1256 réponses à ce sujet

[jla0644]

clennon8 wrote...

Without wanting to overly discourage a fellow anti-Synth, can I just say that I wish "fascist aesthetics" had never been introduced to this conversation?

you're not alone

[lillitheris]

memorysquid wrote...

Synthesis is factually and objectively written worse than Destroy or Control. Both of the latter can be explained with in-game mechanics. Synthesis can’t.

Being an example of poorer writing doesn't make it a worse choice does it?

Yes, it does.

While my main argument is simply that I wish the pro-fantasy synthesis crowd would stop trying to peddle their headcanon as game content (objective complaint), the issue can also be dealt with at an in-game level (subjective topics):

- The explanation the Catalyst gives for the Synthesis is so vague and implausible, that it seems unwise to choose it.

- The implications of the few things we do know for a certainty (affects all biological and synthetic life forms, takes place immediately, causes some kind of hybridization) are morally troubling for many.

2) I don't agree that ethics is subjective.

Wow. Beside the point, but:

A dictionary…

ethics [ˈɛθɪks]n

1. (Philosophy) (functioning as singular)
the philosophical study of the moral value of human conduct and of the
rules and principles that ought to govern it; moral philosophy See also meta-ethics

2. (functioning as plural) a social, religious, or civil code of behaviour considered correct, esp that of a particular group, profession, or individual

3. (functioning as plural) the moral fitness of a decision, course of action, etc. he doubted the ethics of their verdict

You might wish that there were some universal moral code (I do), but there isn’t. Even the most general rules we can draw (do no harm etc.) are still made up.

I assume you’re not arguing that group membership in a certain ethical set is objective. It is, but it’s also an asinine and irrelevant argument.

Modifié par lillitheris, 16 juin 2012 - 09:08 .

[memorysquid]

o Ventus wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

2. Except he's, y'know, dead. I doubt he was somehow making a mental command whilst fondling those handles. The lethal dosage of electricity turning him into ash must have been occupying his mind. how does Shepard "rewrite their programming" when he has no idea how they work? If the Reapers had "programming", doesn't that conflict with th notion that they aren't fully synthetic? Even if he rewrote them, that doesn't mean he controlled them. He repurposed them, that's it. Shepard doesn't take control of the heretic geth by rewriting their programming, does he?

I don't doubt he made them all into shackled AI's or got turned into controlling Reaper code or something because the event changed what the Reapers did. So who cares if he specifically turned them all into shackled AI's or rewrote behavior code like EDI does to herself frequently or whatever hand waving magic is used to explain their change in behavior?  This is like an argument with a theist.  You will multiply entities until you can escape what the authors wrote so further discussion is pointless.

You're doing the same exact thing.

Hell, I'm only doing it because I'm responding to your brain-damaged points.

Dude, I am doing the bare minimum needed to explain that somehow control results in the Reapers going away.  That's it.  The method is a big fat who knows, but something changed because they stop kicking everyone's ass and fly off.

[Taboo]

Sorry, I had to go to an art gala. I also apologize because the drinks were complimentary. I digress.

I use the word Hedeen, because it's the closest word in the film vocabulary. It isn't meant as an insult. Sam Peckinpah's films are considered to have facist aesthetics where I come from. That focus and on death and focus on violence in slow motion? That's considered to a part of an aesthetic on Facism. That's just what it is. You can't remove it. Destroy has similar implications to Synthesis, but you've never asked me about it.

Now onto to the question:

"I have seven identical red squares, but each is a different style, how can this be?"

The only person who technically answered correctly was Heeden. Now here, ladies and gentlemen is the rub. Heeden is not right or wrong. He/she has an interpretation. 

You see, the joke they tell us in both art and film school is a stupid but incredibly valid one.

You must have a method. You must.

The point is that there is no way to tell the difference bewtween one and the six by simple perceptual inspection. As a result, one MUST apply a method to be able to tell what the difference is.

Heeden says that they are at different angles. This is technically valid, but only to he/she.

