1256 réponses à ce sujet

[Heeden]

akenn312 wrote...

Fascism is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists seek rejuvenation of their nation based on commitment to an organic national community where its individuals are united together as one people in national identity by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and blood through a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through discipline, indoctrination, physical training, and eugenics. Fascism seeks to purify the nation of foreign influences that are deemed to be causing degeneration of the nation or of not fitting into the national culture.

Fascism claims to represent a synthesis of cohesive ideas previously divided between traditional political ideologies. To achieve its goals, the fascist state purges forces, ideas, people, and systems deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration.

I bolded some different bits - Synthesis does not involve authoritarian nationalism or any form of political ideology - personally my money is on the creation of a post-scarcity anarchic utopia. Synthesis does not involve the formation of a single-party state, nor does it require people to share an ancestry or blood ties. There is no mass-mobilisation implicit in Synthesis, through any of the means mentioned. The idea of "foreign influences" doesn't work in the context of galactic civilisation because there is effectively no "outside" for them to come from (unless you count the Reapers but they are only purged in Destroy).

Strip that away, run a quick translation to apply it to a larger scale and we have,

Seek rejuvination of the galaxy based on commitment to a galactic community, represent a synthesis of cohesive ideas previously divided between traditional ideologies.

That's fine with me.

[Landon7001]

Rajalia wrote...

While i didn't really like any of the choices...the green path seemed the best for all overall. Red killed synthetics... all of them. (Or did it? Obviously Shepard survives.) Blue seems just a temporary fix.

Green was interesting though. So though it a genetic rape of all species... BUT... and only going from this particular point of view. It is stated that in this particular universe of ME, that for all species evolution ends when a species has reached synthesis. And by it's very definition... evolution isn't something any species gets to choose. Either you evolve and adapt or you cease to exist. So at least with that in mind... the synthesis option isn't really a choice if at some point millions of years later it's supposed to be the end stage... all Shepard does is makes it possible right then and there, essentially speeding up the evolution train for all races and species.

From a scientific, evolutionary standpoint... that's the best choice. A vast number of species are spared because of it. And i don't think that necessarily make people like the geth joining some kind of consensus and losing individuality, but rather allows a great expansion of the mind towards a faster gaining of knowledge and experiences. Think of it like a universal database all lifeforms could tap in to. You'd still preserve your identity. After all if you're looking at the Geth... they went from a consensus to becoming individuals in order to evolve.

Again... i don't agree with how the endings played out... but as a paragon... that seems the better choice instead of committing mass genocide or just delaying the inevitable again.

Adn while I don't agree that the Reapers are simply a victim as well, being controlled by the Catalyst Star Child... I do see some of the possible logic behind it. Though... the Reapers, at least those you saw Sovereign and Harbinger... they seemed to have their own identities toward their own common goal of extinction. So it's hard to think that they were merely puppets of the Catalyst's solution. Unless, and it's a bit of a stretch to say it, they themselves were the original race that was indoctrinated by Star Child himself.

Either way... too little focus is put on SC and since he appears only in ME3, it's kind of hard to make it out to be any kind of final and ultimate enemy. The puppet master of everything. Especially when Bioware for the first two games seemed to work so hard at focusing the puppet master as being Harbinger.

I find it dissapointing and unsatisying that theres a singular puppet master period

[akenn312]

Heeden wrote...

akenn312 wrote...


Fascism is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists seek rejuvenation of their nation based on commitment to an organic national community where its individuals are united together as one people in national identity by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and blood through a totalitarian single-party statethat seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through discipline, indoctrination, physical training, and eugenics.Fascism seeks to purify the nation of foreign influences that are deemed to be causing degeneration of the nation or of not fitting into the national culture.


Fascism claims to represent a synthesis of cohesive ideas previously divided between traditional political ideologies. To achieve its goals, the fascist state purges forces, ideas, people, and systems deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration.

I bolded some different bits - Synthesis does not involve authoritarian nationalism or any form of political ideology - personally my money is on the creation of a post-scarcity anarchic utopia. Synthesis does not involve the formation of a single-party state, nor does it require people to share an ancestry or blood ties. There is no mass-mobilisation implicit in Synthesis, through any of the means mentioned. The idea of "foreign influences" doesn't work in the context of galactic civilisation because there is effectively no "outside" for them to come from (unless you count the Reapers but they are only purged in Destroy).

