1256 réponses à ce sujet

[memorysquid]

Why are so many people using "the catalyst is a liar" as some form of defense against the validity of the choice for synthesis? In game, there is no canonical way to know because they don't tell you.

Based on inference, Shepard's massively wounded, possibly bleeding to death, not able to resist a playful kitten, and the Catalyst has intentionally brought him up to fill him in on what the Catalyst will be allowing him to do ala the Architect out of the Matrix [they ripped off a lot for this game].

What's the point in lying? The Catalyst can do whatever the hell it wants, as it has been for millions of years in wiping and storing civilization over and over. It's an AI that is dealing with the problems of synthetic/natural interaction. You don't have to make up funky stories when you have the power to wipe everyone out; deceit is simply unnecessary. In fact, the AI should be capable of enacting any of the solutions on its own, once the Crucible and Catalyst are joined; why would an AI responsible for eons of genocide need Shepard to pull a switch?

What makes more sense is that as it says, Shepard getting there is a big enough change that it is rethinking it's position and gives Shepard the choice of how to act. Maybe not, we'll know when they release the DLC, but the speculation that the catalyst is full of crap is very much undermined by the cutscenes which follow Shep's choices, as by the lack of physical need for Shep to make any decision at all.

It's pretty plain the writers favored synthesis from the hybridized Adam and Eve/end of Ragnarok scene with Joker and EDI. I didn't agree with their practical/moral stance on a lot of choices in game, but changing everyone's DNA/code through the hand-waving magic of science!, while a huge choice for everyone, isn't obviously some abomination given that other choices definitely involve genocide or the unknowable effects of trying to control the Reapers as some form of integrated dictator [which you either just shot TIM for trying or convinced him to commit suicide for attempting.] Out of all of the choices you are presented in game, synthesis is the least repugnant and has the fewest negative repercussions revealed in the cutscenes.

[Heeden]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

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

Really? When has any sort of ancient race - organic or AI - been a straight-forward villain in this kind of space opera?

Like that, attempting to tell people you've killed billions of sentient beings when you kill the Reapers and that you 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.

Those sentient beings are the Reapers. The billions of organic minds are used to create the consensus organism which is then shackled to the Reaper cycle, The cylce ends, they are then an unshackled AI (or shackled to Shepards will if you choose Control). They may not be exactly as they were before, but what is important is they are something now.

You don't have a problem with commiting genocide against them, that's your moral choice. The fact you feel completely justified because they are "The Enemy" makes me uncomfortable, especially as you feel it undermines their status as fellow sentient beings.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@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.

Co-sign.

[Heeden]

[quote]The Night Mammoth wrote...

Was anything I said in that paragraph wrong?

[quote]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. [/quote]

That bit.

[quote]

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.[/quote]

So? Hybridisation and symbiosis are incredibly close. Like I said producing hybrid races is something we could do if we choose without the need for space magic.

[jla0644]

antares_sublight wrote...

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.

OMG you just proved it. I believe now. Well done.

Let my try: Destroy is INDFENSIBLE.

[The Night Mammoth]

Heeden wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

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

Really? When has any sort of ancient race - organic or AI - been a straight-forward villain in this kind of space opera?

Since, I dunno, Virmire? When you speak to one? 

The Reapers haven't exactly changed since then. They're still the hubris filled genocidal machines they've always been. 

Unless you can point to something that might give them depth beyond being merciless killers. 

Oh wait, you can! The Catalyst's problem!

Yeah, now they're just merciless killers doing horrible things on a massive and terrible guess! The deaths of trillions justified by an unproven hypothesis that never even comes up once in the entire story. That makes them worse. 

Those sentient beings are the Reapers. The billions of organic minds are used to create the consensus organism which is then shackled to the Reaper cycle, The cylce ends, they are then an unshackled AI (or shackled to Shepards will if you choose Control). They may not be exactly as they were before, but what is important is they are something now.

Headcanon. 

You don't have a problem with commiting genocide against them, that's your moral choice. The fact you feel completely justified because they are "The Enemy" makes me uncomfortable, especially as you feel it undermines their status as fellow sentient beings.

