1256 réponses à ce sujet

[clennon8]

Yes, life continues to exist centuries or millennia later. But that doesn't mean Synthesis was anywhere near as consequence-free as you make it out to be.

[Heeden]

clennon8 wrote...

I can't help but feel like there's some disingenuousness coming from the pro-Synth side. It seems patently obvious the intent was for plant life - all life - to be included in the Synthesis process. The Catalyst's own words indicate this. Those plant meshes at the end are no mistake. They won't be clarified away. Also, the Catalyst may not use the word "hybridised," but it's patently obvious that that's what he's describing. Come on now, can we be serious and stop playing word games? If you're going to defend Synthesis, then defend it. But defend it as it was presented.

To me hybridisation seems like a possible outcome for either Control or (taking a longer route) Destroy. Synthesis ties in to more mystical aspects in ME3 - the ideas of higher plains of consciousness, of gestalt entities comprising individual sentient beings. I refer to it as psychic wi-fi because I'm well aware how far down the path of "a wizard did it" it goes, but we do have access to suitably-advanced-science and my idea is well within the possibilities that exists within the ME universe.

Plus it's difficult to know if people are using the word "hybrid" to mean something subtle like Ieldra's symbiotic nanites or "OMG I woke up and I was half a robot".

[Heeden]

antares_sublight wrote...

Heeden wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

And the glowing plants at the end? "Oh just ignore that"

Special effects, drawing space magic is hard.

Sooooooo.... "just ignore that".

I'm not ignoring them, like all the glowy stuff in ME3 I take it as an artistic interpretation of the space-magic. Seeing a green glow (which fades after a while) does not make me instantly thing "that leaf is half robot" in the same way seeing someone using biotics doesn't make me worry they're being electrocuted and need treatment for the horrible burns they should be receiving.

The Catalyst saying specifically: "combine all synthetic and organic life into a new framework. A new DNA." "Oh just ignore that"

Creating a new framework does not mean you have to adjust the individual components of the said framework. Following the Catalyst's analogy when you create DNA out of inert chemicals the individual atoms keep the same characteristics but the way they organise and interact with each other changes. You don't end up with part-oxygen, part-carbon hybrid atoms because that would be nonsense.

[akenn312]

Heeden wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

I can't help but feel like there's some disingenuousness coming from the pro-Synth side. It seems patently obvious the intent was for plant life - all life - to be included in the Synthesis process. The Catalyst's own words indicate this. Those plant meshes at the end are no mistake. They won't be clarified away. Also, the Catalyst may not use the word "hybridised," but it's patently obvious that that's what he's describing. Come on now, can we be serious and stop playing word games? If you're going to defend Synthesis, then defend it. But defend it as it was presented.

To me hybridisation seems like a possible outcome for either Control or (taking a longer route) Destroy. Synthesis ties in to more mystical aspects in ME3 - the ideas of higher plains of consciousness, of gestalt entities comprising individual sentient beings. I refer to it as psychic wi-fi because I'm well aware how far down the path of "a wizard did it" it goes, but we do have access to suitably-advanced-science and my idea is well within the possibilities that exists within the ME universe.

Plus it's difficult to know if people are using the word "hybrid" to mean something subtle like Ieldra's symbiotic nanites or "OMG I woke up and I was half a robot".

No I think clennon has a very good point. If you're going to defend Synthesis, then defend it. But defend it as it was presented. No twisting it around.

Hybridised cannot be related to control or destroy. Nothing is merged in Destroy and only Shepards' consciousness in control is merged with the Reapers but not every organic in the galaxy. When the Catalyst includes all organics he is meaning all of them, even the organics that were not evolved enough to be harvested. Frogs, Plants whatever.

Playing around with words and results is not defending the Synthesis choice. The choice still is no matter how you twist it combining synthetics and organics into one framework, there is no different interpretation.

The Catalyst reasoning for the choice is a fallacy and a sweeping generalization of this sigularity to prove his way of thinking is correct, but he is not lying or twisting what it is. Synthesis is a merge of organic and synthetic DNA without anyone's knowledge that it will happen.

The pro-sythesis people need to defend why they should violate all the organics and synthetics right of self-determination and agree with the fallacy the Catalyst gives them for proof.