Strip that away, run a quick translation to apply it to a larger scale and we have,

Seek rejuvination of the galaxy based on commitment to a galactic community, represent a synthesis of cohesive ideas previously divided between traditional ideologies.


That's fine with me.

Bold whatever bit you want to, avoid and play around with head-canon over and over or play with whatever semantics you want to. The fact still remains the choice can still be interpreted as having a Fascist concept. Someone else can see it as such and it's easier to see it than what you have to do to try and disprove it's not. 

When you try to twist it into this:
Seek rejuvenation of the galaxy based on commitment to a galactic community, represent a synthesis of cohesive ideas previously divided between traditional ideologies.

It's still relates to Fascism

You still out of fear, purge individuality of organics and synthetics to achieve a sort of peace or rejuvenation for what you think is for their own good. 

The choice does not have to follow the definition word for word to not be related to it. If it relates in any way that is a connection. Just because the choice does not involve a political state or is in Sci-Fi does not mean it cannot relate.

Instead of just avoiding this part lets look at it. 

A synthesis of cohesive ideas previously divided between traditional political ideologies. To achieve its goals, the fascist state purges forces, ideas, people, and systems deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration.

The realted possible political ideologies are represented by the organics being chaos and the sythetics being order, with chaos being looked at as some type of unavoidable degeneration. The Catylist and Shepard purge the ideal of chaos and order to create a galactic peace for everyones own good. Using Shepard as the one thing that ties them together into one cohesive consiousness that improves everyone for the better. You guys even head-canon this. 

Even look at the definition of what degeneration is about. 

The idea of degeneration had significant influence on science, art and politics from the 1850s to the 1950s. The social theory developed consequently from Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Evolution meant that mankind's development was no longer fixed and certain, but could change and evolve or degenerate into an unknown future, possibly a bleak future that clashes with the analogy between evolution and civilization as a progressive positive direction. As a consequence, theorists assumed the human species might be overtaken by a more adaptable species or circumstances might change and suit a more adapted species. Degeneration theory presented a pessimistic outlook for the future of western civilization as it believed the progress of the 19th century had begun to work against itself.

Kinda relates to what the cycle is all about...evolution, unaviodable bleak future, always overtaken by another more adaptable species.civilization working against itself.

Modifié par akenn312, 14 juin 2012 - 07:28 .

[Ieldra]

Linking Synthesis with fascism is complete nonsense.

I have seen exactly zero instances of any Synthesis supporter placing any value whatsoever in typical fascist themes: anti-intellectualism, the cult of tradition, obsession with matters of ancestry and the purity of the blood, degeneration from a state of grace placed firmly in the past, appeal to the masses, Newspeak, contempt for peace.... shall I go on?

If anything, Synthesis is the antithesis: It is anti-traditionalist and decidedly anti-romantic, being completely unsentimental about nature and placing no value whatsoever in things like "organic purity". Its state of grace - in interpretations like Heeden's - is placed firmly in the future. In part, we choose Synthesis over Destroy because it is a less violent, less vengeance-driven solution. Any real fascist would despise that attitude.

You know, I can turn this argument around rather easily: Is the way some Synthesis detractors let their visceral aversion run away with their logic a sign of anti-intellectualism? Why the hell is organic purity such an important thing? What about all these statements "We came to destroy the Reapers, they won't get away with this" in the face of less violent solutions that make peace - which is usually regarded as the best way to end a war by more enlightened minds? I can't be the only one who associated "howling mob" with the behavior of the more extreme Destroy apologists. And the constant trolling by the Synthesis detractors does not help the case.

Perhaps people should think about that for a moment.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 14 juin 2012 - 08:41 .

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Linking Synthesis with fascism is complete nonsense.

I think it’s a complete loser of an argument, that much I agree on.

There is a point to be made about the forced homogenization of everything, but typically the actual rationale of those who made the mistake of choosing Synthesis is founded on a different basis despite the eventual consequences and the possible attitude of the Reapers themselves.