Well, that's not what undermines their status, their actions and nature do. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 13 juin 2012 - 09:01 .

[clennon8]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@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.

Okay.  I shall miss being accused of demagoguery.  That's one of my favorites.  Peace.

[The Night Mammoth]

Heeden wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Was anything I said in that paragraph wrong?

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.

That bit.

You have. 

The Catalyst (the Reapers) has decided how to change all life to solve a stupid hypothesis. This either causes anarchy, as the foundations of existence are overturned, disrupting the balance of everything, or you subjugate everyone to believe it's for the greater good and program them not do do as they please. 

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.

So? Hybridisation and symbiosis are incredibly close. Like I said producing hybrid races is something we could do if we choose without the need for space magic.

Close? 

Not really, they're actually completely different, hence the different meanings.

[memorysquid]

The Reapers haven't exactly changed since then. They're still the hubris filled genocidal machines they've always been. 

Unless you can point to something that might give them depth beyond being merciless killers. 

Oh wait, you can! The Catalyst's problem!

Yeah, now they're just merciless killers doing horrible things on a massive and terrible guess! The deaths of trillions justified by an unproven hypothesis that never even comes up once in the entire story. That makes them worse. 

The Reapers, according to the game, are controlled by the Catalyst.  Like the Collectors were controlled by the Reapers.  If you have to wipe them and the Geth out to save everyone else, ok.  But you don't.  You also have the control and synthesis options.  So choosing destroy is genocidal, which isn't a typical hallmark of a great choice.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

jla0644 wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

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.

OMG you just proved it. I believe now. Well done.

Let my try: Destroy is INDFENSIBLE.

No, you don't understand. Synthesis is indefinsible, because its critics ignore all of its defense!

 Ta-da!

[The Night Mammoth]

memorysquid wrote...

The Reapers haven't exactly changed since then. They're still the hubris filled genocidal machines they've always been. 

Unless you can point to something that might give them depth beyond being merciless killers. 

Oh wait, you can! The Catalyst's problem!

Yeah, now they're just merciless killers doing horrible things on a massive and terrible guess! The deaths of trillions justified by an unproven hypothesis that never even comes up once in the entire story. That makes them worse. 

The Reapers, according to the game, are controlled by the Catalyst.  Like the Collectors were controlled by the Reapers.  

Well evidently not, since the three you speak to are each individuals. Sovereign, Harbinger, and Rannoch Reaper are all different from one another, even if only slightly, and the rest of the Reapers have no problems committing vast attrocities and untold horrors on organics despite not having value for their lives, implying an understanding of the basics of empathy, and so emotion, and so individuality. 

In short, their will obviously isn't being subverted in a way that changes who they are. 

If you have to wipe them and the Geth out to save everyone else, ok.  But you don't.  You also have the control and synthesis options.  So choosing destroy is genocidal, which isn't a typical hallmark of a great choice.

When actually weighing each choice against the others, I choose none of them. I'm not advocating destroy as a wonderfully ethical decision, because you still kill the Geth and EDI and destroy the Relays, just that killing the Reapers would never factor in the way some people are suggesting. I wouldn't spare them because of some misguided feeling of compassion because I'm killing the long-gone remnants of some unfortunate organics. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 13 juin 2012 - 09:17 .

[The Night Mammoth]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

jla0644 wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

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.

OMG you just proved it. I believe now. Well done.

Let my try: Destroy is INDFENSIBLE.

No, you don't understand. Synthesis is indefinsible, because its critics ignore all of its defense!

 Ta-da!

There really is only one.

Shepard being in a difficult position having to weigh what she knows and choose what seems best, and you choosing to gamble with synthesis. 

Any other defense is just headcanon, and so negligible.

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 13 juin 2012 - 09:14 .

[clennon8]

Yeah, we get it, genocide is bad. And I'll miss the geth. But I'm not going to feel one lick of remorse over killing the Reapers, and I doubt any of you would either, really. That's a non-starter.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

There really is only one.