The ideas for synthesis are interesting, I'll give you that, but that still does not make it a natural evolution or what was intended. It's forcing both sides to merge unaturally and taking away self determination. No question about it.

Modifié par akenn312, 13 juin 2012 - 05:27 .

[jla0644]

akenn312 wrote...

Check your previous posts in response. When you devolve and resort to comments like that that you are trying to just insult., not debate. Also you might feel that i'm trying to insult people on here but i'm not. I'm just stating that the game showing that it is okay for one man to make a choice that changes everyones genetics without their knowledge, has questionable ethics. You get angry having it even brought up and try to paint people as being crazy if they see it, but it's still there. 

Again you have effectively avoided the choice issue. The argument and what Taboo-XX is bringing to the table has nothing to do with Bioware's intentions, the results of the choice or the specifics what a new DNA means or even Mass Effect lore. Obviously Bioware would not put in a meaning that has such undertowns, At least I would hope they wouldn't. Obviously people are not trying to become dictators when they choose synthesis. But again the issue is still there. 

Again the point of the debate is the choice, One man can not take it upon himself to change all life without consent. If you are going to keep arguing with me about this. Bring something better to the table than "Bioware made the game that way." Duh hur hur hur. You are dumb."

Lets talk in a civil way why you think it's okay for that man to do such a thing. You keep saying i'm trying to cut off peoples rights to choose synthesis, I say people can choose it but it's unethical to take away everyone else's freedom or disregard consent to get a specific result even if you think it's for their own good or the results will be positive. 

What you were suggesting -- that Synthesis plants a "dangerous seed" in people -- was beyond ridiculous, and I was attempting to demonstrate that. If you took it as insult, I don't really care. It was nothing personal towards you, it was the idea you were espousing.

For the thousandth time I will try to explain that you cannot view these choices in a vacuum. You want to separate Synthesis not only from the consequences, but also from the other options you are given. You are doing this so you can paint the choice involved in Synthesis in the worst possible light. Why you want to do that, I can only speculate. But you aren't impressing anyone with your devotion to free will and consent.

Your issue about choice and consent is only one part of the decision that Shepard faces. You want to ignore everything else that goes into the decision -- once again, so that you can frame the issue in a way that suits you -- but you are being highly disingenous by doing this.

It is not a question of whether one feels it is acceptable to make all organics partly synthetic without their consent. That is a key part of Synthesis, and I seriously doubt that anyone is ignoring what it means. Without that dilemma, it would probably seem like a pretty easy choice to make. Just like it would be easy to choose Destroy if he didn't mean death for the geth (lol death for the geth). You have to weigh everything about each option, and decide which one you think offers the best outcome. And no matter which way you go, you are forcing your decision on the rest of the galaxy. This is not exclusive to Synthesis.

You cannot simply say "forcing people to be partly synthetic is wrong so no ethcial person could ever take this option". Because murdering an entire race of fully evolved AI allies is wrong, too, isn't it?. Shepard has to decide which one is less reprehensible, considering the potential consequenes. As I've said many times already, it's not as black and white as you are making it out to be. The choice for Synthesis does not exist in a vacuum.

This is why you have choice in the game. If you feel Synthesis is unacceptable under any circumstances, even if it means you have to wipe out the geth or risk becoming a Reaper, then that's your choice. Other people may arrive at a different conclusion. It doesn't necessarily mean they approve of dictatorships and violating human rights. And I find the suggestion that it places a dangerous idea in people's minds laughable.

Modifié par jla0644, 13 juin 2012 - 05:30 .

[clennon8]

Heh. I think most people are impressed by "devotion to free will and consent," jla. It's only the handful of pro-Synths who seem not to be, as far as I can tell.

Modifié par clennon8, 13 juin 2012 - 05:34 .

[jla0644]

clennon8 wrote...

Heh. I think most people are impressed by "devotion to free will and consent," jla. It's only the handful of pro-Synths who seem not to be, as far as I can tell.

In this context, no, nothing to be proud of. Seeing as how the alternatives involve genocide or absolute power, and everyone screaming about consent completely ignores it.

[Heeden]

akenn312 wrote...

No I think clennon has a very good point. If you're going to defend Synthesis, then defend it. But defend it as it was presented. No twisting it around.

I don't see how my interpretation of synthesis twists how it is presented to me.