I’d suggest dropping the entire fascism discussion. There’s so much else wrong with Synthesis that I don’t see the point.

[Xellith]

To accept synthesis you have to agree that the reapers were right all along. But is that what the reapers WANT you to think?

[AngryFrozenWater]

To compare synthesis to said political system indeed goes too far, but the reality is that synthesis is anything but utopia. And that has to do with the road to arrive there.

The violation of the right of self-determination, the forced changed mind-set (into thinking the organic/synthetic problem has been solved) resulting in the limitation of free will, the forced change in physiology, disrespect for racial identity by extermination of the races' old forms, and the view that the new resulting race is somehow superior to the old ones cannot be denied. When the races were nearly exterminated by using the most horrific force imaginable to satisfy the reaper's genocidal reproduction methods to stay on top of the food chain, when Shepard was being beaten up to the point he or she could hardly breath, when the allied forces were surrounding Earth and when the Crucible was aimed at the Citadel, only then did the brat open his mouth to explain that there was this hypothetical organic/synthetic problem that required a solution. The three options offered were solutions to a non-existent problem. Even destruction required another genocide and both control and synthesis just left the reapers off the hook. In all of them, without MP, Shepard dies as a martyr of an imaginary cause. To top it all of off, the galactic infrastructure will be destroyed and the forces who won will be left stranded somewhere near Earth with starvation as the price to celebrate their victory.

As a renegade option the above is perhaps fun, but a paragon would certainly view it as pure malice, where nothing is gained and everything Shepard was supposed to fight for is lost.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 14 juin 2012 - 10:07 .

[grimlock122]

I got to synthesis through process of elimination

[Ieldra]

grimlock122 wrote...
I got to synthesis through process of elimination

What was your reason to reject the others? I'm just interested, no hidden agenda here.

[Ieldra]

@AngryFrozenWater:
I treat you to version 0.1b of my standardized list of what Synthesis *doesn't* do:

*Synthesis doesn't turn anyone into a Reaper-like creature
*Synthesis doesn't turn anyone into a Husk-like creature
*Synthesis doesn't indoctrinate anyone
*Synthesis doesn't kill anyone
*Synthesis doesn't destroy anyone's free will
*Synthesis doesn't mentally reprogram anyone
*Synthesis doesn't enslave anyone
*Synthesis doesn't make everyone the same
*Synthesis doesn't remove species diversity
*Synthesis doesn't destroy anyone's "old form"

From this point onwards, any such claims will be summarily dismissed unless you can present evidence. No, the post-Synthesis galaxy will likely not be an utopia, but neither will it be a dystopia. Besides, Synthesis has the most disastrous consequence in common with Destroy, but offers more hope for recovery.

Synthesis can be reached perfectly well by Paragon reasoning. jtav said it better than I ever could - read the OP.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 14 juin 2012 - 10:38 .

[o Ventus]

Aside from the first two (Those are stupid), can you actually prove your points?

[Ieldra]

o Ventus wrote...
Aside from the first two (Those are stupid), can you actually prove your points?

The burden of proof usually rests with those who make a positive claim. If you claim "Synthesis does X", it's your task to show the evidence. If you cannot, things revert to the default assumption ("Synthesis does not do X"). This is a methodological necessity since otherwise anyone could claim anything unless proven to be wrong, and within any suffiently complex system, there are claims which can be neither proven nor disproven (an everyday application of Gödel's incompleteness theorem).

The only positive claims about Synthesis we have are:
(1) It combines organic and synthetic life in some way.
(2) It prevents the eventual extinction of organic life
(3) Implicit in 2: Post-Synthesis organic-origin life retains enough if its organic nature to satisfy (2). This is, one of the reasons why I interpret Synthesis as a symbiosis rather than a low-level rewrite which makes no sense anyway..

If you can show that is absolutely necessary that "Synthesis does X" in order to achieve what it is supposed to achieve, then you have a point. As for my points, some have actual counterevidence, some have no evidence.