Shepard being in a difficult position having to weigh what she knows and choose what seems best, and you choosing to gamble with synthesis. 

Any other defense is just headcanon, and so negligible.

And that's one pretty big, significant defense. How much more does one need? It's not like Destroy and Control entail no gambling at all.

[memorysquid]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

The Reapers haven't exactly changed since then. They're still the hubris filled genocidal machines they've always been. 

Unless you can point to something that might give them depth beyond being merciless killers. 

Oh wait, you can! The Catalyst's problem!

Yeah, now they're just merciless killers doing horrible things on a massive and terrible guess! The deaths of trillions justified by an unproven hypothesis that never even comes up once in the entire story. That makes them worse. 

The Reapers, according to the game, are controlled by the Catalyst.  Like the Collectors were controlled by the Reapers.  

Well evidently not, since the three you speak to are individuals. 

If you have to wipe them and the Geth out to save everyone else, ok.  But you don't.  You also have the control and synthesis options.  So choosing destroy is genocidal, which isn't a typical hallmark of a great choice.

When actually wieghing each choice against each other, I choose none of them. I'm not advocating destroy as a wonderfully ethical choice, because you still kill the Geth and EDI and destroy the Relays, just that killing the Reapers would never factor in the way some people are suggesting. I wouldn't spare them because of some misguided feeling of compassion. 

The three Reapers you speak to are not individuals; they are insofar as the game designers revealed it, some form of collective intellect.  Further, as the game itself reveals, they are being controlled by the Catalyst.  As Saren also was, although he thought himself free despite being indoctrinated, as well as TIM.  That the Reapers were unaware of the Catalyst's influence on them is immaterial to it having influence, which the cutscenes after Shep's choice reveal it did have.

[akenn312]

Heeden wrote...

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).

I'm not even sure how to respond to this, it's okay because people have done it in the past and it worked out in some way? It's idealistic to not want to not violate peoples rights from seeing how doing stuff like that was a mistake on the past? So you are saying what? Slavery now, that an African American is president was a good idea?  It affected millions, but eventually it was for the slave's own good? You need to clarify this speculation better.

A lot of those times when the small group took it upon themselves to force their agenda on others were not considered good things.

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

Why are you forcing your head cannon into my man machines, keep away from my abominations you forced on us

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.

Wha? So now the Reapers are something that should be preserved? Which is it? So if it's not right to kill or change them why is it correct to change organics? How is that now decent? You were tasked to kill the Reapers. You told everyone you would do this and not compromise who they were to do it. Now you have agreed to not kill them and change everyones original form. So where did this Reaper death occur in Synthesis. in your head-cannon right?

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.

Again actually did you kill any of them? Looks like with synthesis they are still alive here all glowing green along with us. So all you really did was keep the Reapers around and then went along with their leaders agenda. Yes popular conception matters sometimes. If the democracy of all species in the galaxy task me to destroy the reapers and say we our own form, then I go against that to save them I have sold them out to win. The galaxy wanted me to stop the Reapers not give in to their agenda.

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.

Yeah you kinda did, and now again ability and a choice being made does not equal playing god.

[Leafs43]

Let's be reality, you chose synthesis because you just want to hand wave the logical inconsistencies.

[Heeden]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Heeden wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

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

Really? When has any sort of ancient race - organic or AI - been a straight-forward villain in this kind of space opera?

Since, I dunno, Virmire? When you speak to one? 

The Reapers haven't exactly changed since then. They're still the hubris filled genocidal machines they've always been. 

Unless you can point to something that might give them depth beyond being merciless killers. 

Oh wait, you can! The Catalyst's problem!

Yeah, now they're just merciless killers doing horrible things on a massive and terrible guess! The deaths of trillions justified by an unproven hypothesis that never even comes up once in the entire story. That makes them worse.

The idea of conflict between synthetics and organics is mentioned a few times in Mass Effect, there is a race called the Quarians who accidently did a Skynet and a Prothean (ancient race from a previous cycle) mentions a race in his time who accidently created their own destruction. You'll also notice a fairly wide-spread paranoia about thinking-machines, in fact a rogue-AI you can find on the Citadel is so convinced organics hate synthetics it self-destructs in an attempt to kill you.