Hybridised cannot be related to control or destroy. Nothing is merged in Destroy and only Shepards' consciousness in control is merged with the Reapers but not every organic in the galaxy. When the Catalyst includes all organics he is meaning all of them, even the organics that were not evolved enough to be harvested. Frogs, Plants whatever.

Organic-synthetic hybrids are something that galactic civilisation can advance towards without the need for space magic. Control gives us a leg-up through access to working Reaper-tech but cybernetic enhancements are not unknown and Quarrian-Geth relationships are advancing towards symbiosis before we reach the end of ME3.

Playing around with words and results is not defending the Synthesis choice. The choice still is no matter how you twist it combining synthetics and organics into one framework, there is no different interpretation.

There are lots of interpretations for that sentence. Taking it completely literally means getting each individual organic and synthetic life-form and physically joining them to create a DNA molecule.

The Catalyst reasoning for the choice is a fallacy and a sweeping generalization of this sigularity to prove his way of thinking is correct, but he is not lying or twisting what it is. Synthesis is a merge of organic and synthetic DNA without anyone's knowledge that it will happen.

Synthetics don't have DNA, for that matter a decent chunk of organic life doesn't have DNA either. The thought of genetic modification comes from a failure to spot an analogy, a literal and ridiculous interpretation like I made above or head-canon.

The pro-sythesis people need to defend why they should violate all the organics and synthetics right of self-determination and agree with the fallacy the Catalyst gives them for proof.

Post-synthesis sentients will still be able to make their own choices and decisions - to self determine if you like - hopefully with a fuller understanding of the universe and their role within it.

The ideas for synthesis are interesting, I'll give you that, but that still does not make it a natural evolution or what was intended. It's forcing both sides to merge unaturally and taking away self determination. No question about it.

"Natural" applies to anything that happens. Humans are part of nature, in the ME universe synthetics are part of nature. The way they interact is part of nature. Also what do you mean by "intended"?

[clennon8]

jla0644 wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Heh. I think most people are impressed by "devotion to free will and consent," jla. It's only the handful of pro-Synths who seem not to be, as far as I can tell.

In this context, no, nothing to be proud of. Seeing as how the alternatives involve genocide or absolute power, and everyone screaming about consent completely ignores it.

Well, I'm not here to defend Control.  I'm not really here to defend Destroy either, but it is quite a bit easier to defend Destroy than Synthesis, from a moral standpoint.  I understand the pro-Synths want to obfuscate things by pointing out that each choice involves some sort of moral comprimise and hoping we draw the same false equivalency between them that they have. 

But the fact is that sacrificing a few million geth simply does not come anywhere close to comparing to the arbitrary rewriting of the genetic code of quintillions of life forms across the galaxy with vaguely hopeful (but ultimately unknowable) consequences.  Do I think sacrificing the geth is a wonderful thing to do?  No.  But I'll once again paraphrase Garrus.  It's the brutal calculus of war.  War has necessary consequences.  No man or woman has the right to mess with life on a galactic scale in an attempt to avoid those consequences. It's sheer hubris, if not cowardice, on an unimaginable scale.

[Heeden]

clennon8 wrote...

But the fact is that sacrificing a few million geth simply does not come anywhere close to comparing to the arbitrary rewriting of the genetic code of quintillions of life forms across the galaxy with vaguely hopeful (but ultimately unknowable) consequences.  Do I think sacrificing the geth is a wonderful thing to do?  No.  But I'll once again paraphrase Garrus.  It's the brutal calculus of war.  War has necessary consequences.  No man or woman has the right to mess with life on a galactic scale in an attempt to avoid those consequences. It's sheer hubris, if not cowardice, on an unimaginable scale.

You're also wiping out the Reapers, each of whom represents sentience on the scale of a civilisation. To people who see Synthesis in a positive light you're saying that genocide is preferable to making life better.

[akenn312]

jla0644 wrote...

akenn312 wrote...

Check your previous posts in response. When you devolve and resort to comments like that that you are trying to just insult., not debate. Also you might feel that i'm trying to insult people on here but i'm not. I'm just stating that the game showing that it is okay for one man to make a choice that changes everyones genetics without their knowledge, has questionable ethics. You get angry having it even brought up and try to paint people as being crazy if they see it, but it's still there. 

