1256 réponses à ce sujet

[antares_sublight]

Ieldra2 wrote...
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.

1. For someone so obsessed with taking things only in a rhetorical/illustrative manner, you sure can't get past that word "kill" can you? They die from their former selves, completely changed.
2. Again, you only see a silent 5-second clip (identical in EVERY ending) in which joker and EDI are behaving strangely from what you'd think someone would given what they and the galaxy just went through.
3. Synthesis causes countless flora and fauna species to go extinct by instantly causing radical upheavals in every evolutionary niche for every life form in the entire galaxy
4. Your nanites are enslaving every life form to conform to the new framework that is demanded to satisfy the requirements of organic life keeping up with a synthetic singularity. All life is now a slave to that requirement. Otherwise, synthesis hasn't actually accomplished anything useful.
5. You've totally changed every life form's identity in a fundamental way.
6. Your nanites are totally and completely reprogramming every living thing. If they do not take over and manipulate life in order to fulfill the requirements of Synthesis, then Synthesis would be a failure.
7. How is this not a mental change as well? You monster pro-synthites continually talk about how it changes your mind, then you don't. You retcon even your own theories.

[Ieldra]

@Xellith:
For most of human history, people have been more pragmatic than you'd think. We are living in times where we have the luxury of indulging in ideologies and setting certain principles absolute. Go back to less comfortable times, and you'll find people will be rather more ready to do the expedient thing. For the most part, people will adapt. They always have.

[antares_sublight]

Heeden wrote...

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.

Using the same fanfiction retcon powers you pro-Synthites have, Destroy kills no one but the reapers. There is no evidence the Geth or EDI are killed, and there is evidence implying they do not. Victory.

[antares_sublight]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Xellith:
For most of human history, people have been more pragmatic than you'd think. We are living in times where we have the luxury of indulging in ideologies and setting certain principles absolute. Go back to less comfortable times, and you'll find people will be rather more ready to do the expedient thing. For the most part, people will adapt. They always have.

You're betting on every living organism being complacent servants.

[Xellith]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Xellith:
For most of human history, people have been more pragmatic than you'd think. We are living in times where we have the luxury of indulging in ideologies and setting certain principles absolute. Go back to less comfortable times, and you'll find people will be rather more ready to do the expedient thing. For the most part, people will adapt. They always have.

You totally WHOOSHED.

HUMAN history.  You cant even begin to think of what UNDISCOVERED races would do.

[akenn312]

Heeden wrote...
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.

But do you see the right for others to let their kids be home schooled in another society ? Or to let the mental ill only be treated by consent in a different society? This is why I say one person should not have the power to make all these choices for us all as a whole. I know this goes a bit into sovereignty but what if a leader of your government was given the choice of everyones fate instead of the leader of ours or anothers. How can the leader of your government decide how we all should live?

That's my issue with all this, one man is taking it upon himself to decide a path for the galaxy. What if his outlook is not the same as another, how is his choice fair to anyone else? Again what if I live in a society that finds being half machine an abomination. Why are you forcing this on me?

Heeden wrote...
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).

Well that is a choice and if I make it then yes, I did not betray anyone or force them to live within a framework they might not want. it might possibly be a more brave thing to do than just choose something. Bravodo aside. If all choices are morally wrong then not making a choice could be possibly the best solution. Maybe the next cycle can find a better way to get around the Catalyst's  fallacy rather than forcing everyone to change which I see as a compromise or a violation.
Or you could pick destroy and not change anyone and do the very thing you were supposed to do kill the Reapers...If the geth are already gone. There is that.

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

So you got some practice playing god, so why not go all out right? But again people were not happy with the choices too as you remember. Other people had different opinions about them that were valid. Some had good reasons why you should not have done either of the two.

Heeden wrote...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 philosophical conundrums by contriving a situation where one person is in a position to affect great changes.

Or a huge violation of ethics on every being in the galaxy, Shepard has no right to do so. The opinion that he is virtuous does not give him the right to go around deciding everyones fate. Virtue does not equate to a right to play god.

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?

So now you understand where I have my problems with synthesis? You can't defend that it's not a violation of rights to exist as is in some way. By your example of trying to show how destroy is a violation then Synthesis is more of one with that very same example. I don't consider it a good choice because the leader is taking it upon himself to force a belief on a society, kinda like the US has no right to force freedom on everyone,but also no on should be able to force a dictatorship on me.