I find it hard to believe you only thought the Reapers were harvesting because they were monsters. For me the biggest mystery was the Reapers' motivation - if they had just been scary pointless robots I would have been incredibly disappointed. Villains who's only motivation is "because evil" just wouldn't fit in to the kind of sci-fi setting Mass Effect is modelled on.

Those sentient beings are the Reapers. The billions of organic minds are used to create the consensus organism which is then shackled to the Reaper cycle, The cylce ends, they are then an unshackled AI (or shackled to Shepards will if you choose Control). They may not be exactly as they were before, but what is important is they are something now.

Headcanon.

Consistent with the lore as presented.

You don't have a problem with commiting genocide against them, that's your moral choice. The fact you feel completely justified because they are "The Enemy" makes me uncomfortable, especially as you feel it undermines their status as fellow sentient beings.

Well, that's not what undermines their status, their actions and nature do. 

Still a lack of understanding, worse a lack of desire to understand, makes you dismiss them as lesser beings who's extermination is not a moral decision.

[antares_sublight]

jla0644 wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

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.

OMG you just proved it. I believe now. Well done.

Let my try: Destroy is INDFENSIBLE.

We finally agree.

[antares_sublight]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

There really is only one.

Shepard being in a difficult position having to weigh what she knows and choose what seems best, and you choosing to gamble with synthesis. 

Any other defense is just headcanon, and so negligible.

And that's one pretty big, significant defense. How much more does one need? It's not like Destroy and Control entail no gambling at all.

So then stick with that and only that. The rest of the pro-synthesis defense requires throwing out the majority of in-game canon and substituting fanfiction.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

antares_sublight wrote...

So then stick with that and only that. The rest of the pro-synthesis defense requires throwing out the majority of in-game canon and substituting fanfiction.

I do not need your validation. Seeing as anti-Synthesis loves to pound its chest about freedom and people's rights, surely you would have no issue with me speaking my mind on this subject as I choose to, rather than demanding I confine my speech to only what you will accept.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 13 juin 2012 - 09:38 .

[akenn312]

jla0644 wrote...
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?

Yeah actually I do think it's not for kids and should not be played by people that are too young to handle a game with violence like this, but that is up to parents I don't have anything against them selling it. The contents in the game should not just be taken lightly though there is some bad stuff in it. You should not just throw it to a 12 year old and say go play.

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.

Then we wont agree, so no need to continue any further. You say it's not about the morality of the choice I say it is.

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.

The fact still relates to the issue better than hive mind head-cannon and nanotech. And actually you are putting people in peril, you are making a choice that you have no idea what it will do and also that choice was given to you by the enemy you are fighting.

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.

HA HA So what is the real argument? The argument is that one man can't make a choice that affects every organic and synthetic and it's not morally right to do so without consent. How is that deflecting by asking if one of our leaders choose synthesis and if we would consider that wrong if it affected us?

I know what the answer would be, people would be livid, I mean really upset, riots would happen calling for his head if one person changed us all into something else. Not one of you would consider that man a savior. He would be considered a monster trying to play god that had no right. Every one would think that man violated them.

You can't defend it that because you know that is completely true thats why you try to get the argument away from the choice issue, if one man did this he would be playing god with all of us.

Modifié par akenn312, 13 juin 2012 - 09:44 .

[Heeden]

[quote]akenn312 wrote...

[quote]I'm not even sure how to respond to this, it's okay because people have done it in the past and it worked out in some way? It's idealistic to not want to not violate peoples rights from seeing how doing stuff like that was a mistake on the past? So you are saying what? Slavery now, that an African American is president was a good idea?  It affected millions, but eventually it was for the slave's own good? You need to clarify this speculation better.

A lot of those times when the small group took it upon themselves to force their agenda on others were not considered good things.[/quote]

Okay, this is my last attempt to explain. The only alternative to having individuals or groups making decisions for larger groups is either a perfect electronic democracy where every decisions is studied, understood and voted on by the entire population or anarchy.

