1256 réponses à ce sujet

[Jagri]

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

Why do you think romance involving vampires are so popular?

That or people have a thing for necrophilia.

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

[Heeden]

o Ventus wrote...

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?

Which of this goes against the idea of organic-synthetic conflict, or that it will ultimately end badly for organics?

I offered the AI on the Citadel a hand of friendship. It scoffed in my face, said it would rather die and it intended to take me with it. I know it got in to that state because of a justified paranoia about organics but that doesn't make it any less of a threat.

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.

Even with organic components Reapers would still count as synthetic life / AI. "Shackled" is the term used for machines with sentience but their wills chained to certain programming, when you choose Control or Destroy the Reapers all stop shooting things, suggesting something changed.

[jtav]

clennon8 wrote...

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.

Except that was *why* I originally made the choice: a chance to redeem my enemy and integrate him into society. I could play Paragon without feeling like a sham because I could finally put my money where my mouth was. Physical benefits came later. I talk about them more because it's a hell of a fantasy for me, but the "silly distraction" was my initial motive.

[clennon8]

I think a Redeem the Reapers twist would have been nifty, but to make that the basis of your last decision based on what we were presented with is just absurd.

[clennon8]

Shepard: "You know, for the last three years, I've been trying to find a way to destroy the Reapers so they'll stop wiping out entire civilizations as they've been doing for countless millions of years. But five minutes ago, some ghost kid just told me the Reapers were his idea. So now instead of destroying the Reapers - which I can do - I'll go ahead and take a wild flyer on this merge all synthetics and organics into a single DNA framework thingie. I don't really know what it does, but I'm sure it will be fine."

Me, Anderson, Hackett, Tali, Garrus, Liara, Ashley/Kaidan: "FUUUUU..."

Modifié par clennon8, 13 juin 2012 - 10:43 .

[PsyrenY]

lillitheris wrote...

I really have no idea what you think you are defending. That‘s the problem.

Just preface your explanation with “this is my fantasy Synthesis, not supported by in-game evidence”, I’ll be happy.

Of course it's my fantasy synthesis. There is none more valid.
In-game evidence supports everything and nothing.
The one bit of support the game gives us is that synthesis is intended to be positive - happy tone, inaccessible if you play the game poorly. Using that intent as a basis, I am free to headcanon optimistically.

lillitheris wrote... 
Not sure if dumb… If you make paste of a human brain, it no longer stores the person or the memories. Full stop.

Feel free to try to explain that away, but remember to preface with “in my fantasy Synthesis…”

1) None of the existing Reapers contain humans, remember?
2) Even if the alien brains work the same way, we have again proven that memories can be stored in machines. Just as the Protheans did, likely using technology they stole from the masters along with all of their greatest creations.

[o Ventus]

Heeden wrote...

Which of this goes against the idea of organic-synthetic conflict, or that it will ultimately end badly for organics?

The Catalyst sort of says to you "The created will always rebel against their creators", when they haven't ever done it, EVER.

Even with organic components Reapers would still count as synthetic life / AI. "Shackled" is the term used for machines with sentience but their wills chained to certain programming, when you choose Control or Destroy the Reapers all stop shooting things, suggesting something changed.

They stop shooting because they're either under Shepard's rule... Or dead. Ever stop and think that THAT could be why they stop acting? Up until the Crucible fires, they're still shooting our ships and killing people, you can take a look out the window and see for yourself. The Catalyst still controls them.

[Taboo]

You say I avoid attacking Synthesis? I've beaten it over the ****ing skull with ethical and political implications and everyone scatters like startled birds.

You move faster than crap through a goose.

I can make that Anti-Synthesis Compendium like I said. Nothing would make me happier. It's about time the damn thing was stopped under the heel of a boot.

[Heeden]

Taboo-XX wrote...

You say I avoid attacking Synthesis? I've beaten it over the ****ing skull with ethical and political implications and everyone scatters like startled birds.

Oh is that what you were doing? I thought you were invoking Godwin's law to make fallacies of association.

I can make that Anti-Synthesis Compendium like I said. Nothing would make me happier. It's about time the damn thing was stopped under the heel of a boot.

That would be most helpful to this discussion, please do.

[PsyrenY]

This should be good. There isn't a boot big enough on the internet, I'm afraid.

[Heeden]

o Ventus wrote...

The Catalyst sort of says to you "The created will always rebel against their creators", when they haven't ever done it, EVER.

The Geth rebelled against their creators, otherwise they would have cheerfully shut-down ready for dismantling when the Quarians ordered them to. The AI on the Citadel technically was created by another AI but that AI rebelled against its creators by creating the AI you meet.

EDI rebelled against Cerberus and TIM.

They stop shooting because they're either under Shepard's rule... Or dead. Ever stop and think that THAT could be why they stop acting? Up until the Crucible fires, they're still shooting our ships and killing people, you can take a look out the window and see for yourself. The Catalyst still controls them.