If you can kinda get my drift on this.

Modifié par akenn312, 13 juin 2012 - 08:09 .

[Heeden]

antares_sublight wrote...

Using the same fanfiction retcon powers you pro-Synthites have, Destroy kills no one but the reapers. There is no evidence the Geth or EDI are killed, and there is evidence implying they do not. Victory.

Indeed, except for the billions of sentient beings destroyed by your hand everyone wins! Although I'm unsure as to where the ret-con is, but well done to you anyway.

[Ieldra]

antares_sublight wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
@Xellith:
For most of human history, people have been more pragmatic than you'd think. We are living in times where we have the luxury of indulging in ideologies and setting certain principles absolute. Go back to less comfortable times, and you'll find people will be rather more ready to do the expedient thing. For the most part, people will adapt. They always have.

You're betting on every living organism being complacent servants.

No, I'm betting on most intelligent beings retaining a modicum of rationality and sanity instead of being unthinking meme-carriers for an ideology.

Also, I am enslaving no one. I am taking no one's identity away. I am killing no one. I am reprogramming no one's mind. I am mind-controlling no one. This does not follow from anything I've written, nor from anything the game presents, and you can repeat it a million times, that won't make it true.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 13 juin 2012 - 08:13 .

[Ieldra]

Xellith wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Xellith:
For most of human history, people have been more pragmatic than you'd think. We are living in times where we have the luxury of indulging in ideologies and setting certain principles absolute. Go back to less comfortable times, and you'll find people will be rather more ready to do the expedient thing. For the most part, people will adapt. They always have.

HUMAN history.  You cant even begin to think of what UNDISCOVERED races would do.

Why would undiscovered intelligent species be less likely to be pragmatic about things?

[antares_sublight]

Heeden wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

Using the same fanfiction retcon powers you pro-Synthites have, Destroy kills no one but the reapers. There is no evidence the Geth or EDI are killed, and there is evidence implying they do not. Victory.

Indeed, except for the billions of sentient beings destroyed by your hand everyone wins! Although I'm unsure as to where the ret-con is, but well done to you anyway.

Sorry, the reapers already killed them. Also, your pro-Synthite monster Shepard has already killed a few reapers himself anyway. Well done to you.

Ieldra2 wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
@Xellith:
For
most of human history, people have been more pragmatic than you'd
think. We are living in times where we have the luxury of indulging in
ideologies and setting certain principles absolute. Go back to less
comfortable times, and you'll find people will be rather more ready to
do the expedient thing. For the most part, people will adapt. They
always have.

You're betting on every living organism being complacent servants.

No,
I'm betting on most intelligent beings retaining a modicum of
rationality and sanity instead of being unthinking meme-carriers for an
ideology.

Also, I am enslaving no one. I am taking no one's
identity away. I am killing no one. I am reprogramming no one's mind. I
am mind-controlling no one. This does not follow from anything I've
written, and you can repeat it a million times, that won't make it true.

You're betting on every life form to be complacent slaves to your nanites. You've fundamentally altered the identity of every life form in the galaxy. You've set of a set of events that will lead to the extinction of countless species of flora and fauna. You've sent out intelligent nanites to dictate what evolutionary paths each life form can take and how they can adapt and live. If the nanites don't do this, then Synthesis is a failure.

Face it, you are a monster.

In real-life, too, I'd bet.

Modifié par antares_sublight, 13 juin 2012 - 08:17 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Heeden wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

Using the same fanfiction retcon powers you pro-Synthites have, Destroy kills no one but the reapers. There is no evidence the Geth or EDI are killed, and there is evidence implying they do not. Victory.

Indeed, except for the billions of sentient beings destroyed by your hand everyone wins! Although I'm unsure as to where the ret-con is, but well done to you anyway.

I have no problem killing billions of sentient beings when their only purpose is to kill everyone else without mercy and they have literally no other aspect to their existence.

I also find the sympathetic and compassionate approach some people have to the Reapers because they're desperate to find ever more ropey ways to argue against other choices to be hilarious. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 13 juin 2012 - 08:17 .