*Synthesis doesn't indoctrinate anyone (no evidence)
*Synthesis doesn't kill anyone (the important point that separates it from Destroy)
*Synthesis doesn't destroy anyone's free will (no evidence)
*Synthesis doesn't mentally reprogram anyone (no evidence)
*Synthesis doesn't enslave anyone (the important point that separates it from Control)
*Synthesis doesn't make everyone the same (counterevidence: Normandy scene)
*Synthesis doesn't remove species diversity (counterevidence: Normandy scene)
*Synthesis doesn't destroy anyone's "old form" (counterevidence: Normandy scene)

Modifié par Ieldra2, 14 juin 2012 - 11:18 .

[Belisarius09]

@op

your decision was bad and you should feel bad

numerous reasons have repeatedly been listed over and over again as to why synthesis is just pure ****ing evil. why you felt the need to make this thread again for the 50th time I don't know.

[Heeden]

Bold whatever bit you want to, avoid and play around with head-canon over and over or play with whatever semantics you want to. The fact still remains the choice can still be interpreted as having a Fascist concept. Someone else can see it as such and it's easier to see it than what you have to do to try and disprove it's not.

When you try to twist it into this:
Seek rejuvenation of the galaxy based on commitment to a galactic community, represent a synthesis of cohesive ideas previously divided between traditional ideologies.

It's still relates to Fascism

Clearly you have no idea what fascism is. The means are very much as important as the ends when and nowhere do they use space magic to promote fascism. The single-party state and common-ancestry are two of the most definitive

You still out of fear, purge individuality of organics and synthetics to achieve a sort of peace or rejuvenation for what you think is for their own good.

How is individuality purged without resorting to your strange head-canonny ideas?

The choice does not have to follow the definition word for word to not be related to it. If it relates in any way that is a connection. Just because the choice does not involve a political state or is in Sci-Fi does not mean it cannot relate.

You realise by that argument democracy is related to fascism. Wanting a strong economy is related to fascism. You are being completely ridiculous by saying any vague connection to fascism instantly taints an idea.

Did you know a lot of fascists wear shoes? If you wear shoes you must be a ****. This example is just as stupid as your claim that any political system that wishes to promote a sense of unity must be fascist.

Instead of just avoiding this part lets look at it. 

A synthesis of cohesive ideas previously divided between traditional political ideologies. To achieve its goals, the fascist state purges forces, ideas, people, and systems deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration.

The realted possible political ideologies are represented by the organics being chaos and the sythetics being order, with chaos being looked at as some type of unavoidable degeneration.

That's just plain wrong, Chaos and Order are not representative of Synthetic and Organics. Organics attempt to bring order to the universe, they create synthetics, but ultimately chaos brings around the downfall of the organic species. Synthesis brings organics and synthetics together so the chaos can no longer destroy them. It's analagous to the way a population loses the ability to be destroyed by the chaos of planetary existence when they become established as an interplanetary species. That does not make it fascism.

The Catylist and Shepard purge the ideal of chaos and order to create a galactic peace for everyones own good. Using Shepard as the one thing that ties them together into one cohesive consiousness that improves everyone for the better. You guys even head-canon this.

Chaos and order still exist, they are intrinsic parts of the cycle. And once again, fascism is not about "improving everyone", fascism makes a big deal of improving the collective by removing undesirables. Fascism does not work to try to get everyone playing nicely together, that's one of the biggest problems peope have with the system.

Even look at the definition of what degeneration is about. 

The idea of degeneration had significant influence on science, art and politics from the 1850s to the 1950s. The social theory developed consequently from Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Evolution meant that mankind's development was no longer fixed and certain, but could change and evolve or degenerate into an unknown future, possibly a bleak future that clashes with the analogy between evolution and civilization as a progressive positive direction. As a consequence, theorists assumed the human species might be overtaken by a more adaptable species or circumstances might change and suit a more adapted species. Degeneration theory presented a pessimistic outlook for the future of western civilization as it believed the progress of the 19th century had begun to work against itself.

I'm confused, are you saying Darwin was also a fascist?

Kinda relates to what the cycle is all about...evolution, unaviodable bleak future, always overtaken by another more adaptable species.civilization working against itself.