You have to bring what your life experience has taught you, and how you see things.

THIS is why we have a clash. I cannot see the red squares as Heeden does, I can only see them as I do. 

Behold.



You can easily tell me that this red dot symbolizes lust, as you are a psychology major and see it as an emobiment of Freud's Electra Complex. (I'm not sure why you'd be using Freud but still).

It's art! Art!

[The Angry One]

Husk #4526/C supports Synthesis. So should you!



All hail the final evolution of life.

[memorysquid]

lillitheris wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

Being an example of poorer writing doesn't make it a worse choice does it?

Yes, it does.

While my main argument is simply that I wish the pro-fantasy synthesis crowd would stop trying to peddle their headcanon as game content (objective complaint), the issue can also be dealt with at an in-game level (subjective topics):

- The explanation the Catalyst gives for the Synthesis is so vague and implausible, that it seems unwise to choose it.

- The implications of the few things we do know for a certainty (affects all biological and synthetic life forms, takes place immediately, causes some kind of hybridization) are morally troubling for many.

The game handwaves and is wrong about so much actual physical theory that this is truly a picayune quibble.  If Shepard understands something sensible about it, good enough.  All the choices are vague and implausible;  roboDNA is marginally moreso, but obviously the authors didn't think that.  It wasn't being presented as the choice for clownshoes.  It was being presented as the choice to dissolve problems, merge the two competing paradigms and move all life in the galaxy forward.

2) I don't agree that ethics is subjective.

Wow. Beside the point, but:

Not beside the point of the person calling ethics subjective.

A dictionary…

ethics [ˈɛθɪks]n

1. (Philosophy) (functioning as singular)
the philosophical study of the moral value of human conduct and of the
rules and principles that ought to govern it; moral philosophy See also meta-ethics

2. (functioning as plural) a social, religious, or civil code of behaviour considered correct, esp that of a particular group, profession, or individual

3. (functioning as plural) the moral fitness of a decision, course of action, etc. he doubted the ethics of their verdict

So one out of three definitions from a random dictionary which isn't even distinguishing between descriptive and prescriptive ethics is good enough for you to settle the issue?  It isn't for me.  There are entire books on the topic, some of which I have read during my coursework in philosophy. 

You might wish that there were some universal moral code (I do), but there isn’t. Even the most general rules we can draw (do no harm etc.) are still made up.

I assume you’re not arguing that group membership in a certain ethical set is objective. It is, but it’s also an asinine and irrelevant argument.

This isn't a short digression and this discussion isn't likely to satisfy either of us or anyone, but you are confusing some external deontological ethics with all forms of objective [small 'o'] ethics.  Many professional ethicists reject subjective ethics for being, well, subjective.  There are more options than some deontological objective ethics, including virtue based ethics, various teleological frameworks and relative ethics.  Not a settled question in the field, subjective ethics is still largely rejected by the main school of US analytic philosophers.

[memorysquid]

The Angry One wrote...

Husk #4526/C supports Synthesis. So should you!



All hail the final evolution of life.

I'll take my circuit board skin and glowy eyes instead, thank you.

[memorysquid]

Taboo-XX wrote...


You must have a method. You must.

The point is that there is no way to tell the difference bewtween one and the six by simple perceptual inspection. As a result, one MUST apply a method to be able to tell what the difference is.

Heeden says that they are at different angles. This is technically valid, but only to he/she.

You have to bring what your life experience has taught you, and how you see things.

THIS is why we have a clash. I cannot see the red squares as Heeden does, I can only see them as I do. 

Behold.



You can easily tell me that this red dot symbolizes lust, as you are a psychology major and see it as an emobiment of Freud's Electra Complex. (I'm not sure why you'd be using Freud but still).

It's art! Art!

If you MUST apply some framework to tell a difference, then maybe there isn't one, if you don't.  In fact, you just claimed they were IDENTICAL, so there isn't one.  I refuse to apply a framework and therefore they are all the same [well except for location].

[Taboo]

Then you can't analyze it. They are all identical red squares, but they are different styles. You cannot analyze it if you do not apply a method.