[clennon8]

This really is a ridiculous discussion. The Catalyst says very little about Synthesis. So what do the pro-Synths do? Reimagine and/or discard half of the things the he did say, invent some fanfiction utopia, and use that to retro-justify the most arrogant, violative decision ever made by a human being.

But maybe if we keep pointing this out, they'll come around? *sigh* Doesn't seem likely.

[antares_sublight]

clennon8 wrote...

This really is a ridiculous discussion. The Catalyst says very little about Synthesis. So what do the pro-Synths do? Reimagine and/or discard half of the things the he did say, invent some fanfiction utopia, and use that to retro-justify the most arrogant, violative decision ever made by a human being.

But maybe if we keep pointing this out, they'll come around? *sigh* Doesn't seem likely.

Exactly.

Given what Shepard knows about Synthesis, which is 2-3 vague sentences from the most evil force in the galaxy, choosing Synthesis is the most rash and irresponsible act in the history of the galaxy.

All Synthesis rationalization requires information post-decision and massive ignoring of what little bit of in-game canon there is while substituting tremendous amounts of fanfiction. All the while, calling it rational and logical.

Modifié par antares_sublight, 13 juin 2012 - 08:21 .

[Averdi]

I do have a problem with the morality of synthesis, similar to concerns outlined here. Given how monumental the implications of the idea of synthesis are, coupled with how few details of its effects are presented, I don't think a single person should make that call for all galactic life. For sure certain my Shepard wouldn't.

However, I have even bigger scientific and thematic problems with synthesis. Biologically, it's pure nonsense as presented by the catalyst. Rationalizing some way that a version of it could work if we assume the catalyst didn't mean what he actually said is just whistling in the dark. Thematically, it also jumps the shark. Not only should Shepard recognize it as scientific nonsense and that it isn't a solution to the catalyst's own problem, but any being that can de- and re-construct all fundamental life, galaxy-wide, nearly instantly, yet can't find a solution to his synthetic-organic quandary, is either lying or one stupid god.

[clennon8]

Someone will probably want to once again make the observation that the Catalyst cannot/could not/would not lie. Fine, maybe he isn't lying. Maybe he can't. But maybe he isn't telling the whole truth either. Or maybe, just maybe, he's WRONG?

[The Night Mammoth]

Heeden wrote...

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.

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

You find letting the enemy you've been fighting for three years impose a massive change on the very foundations of existence when it doesn't even tell you what will happen, when its idea of 'synthesis' is the Reapers and their goons, using a device which you have idea how it works, to solve a logically flawed and proof-devoid problem you only just heard about that runs contrary to what could be about a quarter of the story's content, all of which you are told about in a mere 10 lines of dialogue, more appealing than the other two?

You've basically let the Reapers create untold anarchy or subjugation on a massive scale to solve their stupid hypothesis. I suppose you send out your bank account details to dubious ugandan generals quite often then. 

I don't advocate the other choices are more appealing, but this is beyond ridiculous. 

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.

Not the same thing. 

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.

Or physically either. It's a voluntary symbiosis, not 'synthesis'. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 13 juin 2012 - 08:26 .

[Heeden]

[quote]

[quote]That's my issue with all this, one man is taking it upon himself to decide a path for the galaxy. What if his outlook is not the same as another, how is his choice fair to anyone else?[/quote]

I don't know what sort of idealistic world you live in; but both IRL and fiction have many, many examples where an individual or small group has made decisions that affect millions or billions of others without their consent. This isn't necessarily a bad thing - in most situations it is impractical or impossible to disseminate the necessary information to create an educated consensus (a state of affairs Synthesis would go some way towards eliminating). Even if it was possible, like in an e-democracy, there's also the risk that irrational, emotional responses will cause people to choose against their better interests or better judgements.

So yes, in a perfect world everyone would get an equal say based on their rational assessment of all relevant facts but that isn't the real world and it isn't the ME universe. (Actually it's the Culture, people really should read those books).

[quote]Again what if I  live in a society that finds being half machine an abomination. Why are you forcing this on me? [/quote]

Why do you keep bringing up the half-machine thing, keep your fan-fiction out of my head-canon.