Yes you're right, degeneration is a philosophical problem. Here's the thing - just because fascism wishes to address the problem of degeneration, it does not mean all attempts to combat degeneration are fascist.


Your problem seems to be a logical fallacy, from what I can tell your reasoning goes,

Synthesis is bad.
Fascism is bad.
Therefore Synthesis is Fascism.

It's silly - you should go learn some history, find out what fascism is and how it works then if you still want to head-canon it in to ME go ahead (Destroy and Control are still stronger candidates) but remember that is the impression you want to make on the galaxy, it is not completely implicit in what Bioware put in there.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@AngryFrozenWater:
I treat you to version 0.1b of my standardized list of what Synthesis *doesn't* do:

*Synthesis doesn't turn anyone into a Reaper-like creature
*Synthesis doesn't turn anyone into a Husk-like creature
*Synthesis doesn't indoctrinate anyone
*Synthesis doesn't kill anyone
*Synthesis doesn't destroy anyone's free will
*Synthesis doesn't mentally reprogram anyone
*Synthesis doesn't enslave anyone
*Synthesis doesn't make everyone the same
*Synthesis doesn't remove species diversity
*Synthesis doesn't destroy anyone's "old form"

From this point onwards, any such claims will be summarily dismissed unless you can present evidence. No, the post-Synthesis galaxy will likely not be an utopia, but neither will it be a dystopia. Besides, Synthesis has the most disastrous consequence in common with Destroy, but offers more hope for recovery.

Synthesis can be reached perfectly well by Paragon reasoning. jtav said it better than I ever could - read the OP.

I did not claim synthesis turns anyone into a reaper-like or husk-like creatures, nor did I claim anyone was indoctrinated, nor did I claim it killed anyone, and nor did I claim anyone was enslaved.

Diversity was not used in there either. Maybe you mean identity?

What's up with your reading skills? The above is all in your mind.

Let me make the remaining points very simple for you. It is all about the hypothetical organic/synthetic problem as percieved to exist by Star Child.

Destruction is not to be believed a solution:

Shepard: But the reapers will be destroyed?
Child: Yes, but the peace won't last.
Child: Soon, your children will create synthetics, and the chaos will come back.

On the other hand synthesis is supposed to be one:

Child: There is another solution.
Shepard: Yeah?
Child: Synthesis.

For this to work creating synthetics needs to be prevented. Can that be done by merging organic and synthetic life? And if so, does that simple fact prevent them from creating new synthetics? The only way to do that is to block the urge or the ability to create new synthetics. That has to be either by blocking thought processes or making it technically (trough space magic) impossible. No matter what the exact solution one can never create synthetics after synthesis, even if one wanted. If that is not a limitation of free will or an alteration of mental reprogramming then what is?

Shepard: And that is?
Child: Add you energy to the Crucible's.
Child: Everything you are will be absorbed and then send out.
Child: The chain reaction will combine all synthetic and organic life into a new framework.
Child: A new DNA.

A species is identified by its DNA. As a matter of fact DNA is unique for every individual. It is used effectively by law enforcement to identify individuals. Not only does it identify an individual it also dictates the looks and functionality of the entire body. By changing the original DNA into a new framework, a new DNA, the identity of all involved individuals will be changed. That has to result in another physiology, because the underlying DNA changed. We can even see the visual side effects of that in cinematics. It does so on a galactic scale. That means the old races cease to exist. They are no longer there. The old DNA that used to describe them and make them tick, no longer exists. By space magic they may survive the change, but they *are* changed. Does that change who they are? Maybe or maybe not, but the physical effects that new DNA imposes on the individuals must have an effect on their physical en mental functioning, otherwise there is no use for synthesis in the first place, is there? You can jump up or down, but that transformation truly changed their racial identity. How hard is that to grasp?

Child: Synthesis is the final evolution of life, but we need each other to make it happen.

If you deny that racial change then the above can never happen. And once changed, the old form has ceased to exist - even if the life is not lost during the transformation.

Is there really something you still do not understand in this very simple reasoning?

Edit: Corrected some typos and added some minor clarifications.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 14 juin 2012 - 12:30 .