And at the end of the day, it's still red, regardless of what you do. See how this works?

[akenn312]

Actually I think the fascism connection is not as easy to fit as I thought before, I still believe it can be a bit of aesthetics of it but something else can fit  a little better than that. I took sometime to just sit and read everyones posts today without trying to counter blindly.

Then I read this post from a very smart and polite BSN member that is a historian on another thread. I think he has a very good unemotional understanding of this. I just read it and I was just like wow that made extreme sense without offending anyone about the choice but laid it on Walters and Hudson and they should be the ones we should lay this rage on. I'm gonna bold the things that I thought hit me, but take from it what you will.

Please bear with me I just think this guy has a great thing to say. Not confrontational or anti Synthesis just really very logical why others can see the choice differently.

"If we're going to be procrustean and pin it to any kind of human term, it's an incredibly extreme form of absolutist totalitarianism and it wouldn't matter if it was fascism, corporatism or a theocratic state. 

That's another objection I have, choosing synthesis goes beyond any human choice or experience you can compare it to. It's literally turning Shepard into a completely detached god-figure since he was asked to make a choice on the very essence of individuality and being without a lot of information, without consent or without consultation. I don't care if it's the highest pinnacle of evolution (which is doubtful and fraught with ambiguity). Did you ask anybody? We live in a world where people can't even agree to accept vaccines-- widely thought of as beneficial. There's a debate going on right now over contraception, over control over bodies-- this shows you how intensely issues over one's person are felt. So it doesn't matter a damned lick whether it's good or not or whether this is how things should proceed or not. It's beyond Nietzschean or really, anything. I guess some people don't care and will do this for everybody else's good, so there is that and it's not like there's much at stake since it's just a game after all. On that note, let's all chill, it's just a freaking game.

What I suppose is more annoying isn't the "morality" of what I did or can do to a bunch of imaginary pixels, it's that it was just so carelessly tossed in there by the Bioware writers and Gamble's (?) "just life" defense of it was so blasé and uneducated. The implications of synthesis are staggering and the fact that they didn't delve more into it doesn't speak well of them as writers or artists. It makes them sound like trite, stoned high schoolers attempting to be profound. It's terrible  art."

Back to me agian....

The issue isn't the people that chose synthesis. It's the way Hudson and Walters throw it in without any regard of what it means or showing any repercussions, it is bad writing and irresponsible writing at that. I'm not trying to thrust this guy into the discussion I just thought he had a good thing to say better than I could, that maybe could quell some of the angst here as it did for me. I apologize if I offended anyone previously. it was not intetional. I just dislike how Hudson and Walters did not do more to make this "terrible art" a little more responsible. They basically made all our choices turn us into a bunch of monsters and constanly bickering about who was the better monster over what better choice was made. they all are a bunch of $**T choices.

Again apologies for the emotion. I do not think any of you are fascists or evil, I just think this irresponsible crap put in by mistake matters even in a video game choice. Hope I'm not making this worse.  

Modifié par akenn312, 16 juin 2012 - 02:49 .

[Taboo]

Yes, they're all authoritarian pies. You get to decide which slice of pie you like best.

The EC can only make things better.

[The Angry One]

memorysquid wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Husk #4526/C supports Synthesis. So should you!



All hail the final evolution of life.

I'll take my circuit board skin and glowy eyes instead, thank you.

Certainly. How would you like your circuit board?

Illusive Man flavoured?



Or perhaps Human Reaper?

[MisterJB]

Because it's not at all possible that the circuit board is simply a tool whose potential for either good or evil depends on the one wielding it.
No, no. Reaper technology is the Heart of Evil.

Modifié par MisterJB, 16 juin 2012 - 03:12 .

[The Angry One]

MisterJB wrote...

Because it's not at all possible that the circuit board is simply a tool whose potential for either good or evil depends on the one wielding it.
No, no. Reaper technology is the Heart of Evil.