Again you have effectively avoided the choice issue. The argument and what Taboo-XX is bringing to the table has nothing to do with Bioware's intentions, the results of the choice or the specifics what a new DNA means or even Mass Effect lore. Obviously Bioware would not put in a meaning that has such undertowns, At least I would hope they wouldn't. Obviously people are not trying to become dictators when they choose synthesis. But again the issue is still there. 

Again the point of the debate is the choice, One man can not take it upon himself to change all life without consent. If you are going to keep arguing with me about this. Bring something better to the table than "Bioware made the game that way." Duh hur hur hur. You are dumb."

Lets talk in a civil way why you think it's okay for that man to do such a thing. You keep saying i'm trying to cut off peoples rights to choose synthesis, I say people can choose it but it's unethical to take away everyone else's freedom or disregard consent to get a specific result even if you think it's for their own good or the results will be positive. 

What you were suggesting -- that Synthesis plants a "dangerous seed" in people -- was beyond ridiculous, and I was attempting to demonstrate that. If you took it as insult, I don't really care. It was nothing personal towards you, it was the idea you were espousing.

For the thousandth time I will try to explain that you cannot view these choices in a vacuum. You want to separate Synthesis not only from the consequences, but also from the other options you are given. You are doing this so you can paint the choice involved in Synthesis in the worst possible light. Why you want to do that, I can only speculate. But you aren't impressing anyone with your devotion to free will and consent.

Your issue about choice and consent is only one part of the decision that Shepard faces. You want to ignore everything else that goes into the decision -- once again, so that you can frame the issue in a way that suits you -- but you are being highly disingenous by doing this.

It is not a question of whether one feels it is acceptable to make all organics partly synthetic without their consent. That is a key part of Synthesis, and I seriously doubt that anyone is ignoring what it means. Without that dilemma, it would probably seem like a pretty easy choice to make. Just like it would be easy to choose Destroy if he didn't mean death for the geth (lol death for the geth). You have to weigh everything about each option, and decide which one you think offers the best outcome. And no matter which way you go, you are forcing your decision on the rest of the galaxy. This is not exclusive to Synthesis.

You cannot simply say "forcing people to be partly synthetic is wrong so no ethcial person could ever take this option". Because murdering an entire race of fully evolved AI allies is wrong, too, isn't it?. Shepard has to decide which one is less reprehensible, considering the the potential consequenes. As I've said many times already, it's not as black and white as you are making it out to be. The choice for Synthesis does not exist in a vacuum.

This is why you have choice in the game. If you feel Synthesis is unacceptable under any circumstances, even if it means you have to wipe out the geth or risk becoming a Reaper, then that's your choice. Other people may arrive at a different conclusion. It doesn't necessarily mean they approve of dictatorships and violating human rights. And I find the suggestion that it places a dangerous idea in people's minds laughable.

Look I really don't care about your view that you found it ridiculous, but point taken and I will not care how you take it again. I still think it can possibly plant a bad idea in someones head if they take away from this game that it's okay to violate someone's consent if they have a noble reason or it's for that persons own good.

Simple concept. It's not good to do that. Period. I don't care if it's in a video game or art or whatever. I have the right to say it's morally wrong. You have a right to say how it is not, but a person cannot force any of us to do something without our consent to it. Do you get this concept? Try to understand it before you get riled up by me saying it.

That is the important part of the question of this whole thing. Should one man have the right to make all organics partly synthetic without their consent? You are saying this is correct because all the choices are morally wrong so one cannot be better than another. I specifically disagree. That gives more reason to make none of the choices, unless you already destroyed the Geth then I can see how Destroy can work for you.

You bring up the topic of choosing genocide with destroy as just as bad. Well if you pick synthesis now instead of having one group in peril to save the galaxy, you now put everyone in at risk of your choice to save it. So i'm trying to wrap my head around the logic that we should risk everyone now to save this one group as a better solution.

The floor is again yours to prove why this is okay. Hopefully without trying to say "If it's in the game, It's in the game."

Again stop skirting around the question. What gives Shepard any right to do this? Actually what gives him the right to make any of the choices?

If a leader in our world as we know it right now, made a choice like synthesis for us, would you just accept it? Or would you say they had no right to do that to you?