[wright1978]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@AngryFrozenWater:
I treat you to version 0.1b of my standardized list of what Synthesis *doesn't* do:

*Synthesis doesn't turn anyone into a Reaper-like creature
*Synthesis doesn't turn anyone into a Husk-like creature
*Synthesis doesn't indoctrinate anyone
*Synthesis doesn't kill anyone
*Synthesis doesn't destroy anyone's free will
*Synthesis doesn't mentally reprogram anyone
*Synthesis doesn't enslave anyone
*Synthesis doesn't make everyone the same
*Synthesis doesn't remove species diversity
*Synthesis doesn't destroy anyone's "old form"

From this point onwards, any such claims will be summarily dismissed unless you can present evidence. No, the post-Synthesis galaxy will likely not be an utopia, but neither will it be a dystopia. Besides, Synthesis has the most disastrous consequence in common with Destroy, but offers more hope for recovery.

Synthesis can be reached perfectly well by Paragon reasoning. jtav said it better than I ever could - read the OP.

I did not claim syntesis turns anyone into a reaper-like or husk-like creatures, nor did I claim anyone was indoctrinated, nor did I claim it killed anyone, and nor did I claim anyone was enslaved.

Diversity was not used in there either. Maybe you mean identity?

What's up with your reading skills? The above is all in your mind.

Let me make the remaining points very simple for you. It is all about the hypothetical organic/synthetic problem as percieved to exist by Star Child.

Destruction is not to be believed a solution:

Shepard: But the reapers will be destroyed?
Child: Yes, but the peace won't last.
Child: Soon, your children will create synthetics, and the chaos will come back.

On the other hand synthesis is supposed to be one:

Child: There is another solution.
Shepard: Yeah?
Child: Synthesis.

For this to work creating synthetics needs to be prevented. Can that be done by merging organic and synthetic life? And if so, does that simple fact prevent them from creating new synthetics? The only way to do that is to block the urge or the ability to create new synthetics. That has to be either by blocking thought processes or making it technically (trough space magic) impossible. No matter what the exact solution one can never create synthetics, even if one wanted. If that is not a limitation of free will or an alteration of mental reprogramming then what is?

Shepard: And that is?
Child: Add you energy to the Crucible's.
Child: Everything you are will be absorbed and then send out.
Child: The chain reaction will combine all synthetic and organic life into a new framework.
Child: A new DNA.

A species is identified by its DNA. As a matter of fact DNA is unique for every individual. It is used effectively by law enforcement to identify individuals. Not only does it identify an individual it also dictates the looks and functionality of the entire body. By changing the original DNA into a new framework, a new DNA, the identity of all involved individuals will be changed. That has to result in another physiology, because the underlying DNA changed. We can even see the visual side effects of that in cinematics. It does so on a galactic scale. That means the old races cease to exist. They are no longer there. The old DNA that used to describe them and make them tick, no longer exists. By space magic they may survive the change, but they *are* changed. Does that change who they are? Maybe or maybe not, but the physical effects that new DNA imposes on the individuals must have an effect on their physical en mental functioning, otherwise there is no use for synthesis in the first place, is there? You can jump up or down, but that truly changed their racial identity. How hard is that to grasp?

Child: Synthesis is the final evolution of life, but we need each other to make it happen.

If you deny that racial change then the above can never happen. And once changed, the old form has ceased to exist - even if the life is not lost during the transformation.

Is there really something you still do not understand in this very simple reasoning?

Agree completely.

[InHarmsWay]

All life in the galaxy is outright replaced, so it does constitute genocide when the life that once was is replaced with the new hybrids.

[akenn312]

Heeden wrote...

Your problem seems to be a logical fallacy, from what I can tell your reasoning goes,

Synthesis is bad.
Fascism is bad.
Therefore Synthesis is Fascism.

It's silly - you should go learn some history, find out what fascism is and how it works then if you still want to head-canon it in to ME go ahead (Destroy and Control are still stronger candidates) but remember that is the impression you want to make on the galaxy, it is not completely implicit in what Bioware put in there.

I would think this is your fallacy

I think Synthesis is good
I think Bioware is good
Therefore they can never accidentally put in a fascist theme.