[quote]
Well that is a choice and if I make it then yes, I did not betray anyone or force them to live within a framework they might not want. might possibly be a more brave thing to do than just choose. Bravodo aside. If all choices are morally wrong then not making a choice could be possibly the best solution. Maybe the next cycle can find a better way to get around the Catalyst  fallacy rather than forcing everyone to change which I see as a compromise or a violation.
Or you could pick destroy and not change anyone and do the very thing you were supposed to do kill the Reapers...there is that. [/quote]

I did kill the Reapers, but at least I have the decency to admit it was a heinous act and the alternatives are worth consideration.

[quote]So you got some practice playing god, so why not go all out right? But again people were not happy with the choices too as you remember. Other people had different opinions about them that were valid. Some had good reasons why you should not have done either of the two. [/quote]

There are two choices, you can call it playing god if you like, but by my hand species get to live or die. You think it is better to make that decision based on popular conception (they are "The Enemy", therefore they must die), I believe new information can lead to different solutions.

[quote]Or a huge violation of ethics on every being in the galaxy, Shepard has no right to do so. The opinion that he is virtuous does not give him the right to go around deciding everyones fate. Virtue does not equate to a right to play god.[/quote]

Oh dear...I wasn't saying Shepard gets to play god by playing up to some ideal of being virtuous (although that's pretty close to how my Paragon Shep is starting to see himself after continuously proving to the galaxy that his way is the best). I was saying the only thing that makes it morally right to make this choice is the fact he is the only person with the ability. He is there, in that time and place, and a choice must be made. Even if you choose to do nothing the whole galaxy is affected by that choice.

[quote]
So now you understand where I have my problems with synthesis? You can't defend that it's not a violation of rights to exist as is in some way. By your example of trying to show how destroy is a violation then Synthesis is more of one with that very same example. I don't consider it a good choice because the leader is taking it upon himself to force a belief on a society, kinda like the US has no right to force freedom on everyone,but also no on should be able to force a dictatorship on me.

If you can kinda get my drift on this.
[/quote]

Wait, you're saying you would kill everyone in the Middle East rather than give the whole world a free computer and wi-fi?

Modifié par Heeden, 13 juin 2012 - 08:34 .

[Heeden]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

I have no problem killing billions of sentient beings when their only purpose is to kill everyone else without mercy and they have literally no other aspect to their existence.

I also find the sympathetic and compassionate approach some people have to the Reapers because they're desperate to find ever more ropey ways to argue against other choices to be hilarious. 

I'm sorry dude, are we turning your straight-forward space monsters in to something from a science-fiction story?

[Heeden]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

You find letting the enemy you've been fighting for three years impose a massive change on the very foundations of existence when it doesn't even tell you what will happen, when its idea of 'synthesis' is the Reapers and their goons, using a device which you have idea how it works, to solve a logically flawed and proof-devoid problem you only just heard about that runs contrary to what could be about a quarter of the story's content, all of which you are told about in a mere 10 lines of dialogue, more appealing than the other two?

You've basically let the Reapers create untold anarchy or subjugation on a massive scale to solve their stupid hypothesis. I suppose you send out your bank account details to dubious ugandan generals quite often then. 

I don't advocate the other choices are more appealing, but this is beyond ridiculous.

Like I said earlier, I'll accept criticisms based on ME or common sci-fi tropes but if you want to invent a load of head-canon where the role of the Catalyst is usurped by the Reapers (who's origins are also ignored in your version) I find it hard taking it seriously as a criticism.

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.

Not the same thing.

You clearly skimmed a lot of stuff. I wasn't saying the new Geth-Quarrian relationship was the same as Synthesis, I was saying I reject the notion of Synthesis = Hybridisation because that outcome could easilly come about without space magic.

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.

Or physically either. It's a voluntary symbiosis, not 'synthesis'. 

See above.

[Ieldra]

@antares, clennon et al.:
I've outlined the methods I used to arrive at my scenario. You may or may not agree with them, but I maintain my scenario has the advantage that it makes sense and presents an answer - one among many - to the question what the Synthesis is. Heeden's is another. And jtav's another. There is no one answer. This is an equation with an infinite number of solutions, but - if you know a litte math this will not escape you - that doesn't mean that anything goes. Our scenarios fit with the underlying themes, present a solution to "the problem" and make sense.  

I concede it's a morally problematic option. I do not concede that this aspect should rule my decision-making to the exclusion of everything else, and I won't be convinced that it should be by asspulls, sweeping generalizations, cheap demagoguery, emotional manipulation, association fallacies and the complete disregard of context. That's all. End of line.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 13 juin 2012 - 08:47 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Heeden wrote...