[clennon8]

Yeah, I'm quite okay with killing the Reapers. Even more okay than I am with sacrificing the geth. Destroying the Reapers was kind of the point of the war, wasn't it? They are monsters born of atrocity. They've been around for millions of years, wiping out civilization after civilization after civilization.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

OMTING52601 wrote...

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Absolutely agree. Though his thoughts on poverty... not so much. Or not without relevent context, but I digress.

[a lot of awesome]

Thank you!!!

Nice to know there ARE other people out there that know there's more to democracy than electing/popular vote.


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


On a side note, I was just thinking last night about how completely ironic it is to point the finger at Synthesis and its supporters for fascism, whilst ignoring the rest of the series and other players completely for worse things.

This game allows for the player to commit genocide on multiple occaisions: the krogan, the quarians, the rachni... in some cases the player is validated for making the decision to do so. In ME3, the best outcome of the genophage arc is to sabotage the genophage with Eve alive (Eve accumulates more War Assets than saving Mordin/Padok). Why does that not alarm Taboo and Godwin Patrol - becuase it doesn't fit some textbook definition? I'd say these things are closer to N@zism than anything Synthesis does. And many players openly support some of these paths.

Why do synthesis supporters get flak for choosing the path that they think is best for everyone, when posters on this board openly discuss how they kill off squadmates for no other reason than "eh, I didn't like him/her so I took the first chance I could to kill him/her" and other borderline psychopathic thoughts?

What about completely inconsequential outcomes of political assasination... there were 0 ramifications for killing Joram Talid. Letting the council live or die does nothing, they are always incompetenant and non-commital. So it's always up to the military to step in and taking matters into their own hands to save the galaxy. Not once, not twice, but in all three freaking games. If that's not a fascist ideal to you...

There's a reason why Godwin's law is laughed at on the world-wide-web. Because it is ridiculous, 99.9% of the time it is invoked (and no, this is not that .1%). If you want to continue perpetrating it - power to you. Just don't expect me to take your seriously. For that matter, very few others will.

[clennon8]

Why do synthesis supporters get flak for choosing the path that they think is best for everyone, when posters on this board openly discuss how they kill off squadmates for no other reason than "eh, I didn't like him/her so I took the first chance I could to kill him/her" and other borderline psychopathic thoughts?

Frankly, those kinds of remarks do kind of bother me, because I like ALL of the characters and feel protective of them.  Hell, there's at least one Synth supporter in this thread who makes comments like that fairly often.  But those remarks don't bother me enough to devote hours arguing on a message aboard.  We all draw our line in the sand somewhere, I guess.

Modifié par clennon8, 13 juin 2012 - 06:33 .

[Jagri]

Synthesis is in my view the worse choice given to the player. The reasons have been listed countless times but I would like to drive in the point despite what pretty words or idealism one would want to delude themselves with in the end you are coming to achieve a goal set by monsters who sole purpose was to wipe out all advance life in the galaxy for millions of years.

But that said I do think all end choices are monsterous and like the ending(s) should be rejected. It would however disturb me greatly if those who do support Synthesis do believe it the perfect/ideal solution if they were given more options.

[antares_sublight]

I'd say forcing Synthesis on ALL LIFE IN THE ENTIRE GALAXY without their choice (Shepard was not elected to do this, this was never on anyone's mind of any kind of possibility of what he could do) is the very embodiment of 'giving up essential liberty'. Actually, forcing all life forms to give up essential liberty. If anything, HYR, you're agreeing with that Ben Franklin quote when it's more apt to be applied to pro-Synthites.

[InHarmsWay]

jla0644 wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Heh. I think most people are impressed by "devotion to free will and consent," jla. It's only the handful of pro-Synths who seem not to be, as far as I can tell.

In this context, no, nothing to be proud of. Seeing as how the alternatives involve genocide or absolute power, and everyone screaming about consent completely ignores it.

Synthesis is an even bigger act of genocide than what Destroy supposedly is.

You destroy all life in the galaxy. Everything lviing thing is no longer what they were. Humans are no longer humans. Asari no longer asari. Plants no longer plants. Everything that once was is gone now, replaced by hybrids. That is complete and total genocide.

