesis to be a good or bad choice to begin with as you don't get anything to with it. People seem to swing more towards good thou based on it being the one Bioware have tried (despite failing) set up as such.

I won't lie. Whoever's idea it was for Synthesis didn't take 7th grade biology classes.

Or any social science classes.

[Taboo]

o Ventus wrote...

I won't lie. Whoever's idea it was for Synthesis didn't take 7th grade biology classes.

Or any social science classes.

Mac Walters comic book writing overrides your petty "science".

It's like a villains plan in a comic book. It's ****ing retarted and can't be explained.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 13 juin 2012 - 05:01 .

[ZIPO396]

o Ventus wrote...

ZIPO396 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Until my iMac starts speaking to me in ABAB or archaic English, I'm going to take it at face value.

Really, why would a nearly omnipotent VI or AI program speak in metaphors?

And I couldn't blame you for doing so. In fact that's half the reaosn people take Synthesis to be a good or bad choice to begin with as you don't get anything to with it. People seem to swing more towards good thou based on it being the one Bioware have tried (despite failing) set up as such.

I won't lie. Whoever's idea it was for Synthesis didn't take 7th grade biology classes.

Or any social science classes.

Sadly you can't use current scince thou as a standing point for argue against it. Not to long ago Science and common sense was telling people the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the Earth.

Modifié par ZIPO396, 13 juin 2012 - 05:02 .

[Vigilant111]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

ZIPO396 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
Consent does matter. It always matters. You violate every living thing in Synthesis. You have two other options.

I can't help but like this as it's probably the only argument that doesn't have any base on speculation.

I'm still not sold. The absense of consent alone doesn't make it a worse option to me than Destroy, Control, or making no decision/continuing the cycles.

Isn't that safe to assume that the people in the galaxy want to either destroy or control the reapers? come on, be reasonable

[ZIPO396]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

ZIPO396 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
Consent does matter. It always matters. You violate every living thing in Synthesis. You have two other options.

I can't help but like this as it's probably the only argument that doesn't have any base on speculation.

I'm still not sold. The absense of consent alone doesn't make it a worse option to me than Destroy, Control, or making no decision/continuing the cycles.

Aye but it's the only thing someone can stand on to try and argue against synthesis that isn't speculation. Granted it's more than the Pro-S have.