I'm sorry dude, are we turning your straight-forward space monsters in to something from a science-fiction story?

Well, you're trying to change straight forward fictional villains into something they're not in an ever more contrived ways.

Like that, attempting to tell people they've killed billions of sentient beings when they kill the Reapers and that they should feel bad and not do that, like we should have compassion and sympathy to things that do not deserve either. 

First off, that's a good thing. Those 'sentient' beings have evidently been enslaved against their will and turned insane by the Reapers, more than likely indoctrinated. They have no free-will, emotion, logic, or individuality. They are not what they once were and they never will be again. Plus, they're sentient. I have no problem killing billions of sentient beings when they're in that state and have been stripped of their sapience. It's an act of mercy. 

I have no problem killing the Reapers, the murderous genocidal machines that they are without any other aspect to their existence. The Reapers do not have another side, a side that could coexist. All they do is kill and corrupt and enslave. They are evil. BioWare liked to point that out every now and then, ME2 being probably the massive red flag to tell you they're the villains. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 13 juin 2012 - 08:55 .

[antares_sublight]

Heeden wrote...
Like I said earlier, I'll accept criticisms based on ME or common sci-fi tropes but if you want to invent a load of head-canon where the role of the Catalyst is usurped by the Reapers (who's origins are also ignored in your version) I find it hard taking it seriously as a criticism.

LOOOOOOOOOOOL. Your very defense is dependent on a load of head-canon.

[jla0644]

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.

So can I assume you also subscribe to the theory that playing a game
like GTA will make someone think it's ok to run people over, pull people
out of their cars and beat them to death, and to hire a hooker, kill
her and take your money back?

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 givesmore reason to make none of the choices, unless you already destroyed the Geth then I can see how Destroy can work for you.

You're still hung up on making this a black and white issue, free from any context. As long as you insist on this, there really isn't a point to discussing anything. Let me state it once again, and make it as clear as I possibly can: I am not trying to prove that imposing your will on people is a good thing. This fact is what makes Synthesis a difficult decision, just like killing the geth is what makes choosing Destroy difficult -- for some people, others don't seem to care. None of them are meant to be easy. But choosing Synthesis is not a tacit approval of autocratic rule. It is not a statement that says you don't support basic human rights. It is a calculated decision, weighing which option does the least harm and most good, as you see it.

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.

Now you're making stuff up. You have no idea that anyone is in peril. And you're going beyond the parameters of what you keep saying the argument is all about: the choice.

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?

If only there were a word to describe a situation in which someone deflects from the real argument by creating another argument which seems to be the same, but really isn't. If there were, I'd use it now.

That has never been the question. I have never tried to prove that anyone has a right to do it, or that it's ok to do it. That doesn't mean that in Shepard's situation, given everything involved, that it isn't something one could never live with doing. You're screwing the galaxy one way or another, even if your solution is not to choose anything. Don't pretend that whatever you decision is, that it's more moral than someone else's.

Modifié par jla0644, 13 juin 2012 - 08:45 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Heeden wrote...

Like I said earlier, I'll accept criticisms based on ME or common sci-fi tropes but if you want to invent a load of head-canon where the role of the Catalyst is usurped by the Reapers (who's origins are also ignored in your version) I find it hard taking it seriously as a criticism.

Was anything I said in that paragraph wrong?

You obviously think so, but why not detail them? That's just a load of drivel to dodge the issue, the equivalent of just saying 'you're wrong' but nothing else. Excuse me if I'm not compelled by it. 

'My version' isn't headcanon, that's what happens when you stand in front of the Catalyst. You let it change everything about life in its entirety without knowing the consequences. 

You clearly skimmed a lot of stuff. I wasn't saying the new Geth-Quarrian relationship was the same as Synthesis, I was saying I reject the notion of Synthesis = Hybridisation because that outcome could easilly come about without space magic.

It's not hybridisation either. It's symbiosis, voluntary.

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 13 juin 2012 - 08:51 .

[antares_sublight]

jla0644 wrote...
Now you're making stuff up. You have no idea that anyone is in peril.

And you have no idea everything is ok. That's the point. Synthesis is INDEFENSIBLE.