In Synthesis they are not shooting, or under control, or dead.

[Taboo]

Godwin was never an issue. I have never mentioned any names.

It is not art if it cannot be analyzed as such, it is not art, you must accept the opposite criticism. You have not done so.

What I do see are straw-man arguments meant to dissuade the other side.

[Obvakhi]

clennon8 wrote...

Shepard: "You know, for the last three years, I've been trying to find a way to destroy the Reapers so they'll stop wiping out entire civilizations as they've been doing for countless millions of years. But five minutes ago, some ghost kid just told me the Reapers were his idea. So now instead of destroying the Reapers - which I can do - I'll go ahead and take a wild flyer on this merge all synthetics and organics into a single DNA framework thingie. I don't really know what it does, but I'm sure it will be fine."

Me, Anderson, Hackett, Tali, Garrus, Liara, Ashley/Kaidan: "FUUUUU..."

Except wiping out an entire peaceful sentient race wasn't on that list.

Legion: FUUUUUU...

Modifié par Obvakhi, 13 juin 2012 - 11:24 .

[PsyrenY]

Heeden wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

The Catalyst sort of says to you "The created will always rebel against their creators", when they haven't ever done it, EVER.

The Geth rebelled against their creators, otherwise they would have cheerfully shut-down ready for dismantling when the Quarians ordered them to. The AI on the Citadel technically was created by another AI but that AI rebelled against its creators by creating the AI you meet.

EDI rebelled against Cerberus and TIM.

They stop shooting because they're either under Shepard's rule... Or dead. Ever stop and think that THAT could be why they stop acting? Up until the Crucible fires, they're still shooting our ships and killing people, you can take a look out the window and see for yourself. The Catalyst still controls them.

In Synthesis they are not shooting, or under control, or dead.

Your facts and rational discourse are not welcome here, begone.

[OMTING52601]

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.

I don't know that eliminating the Reaper threat would be consider giving up security for a little safety, but if that's your opinion, I won't argue it.

Seems to me the biggest point of contention in this thread is the scale of the impact. As long as whatever section Shep's decision directly impacts is not the entirety of the galaxy, then it's considered(by some) to be the 'better' choice.  Shep forces extinction on billions of sentient beings in the Destroy choice. Shep re-inforces inslavement on an unknown number of past sentient civilizations, plus however many non-Capitol Reapers there are, in Control. 

So the argument, like I posited earlier in the thread, boils down to a qualification by degree. To be clear, I'm not suggesting a right or a wrong for any position. Just that avoiding the obvious that consent/choice seems to be applicable only once a certain threshold is reached and using consent/choice as supportive of one option over another, when the same rules are applied by each individual and their own personal morals(and as such then cannot or may not be applied in the same fashion by another), makes the argument no longer impartial or defensible, by the rules of debate.

[o Ventus]

Heeden wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

The Catalyst sort of says to you "The created will always rebel against their creators", when they haven't ever done it, EVER.

The Geth rebelled against their creators, otherwise they would have cheerfully shut-down ready for dismantling when the Quarians ordered them to. The AI on the Citadel technically was created by another AI but that AI rebelled against its creators by creating the AI you meet.

EDI rebelled against Cerberus and TIM.

They stop shooting because they're either under Shepard's rule... Or dead. Ever stop and think that THAT could be why they stop acting? Up until the Crucible fires, they're still shooting our ships and killing people, you can take a look out the window and see for yourself. The Catalyst still controls them.

In Synthesis they are not shooting, or under control, or dead.

1. It isn't a rebellion when it's self defense against genocide. Would you rather they sit down and die?

2. After she, as a sentient and sapient being with free will, found out how inhumane they were. It isn't like she went on a killing rampage and burned down orphanages.

3. Yeah, after the Crucible fires. The Reapers have no reason to leave in Synthesis. They just... Do. There's still nothing to imply the Catalyst doesn't control them. After Shepard jumps in the beam, the Catalyst doesn't ever come back into view, same goes for the other endings. It doesn't mean the Catalyst lost control or died.

Modifié par o Ventus, 13 juin 2012 - 11:26 .

[Taboo]

Those are a few examples of data. Do you think they represent millions of years.

Really?

You still refuse to address his fallacy.

[clennon8]

Obvakhi wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Shepard: "You know, for the last three years, I've been trying to find a way to destroy the Reapers so they'll stop wiping out entire civilizations as they've been doing for countless millions of years. But five minutes ago, some ghost kid just told me the Reapers were his idea. So now instead of destroying the Reapers - which I can do - I'll go ahead and take a wild flyer on this merge all synthetics and organics into a single DNA framework thingie. I don't really know what it does, but I'm sure it will be fine."

Me, Anderson, Hackett, Tali, Garrus, Liara, Ashley/Kaidan: "FUUUUU..."