The technology is not evil, and were it a choice there would be nothing wrong with it.
Imposing it on everyone and everything for the sake of "final evolution"? That's Reaper logic. Reaper technology with Reaper logic for a Reaper future.

[MisterJB]

No. We join our technology, the Crucible, with theirs, the Citadel, to create a future where we can be equals to them while remaining ourselves. A better galaxy where all species will have a chance to survive.
The worth of an idea is not affected by the moral quality of the people who support it.

[Taboo]

No.

[The Angry One]

MisterJB wrote...

No. We join our technology, the Crucible, with theirs, the Citadel, to create a future where we can be equals to them while remaining ourselves. A better galaxy where all species will have a chance to survive.
The worth of an idea is not affected by the moral quality of the people who support it.

If you do not see the absurdity of having to become Reapers to be equal with Reapers then there's no point in arguing with you.

I'll just say that the worth of an idea is affected by how it is implemented. If you start off with an act of violation, removing all free will and self-determination from the equation, then you haven't begun your new way of life on a high note.

[MisterJB]

The Angry One wrote...
If you do not see the absurdity of having to become Reapers to be equal with Reapers then there's no point in arguing with you.

A Reaper is the conjoined minds of billions of organics. A human with synthetic upgrades is just that, an upgraded human. There is nothing inherently wrong about it.
If we had to liquify people to achieve peace, then it wouldn't be worth it. But that is not the case here.

I'll just say that the worth of an idea is affected by how it is implemented. If you start off with an act of violation, removing all free will and self-determination from the equation, then you haven't begun your new way of life on a high note.

It matters not how it begins, only how it ends. If that bad act results in a better galactic society, then it was worth it.

[Taboo]

No. No it wasn't. Ever.

[MisterJB]

Well, let the future generations censure Shepard while enjoying commodities only possible because of his decisions. That is what humans do, no?

[clennon8]

MisterJB wrote...

It matters not how it begins, only how it ends. If that bad act results in a better galactic society, then it was worth it.

The only thing that matters is how it begins.  Because there is no certainty in how it will end.  None.

Modifié par clennon8, 16 juin 2012 - 04:05 .

[memorysquid]

The Angry One wrote...

Certainly. How would you like your circuit board?

Illusive Man flavoured?
...

How about Jeff flavored, which is the actual ending?  Wow!

[memorysquid]

The Angry One wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

No. We join our technology, the Crucible, with theirs, the Citadel, to create a future where we can be equals to them while remaining ourselves. A better galaxy where all species will have a chance to survive.
The worth of an idea is not affected by the moral quality of the people who support it.

If you do not see the absurdity of having to become Reapers to be equal with Reapers then there's no point in arguing with you.

I'll just say that the worth of an idea is affected by how it is implemented. If you start off with an act of violation, removing all free will and self-determination from the equation, then you haven't begun your new way of life on a high note.

Reapers are big Mecha Squids; green glowy eyes and circuit board skin is not much like a Mecha Squid, nor like a husk, cannibal, marauder, etc.  Why do you need to misstate the case to make your argument?  Obviously, the game designers are not implying synthesis makes people Reapers.

Your choices still remain genocide and some form of multiple galacticide in destroy [and offing your good buddy EDI], whatever ultimately happens in control which you just convinced TIM to suicide over the insanity of trying and which situation [controlling synthetics] you've encountered multiple times as a total failure you need to slaughter your way through to fix, and synthesis which the writers fairly beat you over the head to portray as the best result.  Every result affects the entire galaxy in unknowable [to Shepard] ways and is made in a vacuum of further information.

[memorysquid]

clennon8 wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

It matters not how it begins, only how it ends. If that bad act results in a better galactic society, then it was worth it.

The only thing that matters is how it begins.  Because there is no certainty in how it will end.  None.

Wow. So no matter how likely an enterprise is to fail, all that counts are good intentions?  I recall some saying about the road to somewhere being paved with something...

[clennon8]

memorysquid wrote...

I recall some saying about the road to somewhere being paved with something...

That quote is very applicable... but in the opposite way you intended.