But ignoring that. The Catalyst stated that synthesis is the apex or final form of evolution. By that wording, you have just stagnated evolution. And according to the theory of evolution, if a lifeform is unable to evolve or adapt, it goes extinct.

Modifié par InHarmsWay, 13 juin 2012 - 06:50 .

[clennon8]

antares_sublight wrote...

I'd say forcing Synthesis on ALL LIFE IN THE ENTIRE GALAXY without their choice (Shepard was not elected to do this, this was never on anyone's mind of any kind of possibility of what he could do) is the very embodiment of 'giving up essential liberty'. Actually, forcing all life forms to give up essential liberty. If anything, HYR, you're agreeing with that Ben Franklin quote when it's more apt to be applied to pro-Synthites.

Heh.  Yeah, I was wondering why he was championing that quote.  It definitely supports our side, not his.

[akenn312]

Heeden wrote...
I don't see how my interpretation of synthesis twists how it is presented to me.

Not the point, it's the choice to do it to everyone that matters. Trying to argue about interpretations of the results are not the issue, it's how you avoid to give the reason to say why you picked the choice.

Heeden wrote...
Organic-synthetic hybrids are something that galactic civilisation can advance towards without the need for space magic. Control gives us a leg-up through access to working Reaper-tech but cybernetic enhancements are not unknown and Quarrian-Geth relationships are advancing towards symbiosis before we reach the end of ME3.

Again this as another head-connon speculation that has not happened, it's not why you picked the choice. The Catalyst did not tell you specifically that would happen.

Heeden wrote...
There are lots of interpretations for that sentence. Taking it completely literally means getting each individual organic and synthetic life-form and physically joining them to create a DNA molecule.

Again DNA and Catalyst specifics are moot, it's not why you picked the choice. He provides a fallacy to say this cycle will not end, then he provides a solution that violates organic and synthetic rights to exist as they are. Why do you accept the fallacy and the choice? Without using a head-cannon.

Heeden wrote...
Post-synthesis sentients will still be able to make their own choices and decisions - to self determine if you like - hopefully with a fuller understanding of the universe and their role within it.

That is again fan fiction. The Catalyst does not tell you this before you make the choice.

Heeden wrote...
"Natural" applies to anything that happens. Humans are part of nature, in the ME universe synthetics are part of nature. The way they interact is part of nature. Also what do you mean by "intended"?

ME universe or not organics and synthetics were not going to merge naturally or spontaneously join on their own. The Catalyst is causing an unnatural evolution to end the singularity he says can't be avoided. Again why is it okay to go along with the Catalyst forcing this unnatural evolution? If a scientist causes all dogs to talk one day that was an unnatural evolution. It was not meat to happen, he forced this to happen unaturally.

[Heeden]

akenn312 wrote...

Look I really don't care about your view that you found it ridiculous, but point taken and I will not care how you take it again. I still think it can possibly plant a bad idea in someones head if they take away from this game that it's okay to violate someone's consent if they have a noble reason or it's for that persons own good.

Simple concept. It's not good to do that. Period. I don't care if it's in a video game or art or whatever. I have the right to say it's morally wrong. You have a right to say how it is not, but a person cannot force any of us to do something without our consent to it. Do you get this concept? Try to understand it before you get riled up by me saying it.

I completely disagree with you. Society has many mechanisms in place where a person's rights can be violated for their own good or the good of everyone else. The entire concept of government is based on this. In my country it is illegal for children not to go to school, whether or not they give their consent to be educated. People with mental illnesses can be treated against their consent if they are considered a harm to themselves or others. Law enforcement agencies exist to ensure people conform to rules laid-down to help society function.

Whilst these mechanisms can be benevolent or malevolent saying they are all, absolutely and in every case morally wrong is simply not something I can accept.

That is the important part of the question of this whole thing. Should one man have the right to make all organics partly synthetic without their consent? You are saying this is correct because all the choices are morally wrong so one cannot be better than another. I specifically disagree. That gives more reason to make none of the choices, unless you already destroyed the Geth then I can see how Destroy can work for you.

Not making a choice is also a choice, you can go cry in a corner whilst the Reapers complete the Harvest, secure in the knowledge that your conscience is clean from any immorality (apart from the hundreds if not thousands of living beings you probably killed throughout the series).