Interesting that even when the definition is staring you in the face you cannot see how Fascism can be interpreted in this and how it relates to the synthesis choice. 

Sorry but I know history and just because you say "Nothing to see here" does not mean it's not there. Just because you want this choice to look positive does not mean it can't be seen in another way. 

Modifié par akenn312, 14 juin 2012 - 01:54 .

[Ieldra]

@AngryFrozenWater:

(1) There is no need to prevent the creation of new synthetics. This was explained countless times on these threads. Read the damned OP. The point is to make organic-origin life able to keep up with synthetic-origin life in order not to be destroyed should conflict arise, and to give synthetic-origin life better understanding of organic-origin life.
(Yes, this means that the post-Synthesis galaxy isn't necessarily more peaceful than the pre-Synthesis one. But it was never the goal to make eternal peace or something. Just to prevent the extinction scenario)

(2) There is no genetic rewrite! The "new...DNA" is a metaphor. It's rather obvious from the pause, even if the fact that "hybrid DNA" makes no sense doesn't give you pause. 

And why *this* very simple reasoning has gone over your head, AngryFrozenWater, I have no idea.


@InHarmsWay:
Change does not equal death. It's that simple. Identities are retained, almost all of the old form is retained, continuity of personality is retained. Your claim is false.

Oh my.....why do I even bother?

Modifié par Ieldra2, 14 juin 2012 - 12:30 .

[Aurora313]

Very simply, how I've interpretted the endings based on what I've seen in-game.

Synthesis = Ultimate embrace of the unknown and change. Sacrificing a single being for the betterment of the whole. (Legion's ideals and incidentally the reason for his sacrifice.)

Control = Shepard becomes the puppetmaster of the Reapers and the new Catalyst. We see them leave, but we don't know if they'll come back. Shepard is not incorruptible. (Illusive Man's ending.)

Destroy = Genocide of Synthetic life, including EDI, the Geth and most tech that the galaxy relied on. The Reapers are still a race, like it or not. The term 'genocide' still applies to them. (Anderson's ending.)

A paragon Shepard is deadset on offering redemption to every enemy he encounters, why should the Reapers any different? The Geth nearly exterminated the Quarians in the Morning War. Yet, Shepard can broker peace or even opt to help them. Why should the Repears be treated differently? .

I can understand people wishing to destroy the Reapers because it was Anderson's dying wish. Objectively, the Reapers are abominations, they're mass murders. But Subjectively, they are slaves to the Catalyst as much as everyone else is.

Modifié par Aurora313, 14 juin 2012 - 12:41 .

[InHarmsWay]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@AngryFrozenWater:

(1) There is no need to prevent the creation of new synthetics. This was explained countless times on these threads. Read the damned OP. The point is to make organic-origin life able to keep up with synthetic-origin life in order not to be destroyed should conflict arise, and to give synthetic-origin life better understanding of organic-origin life.
(Yes, this means that the post-Synthesis galaxy isn't necessarily more peaceful than the pre-Synthesis one. But it was never the goal to make eternal peace or something. Just to prevent the extinction scenario)

(2) There is no genetic rewrite! The "new...DNA" is a metaphor. It's rather obvious from the pause, even if the fact that "hybrid DNA" makes no sense doesn't give you pause. 

And why *this* very simple reasoning has gone over your head, AngryFrozenWater, I have no idea.


@InHarmsWay:
Change does not equal death. It's that simple. Identities are retained, almost all of the old form is retained, continuity of personality is retained. Your claim is false.

Oh my.....why do I even bother?

Your assumption that the phrase "new DNA" is a metaphor is purely your own speculations. The Catalyst said a new DNA framework would be created.

Also, do you consider chimpanzees human? If not then why? Our DNA varies by only 2%, hardly anything. Synthesis changes our genetic structure. We are no longer human, therefore humanity is gone.

[Vigilant111]

Aurora313 wrote...

Very simply, how I've interpretted the endings based on what I've seen in-game.

Synthesis = Ultimate embrace of the unknown and change. Sacrificing a single being for the betterment of the whole. (Legion's ideals and incidentally the reason for his sacrifice.)