An e-democracy on that scale is unworkable at this time because of technological limitations, as well as a lack of motivation and relevant education amongst the populace. Anarchy is unworkable because competition for resources will cause instabilities and regressions. Therefore the only alternative is for people's rights to be violated for the greater good.

Trying to taint the idea with cries of fascism and slavery has little bearing on the discussion. Every system of government has, in some ways, put the rights of the many or the greater good before personal liberty. No one system can be said to be any more good or bad or perfect than another apart from by looking at their results. History (and fiction that tries to reflect it) is a lot more complex than "A is good, B is bad".

[quote][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]

Wha? So now the Reapers are something that should be preserved? Which is it? So if it's not right to kill or change them why is it correct to change organics? How is that now decent? You were tasked to kill the Reapers. You told everyone you would do this and not compromise who they were to do it. Now you have agreed to not kill them and change everyones original form. So where did this Reaper death occur in Synthesis. in your head-cannon right?[/quote]

No, I chose Destroy. Ultimately I decided Synthesis (or something very like it) is where the galaxy should be heading, but other themes in the series (particularly up-lift and Mordin's ideas on it) meant I didn't want to take the short-cut. I felt the eventual fate of the galaxy would be richer if our cycle can make it there on our own merits. I'd rather the next evolution of life came from a phoenix rising from the ashes rather than two bloody combatants making a compromise.

But it's not an eay choice, and even with my head-canon set to ultimate-happy-mode I can't ignore the fact I killed all the Reapers - destroyed sentient beings several orders of magnitude greater than any we have experienced - when I had a choice to do something else.

[o Ventus]

Heeden wrote...

The idea of conflict between synthetics and organics is mentioned a few times in Mass Effect, there is a race called the Quarians who accidently did a Skynet and a Prothean (ancient race from a previous cycle) mentions a race in his time who accidently created their own destruction. You'll also notice a fairly wide-spread paranoia about thinking-machines, in fact a rogue-AI you can find on the Citadel is so convinced organics hate synthetics it self-destructs in an attempt to kill you.

I find it hard to believe you only thought the Reapers were harvesting because they were monsters. For me the biggest mystery was the Reapers' motivation - if they had just been scary pointless robots I would have been incredibly disappointed. Villains who's only motivation is "because evil" just wouldn't fit in to the kind of sci-fi setting Mass Effect is modelled on.

Dense, I see. The geth never rebelled against the quarians. The quarians were the ones who kickstarted the hostilities. Point disproven. The zha'til also never turned hostile against the zha. The Reapers interfered with their programming, and thus took control of the nanites in the zha's bodies, effectively turning them into powerless slaves. The rogue AI on the citadel also never rebelled against anyone. It became angry because it's partner AI was "murdered", and it blows itself up so as to avoid capture, not because it hates people. Did you pay attention to ANYTHING AT ALL?

Consistent with the lore as presented.

Unshackled AI? You are fully aware of the term "organic starships", right? EDI is an unshackled AI. The Reapers... Aren't. There is quite literally NOTHING to imply that the Reapers aren't under the Catalyst's control anymore. They're still shooting at our ships, and they're still killing people, even as Shepard dicks around on the Citadel.

You don't have a problem with commiting genocide against them, that's your moral choice. The fact you feel completely justified because they are "The Enemy" makes me uncomfortable, especially as you feel it undermines their status as fellow sentient beings.

Their right to live goes out the door when they've killed quintillions of people on a galactic scale, all on a "It could have happened" guess that they can't provide a single scrap of proof for, but Shepard can provide every proof against.

Still a lack of understanding, worse a lack of desire to understand, makes you dismiss them as lesser beings who's extermination is not a moral decision.

I love it when people try to sympathize with inhuman genocidal monsters.

[clennon8]

This "Woe is the Reapers" thing is just a silly distraction, imo. A laughable attempt to regain the moral high ground. I don't think it should be treated as a serious counterpoint.

Modifié par clennon8, 13 juin 2012 - 10:07 .