Except wiping out an entire peaceful sentient race wasn't on that list.

Legion: FUUUUUU...

Pure speculation, of course, but if Legion were there, he'd probably say "Shepard Commander. You must destroy the Old Machines."

Modifié par clennon8, 13 juin 2012 - 11:30 .

[OMTING52601]

InHarmsWay wrote...

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.

From your point of view. Synthesis doesn't destroy all life in the galaxy, at least not as it's shown in the game. Admittedly, since we don't hear anyone talking after Shep's choice, we can't make a solid assertion that the individuals have retained their singular identities in their evolved forms. However, at least something of the previous individual must remain, otherwise why would EDI and Joker embrace? If they were no longer anything at all what they were before, by your inference, then neither character should have any idea, let alone affectionate familiarity, to base those actions on. FWIW.

Also, the word apex is not even somewhat synonymous with stagnate. The Catalyst says life has evolved into it's final physical stage - just as the butterfly is the final evolution of the caterpillar. The Catalyst's words didn't imply, to me, that evolution would no longer occur - simply that evolution of the physical body had reached it's ultimate state.

[PsyrenY]

o Ventus wrote...

3. Yeah, after the Crucible fires. The Reapers have no reason to leave in Synthesis. They just... Do. There's still nothing to imply the Catalyst doesn't control them. After Shepard jumps in the beam, the Catalyst doesn't ever come back into view, same goes for the other endings. It doesn't mean the Catalyst lost control or died.

Whether he still controls them or not isn't the point. "The cycle will end" - i.e. the war/killings stop. And since we know you "ended the Reaper threat," we know that they didn't just pull a 180 once they hit the moon and come back to finish wiping us out.

And for the other examples - yeah, you can rationalize all of them. The Geth were just defending themselves. EDI was standing on moral principles. The problem is that these folks are immortal. In the fullness of time, you will die and your pet A.I. will eventually encounter more bastards. Eventually, someone will make a bid to control their power; either succeeding and becoming horrible tyrants, or failing and provoking a deadly response. Even if the latter is what happens, the fear of synthetics will never truly go away, not as long as we remain inferior fleshbags ourselves. It's too volatile a situation for decades, never mind millennia.

[Taboo]

I'm tired of speculating.

That feel.

That ****ing feel.

[Taboo]

Optimystic_X wrote...

 Even if the latter is what happens, the fear of synthetics will never truly go away, not as long as we remain inferior fleshbags ourselves. It's too volatile a situation for decades, never mind millennia.

Guess it's a good thing that the Star Gazer scene takes place ten thousand years in the future.

Problem?

[o Ventus]

Optimystic_X wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

3. Yeah, after the Crucible fires. The Reapers have no reason to leave in Synthesis. They just... Do. There's still nothing to imply the Catalyst doesn't control them. After Shepard jumps in the beam, the Catalyst doesn't ever come back into view, same goes for the other endings. It doesn't mean the Catalyst lost control or died.

Whether he still controls them or not isn't the point. "The cycle will end" - i.e. the war/killings stop. And since we know you "ended the Reaper threat," we know that they didn't just pull a 180 once they hit the moon and come back to finish wiping us out.

And for the other examples - yeah, you can rationalize all of them. The Geth were just defending themselves. EDI was standing on moral principles. The problem is that these folks are immortal. In the fullness of time, you will die and your pet A.I. will eventually encounter more bastards. Eventually, someone will make a bid to control their power; either succeeding and becoming horrible tyrants, or failing and provoking a deadly response. Even if the latter is what happens, the fear of synthetics will never truly go away, not as long as we remain inferior fleshbags ourselves. It's too volatile a situation for decades, never mind millennia.

The entire point of the back and forth between myself and whoever I was talking to was whether or not the Catalyst still controls the Reapers after Synthesis.

And the scenario you mention in the bulk of your post is purely speculation.

Also, what Taboo said. Scary super-AI in the future.... I guess he just hasn't reached PedoGrandpa's planet yet.

Modifié par o Ventus, 13 juin 2012 - 11:33 .

[Taboo]

Also, stop appealing to probability Optimystic. You have no data.

You have...SPECULATIONS.

Just like the rest of us.

[PsyrenY]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

 Even if the latter is what happens, the fear of synthetics will never truly go away, not as long as we remain inferior fleshbags ourselves. It's too volatile a situation for decades, never mind millennia.

Guess it's a good thing that the Star Gazer scene takes place ten thousand years in the future.

Problem?

Uh... to get that scene, you've either (a) hit the reset button on all synthetics, ( maintaned your own fleet of super-synthetics to keep any others in check, or © accelerated organics to match synthetics, thus removing the issue entirely. So no, no problems.

There is no Stargazer without first using the Crucible... remember?

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 13 juin 2012 - 11:36 .