Control = Shepard becomes the puppetmaster of the Reapers and the new Catalyst. We see them leave, but we don't know if they'll come back. Shepard is not incorruptible. (Illusive Man's ending.)

Destroy = Genocide of Synthetic life, including EDI, the Geth and most tech that the galaxy relied on. The Reapers are still a race, like it or not. The term 'genocide' still applies to them. (Anderson's ending.)

A paragon Shepard is deadset on offering redemption to every enemy he encounters, why should the Reapers any different? The Geth nearly exterminated the Quarians in the Morning War. Yet, Shepard can broker peace or even opt to help them. Why should the Repears be treated differently? .

I can understand people wishing to destroy the Reapers because it was Anderson's dying wish. Objectively, the Reapers are abominations, they're mass murders. But Subjectively, they are slaves to the Catalyst as much as everyone else is.

Very poetic, but do u really think that sacrificising one person is enough? this kind of sacrificing rituals never actually bring any result, the Adam and Eve was an abstract depiction of a post synthesis world, nothing substantial really, and what about the people who chose destroy and control, their Shepards also died, so that doesn't count as sacrifice??? Stop making yourself sound like a martyr and that the others are not

Modifié par Vigilant111, 14 juin 2012 - 12:55 .

[lillitheris]

♫ Faaantasy syyyynthesiiiiis, it’s got no-o-othing to doooo with the reaaaaal thiiiing… ♫

Ieldra2 wrote...

@AngryFrozenWater:
I treat you to version 0.1b of my standardized list of what FANTASY Synthesis *doesn't* do:

Presented without evidence.

*FANTASY Synthesis doesn't turn anyone into a Reaper-like creature
*FANTASY Synthesis doesn't turn anyone into a Husk-like creature

OK, they just look like it.

*FANTASY Synthesis doesn't indoctrinate anyone

Define ‘indoctrinate’. Apparently it makes them think Fantasy Synthesis is awesome?

*FANTASY Synthesis doesn't kill anyone

Have you accounted for all the flora and fauna that we know for a fact is also affected. Have you accounted for possible rejection of whatever space magic solution you envision by a certain biological entity? Possible incorrect ‘rewrites’? Plus the indirect deaths resultant from panic due to one moment fighting creatures that you now resemble and various crises arising thereafter.

*FANTASY Synthesis doesn't destroy anyone's free will
*FANTASY Synthesis doesn't mentally reprogram anyone
*FANTASY Synthesis doesn't enslave anyone

You can’t argue that we, who currently do not understand the master plan that is Fantasy Synthesis (and that IS what you‘re arguing, directly) suddenly DO understand it after Fantasy Synthesis without some type of ‘mental reprogramming’.

*Synthesis doesn't make everyone the same

Not everyone has a ‘new DNA’, I guess? Pray tell, explain how the ‘analogy’ to a universal factor of life works if it’s not universal?

*FANTASY Synthesis doesn't remove species diversity

Remove? Reduce.

*FANTASYSynthesis doesn't destroy anyone's "old form"

No, it just gives them a new one. The old one is in a closet somewhere?

From this point onwards, any such claims will be summarily dismissed unless you can present evidence.

Consider you claims  dismissed…

♫ Faaantasy syyyynthesiiiiis, it’s got no-o-othing to doooo with the reaaaaal thiiiing… ♫

Modifié par lillitheris, 14 juin 2012 - 01:02 .

[Ieldra]

InHarmsWay wrote...
We are no longer human, therefore humanity is gone.

If your definition of "human" depends on the chemical building blocks that encodes our physical selves, instead of those physical selves themselves, the identity resident in our brains, our experiences and our social connections, then you have not grasped what "human" really means.

Would it change what you are in the slightest if your physical self was encoded in something else than DNA? If that's what you consider irreplaceable, then I question your judgment.

And....as I said: there is no genetic rewrite. The metaphor is obvious. If synthetics had a DNA analogue they would be functionally identical to organics. The difference is in design, not in chemistry.

[Ieldra]

Cheap demagoguery again, lilitheris? I used to have a little respect for you. Well, you're certainly not the only one about whom I have been much disillusioned in the last three months. It's a harsh learning process about human nature here on BSN.