You bring up the topic of choosing genocide with destroy as just as bad. Well if you pick synthesis now instead of having one group in peril to save the galaxy, you now put everyone in at risk of your choice to save it. So i'm trying to wrap my head around the logic that we should risk everyone now to save this one group as a better solution.

For the same reasons I let the Rachnii live and cured the genophage

The floor is again yours to prove why this is okay. Hopefully without trying to say "If it's in the game, It's in the game."

Again stop skirting around the question. What gives Shepard any right to do this? Actually what gives him the right to make any of the choices?

Shepard has the right by virtue of having the ability, that's pretty much the sum of it. It's a work of fiction designed to make you think about philisophical connundrums by contriving a situation where one person is in a position to affect great changes.

If a leader in our world as we know it right now, made a choice like synthesis for us, would you just accept it? Or would you say they had no right to do that to you?

Bringing it down from the cosmic scale; if a leader had the option to give everyone a free computer with a global wi-fi network but chose to eliminate everyone in the Middle East instead, would you consider that a fair choice when considering some people may not want to own a computer and the long-term effects of wi-fi networks are unknown?

[Heeden]

[quote]akenn312 wrote...

Not the point, it's the choice to do it to everyone that matters. Trying to argue about interpretations of the results are not the issue, it's how you avoid to give the reason to say why you picked the choice. [/quote]

I like Synthesis because morally I find it more appealing than both Destroy and Conrol.

[quote][quote]Heeden wrote...
Organic-synthetic hybrids are something that galactic civilisation can advance towards without the need for space magic. Control gives us a leg-up through access to working Reaper-tech but cybernetic enhancements are not unknown and Quarrian-Geth relationships are advancing towards symbiosis before we reach the end of ME3. [/quote]

Again this as another head-connon speculation that has not happened, it's not why you picked the choice. The Catalyst did not tell you specifically that would happen.[/quote]

That is not head-canon. Cybernetics are quite common in Mass Effect, Geth have started taking up residence in Quarrian encounter suits and modifying them to help boost immune systems. The idea of organic-synthetic hybrids is very firmly established in ME.

[quote][quote]Heeden wrote...
There are lots of interpretations for that sentence. Taking it completely literally means getting each individual organic and synthetic life-form and physically joining them to create a DNA molecule. [/quote]

Again DNA and Catalyst specifics are moot, it's not why you picked the choice. He provides a fallacy to say this cycle will not end, then he provides a solution that violates organic and synthetic rights to exist as they are. Why do you accept the fallacy and the choice? Without using a head-cannon.[/quote]

Because I can take a fallacy "This will happen" and interpret it to "I believe this will happen so strongly it doesn't even occur to me to qualify it with a probability". Doing this isn't head-canon, it is generally accepted that there are no absolutes when it comes to predicting the future. So yes, what the Catalyst says is an opinion presented as a fact, just like every other "fact" presented by anyone, ever.

[quote][quote]Heeden wrote...
Post-synthesis sentients will still be able to make their own choices and decisions - to self determine if you like - hopefully with a fuller understanding of the universe and their role within it.[/quote]

That is again fan fiction. The Catalyst does not tell you this before you make the choice. [/quote]

KInd of, but my Shepard is the agent (or medium) of Synthesis so I have to assume his personality would have some effect on the outcome, otherwise why would he be needed?

[quote][quote]Heeden wrote...
"Natural" applies to anything that happens. Humans are part of nature, in the ME universe synthetics are part of nature. The way they interact is part of nature. Also what do you mean by "intended"? [/quote]

ME universe or not organics and synthetics were not going to merge naturally or spontaneously join on their own. The Catalyst is causing an unnatural evolution to end the singularity he says can't be avoided. Again why is it okay to go along with the Catalyst forcing this unnatural evolution? If a scientist causes all dogs to talk one day that was an unnatural evolution. It was not meat to happen, he forced this to happen unaturally.
[/quote][/quote]

Well the Quarrians and Geth have shown, with a little help from Shepard. that organics and synthetics are capable of merging naturally, and by naturally I mean not supernaturally or magically.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

clennon8 wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

I'd say forcing Synthesis on ALL LIFE IN THE ENTIRE GALAXY without their choice (Shepard was not elected to do this, this was never on anyone's mind of any kind of possibility of what he could do) is the very embodiment of 'giving up essential liberty'. Actually, forcing all life forms to give up essential liberty. If anything, HYR, you're agreeing with that Ben Franklin quote when it's more apt to be applied to pro-Synthites.

Heh.  Yeah, I was wondering why he was championing that quote.  It definitely supports our side, not his.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain only a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

Safety and freedom from the Reapers is neither "little" nor "temporary" - it's forever. And since I believe Destroy and Control are both unsafe and lesser options than Synthesis, they are not my choice either, as I've stated already.

Try reading next time, not just picking out the buzzwords. 

Say, clennon-eight, I could have sworn you said that this one wasn't worth your time or his. Why come crawling back now?

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 13 juin 2012 - 07:33 .

[Ieldra]

InHarmsWay wrote...

jla0644 wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Heh. I think most people are impressed by "devotion to free will and consent," jla. It's only the handful of pro-Synths who seem not to be, as far as I can tell.

In this context, no, nothing to be proud of. Seeing as how the alternatives involve genocide or absolute power, and everyone screaming about consent completely ignores it.

Synthesis is an even bigger act of genocide than what Destroy supposedly is.

You destroy all life in the galaxy. Everything lviing thing is no longer what they were. Humans are no longer humans. Asari no longer asari. Plants no longer plants. Everything that once was is gone now, replaced by hybrids. That is complete and total genocide.

But ignoring that. The Catalyst stated that synthesis is the apex or final form of evolution. By that wording, you have just stagnated evolution. And according to the theory of evolution, if a lifeform is unable to evolve or adapt, it goes extinct.

Are you mad? How can you equate making a change that....doesn't appear to affect Joker and EDI that radically to killing them? My oh my, the anti-Synthesis fanatics are getting less coherent with every day that passes.

*I am killing exactly NO ONE with Synthesis.
*I am also enslaving no one.
*I am taking no one's identity away
*I am not mind controlling or reprogramming anyone.
I just make a physical change and it doesn't even affect how you look except for a cosmetic effect. Sounds like quite an attractive choice to me, given the alternatives.

Also evolution can't be stagnated. Written phrasing dismissed as nonsense. It can be replaced by deliberate change, but only for technologically advanced speceis.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 13 juin 2012 - 07:49 .

[Xellith]

Ieldra2 wrote...

InHarmsWay wrote...

jla0644 wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Heh. I think most people are impressed by "devotion to free will and consent," jla. It's only the handful of pro-Synths who seem not to be, as far as I can tell.

In this context, no, nothing to be proud of. Seeing as how the alternatives involve genocide or absolute power, and everyone screaming about consent completely ignores it.

Synthesis is an even bigger act of genocide than what Destroy supposedly is.

You destroy all life in the galaxy. Everything lviing thing is no longer what they were. Humans are no longer humans. Asari no longer asari. Plants no longer plants. Everything that once was is gone now, replaced by hybrids. That is complete and total genocide.

But ignoring that. The Catalyst stated that synthesis is the apex or final form of evolution. By that wording, you have just stagnated evolution. And according to the theory of evolution, if a lifeform is unable to evolve or adapt, it goes extinct.

Are you mad? How can you equate making a change that....doesn't appear to affect Joker and EDI that radically to killing them? My oh my, the anti-Synthesis fanatics are getting less coherent with every day that passes.

*I am killing exactly NO ONE with Synthesis.
*I am also enslaving no one.
*I am taking no one's identity away
*I am not mind controlling or reprogramming anyone.
I just make a physical change and it doesn't even affect how you look except for a cosmetic effect. Sounds like quite an attractive choice to me, given the alternatives.

Also evolution can't be stagnated. Written phrasing dismissed as nonsense. It can be replaced by deliberate change, but only for technologically advanced speceis.

Killing nobody?  I guarantee that a lot of people would comit suicide.  Most likely the unenlightened and undiscovered races that are suddenly part cyborg.

If you are gonna choose synthesis then you might as well choose control.

[Heeden]

Xellith wrote...

Killing nobody?  I guarantee that a lot of people would comit suicide.  Most likely the unenlightened and undiscovered races that are suddenly part cyborg.

If you are gonna choose synthesis then you might as well choose control.

I guarentee that destroy will cause everyone in the galaxy to commit suicide from the guilt because I can also make stupid comments.