1256 réponses à ce sujet

[MisterJB]

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.

And that is why we should not attempt to improve our society...wait, what?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The Angry One wrote...

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



All hail the final evolution of life.

Oh ****! That's right! They'd be synthesized, too! Along with the Cannabinals, Banshees, Brutes, Marauders, and all the other husks!

Would you invite a Banshee over for dinner? What if your daughter started dating one of these in the picture above? We're all just one big happy family now!

Synthesis. The gift that keeps on giving.

[clennon8]

Please don't make me start having to throw out strawman accusations. I hate it when I have to do that. You know perfectly well what I'm talking about. You don't set about improving the galaxy by first violating every living thing in it. Especially without perfect knowledge of how it will turn out. Does Shepard have anything close to perfect knowledge? Does he have anything more than vague hopefulness even? No? I didn't think so. It's a colossally stupid and immoral thing to do.

Next up from the pro-Synths... I predict a false equivalence fallacy.

Modifié par clennon8, 16 juin 2012 - 04:47 .

[ZIPO396]

Wait the Starbrat says it combines all genetic make-up right? Joker still has his brittle bone disease later so does this mean everyone now has brittle bone disease mixed into their genetic make-up? I predict contact sports will have an interesting future.

[memorysquid]

clennon8 wrote...

Please don't make me start having to throw out strawman accusations. I hate it when I have to do that. You know perfectly well what I'm talking about. You don't set about improving the galaxy by first violating every living thing in it. Especially without perfect knowledge of how it will turn out. Does Shepard have anything close to perfect knowledge? Does he have anything more than vague hopefulness even? No? I didn't think so. It's a colossally stupid and immoral thing to do.

Next up from the pro-Synths... I predict a false equivalence fallacy.

Why is synthesis a violation but genocide and subjecting people to whatever control entails is not?  Your complaint is not unique to synthesis.  Shep has no perfect knowledge of the outcome of any of the choices, nor does any being ever so that is a ridiculous stipulation.  Every choice is made in the same vacuum of further information and every choice subjects the universe to Shepard's preference with no further consultation much less the consent of every stakeholder.

You know the renegade red choice will result in the Geth, EDI, Reapers, any other synthetics all dying.  You know the paragon blue choice is the same choice to dominate AI you have watched fail basically every time someone has tried it and so outlandish in context you just got TIM to kill himself/shot him for trying it.  You know the green synthesis choice is a big change for everyone synthetic and organic alike, but presumably positive [especially since the expositor general tells you it is], or it would hardly be a beneficial solution to the singularity.  Notice the Catalyst doesn't present you with the option to, e.g., wipe out all organics.

[o Ventus]

memorysquid wrote...

Why is synthesis a violation but genocide and subjecting people to whatever control entails is not

You're strawmanning again.

You know the renegade red choice will result in the Geth, EDI, Reapers, any other synthetics all dying.

The Catalyst says "You can destroy all synthetic life if you want, including the geth." He didn't say you "will" or "must". You never see any geth corpses or a dead EDI. Assuming they're dead with no evidence is baseless. 

[Bill Casey]

memorysquid wrote...

Notice the Catalyst doesn't present you with the option to, e.g., wipe out all organics.

Synthesis does wipe out organic life...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 16 juin 2012 - 05:12 .

[ZIPO396]

memorysquid wrote...
You know the renegade red choice will result in the Geth, EDI, Reapers, any other synthetics all dying.

Could potentially wipeout the Geth, EDI and Shepard I wouldn't say it's a guranteed result yet. Also it's not neccerily renegade just because it's red. The colours at the end basically mean FA once you add a third colour that isn't grey that hasn't been used in that context before.

[HippeusOmega]

Bill Casey wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

Notice the Catalyst doesn't present you with the option to, e.g., wipe out all organics.

Synthesis does wipe out organic life...

Its why I think the Destroy all Sythenics is the best ending. Since the Catalyst seems to be against that whole idea. I refuse to trust a deus ex machina god that takes on the form of a child. Just isn't gonna happen!

Modifié par Panznerr, 16 juin 2012 - 05:13 .

[clennon8]

memorysquid wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Please don't make me start having to throw out strawman accusations. I hate it when I have to do that. You know perfectly well what I'm talking about. You don't set about improving the galaxy by first violating every living thing in it. Especially without perfect knowledge of how it will turn out. Does Shepard have anything close to perfect knowledge? Does he have anything more than vague hopefulness even? No? I didn't think so. It's a colossally stupid and immoral thing to do.

Next up from the pro-Synths... I predict a false equivalence fallacy.

Why is synthesis a violation but genocide and subjecting people to whatever control entails is not?  Your complaint is not unique to synthesis.  Shep has no perfect knowledge of the outcome of any of the choices, nor does any being ever so that is a ridiculous stipulation.  Every choice is made in the same vacuum of further information and every choice subjects the universe to Shepard's preference with no further consultation much less the consent of every stakeholder.

Thank you for making my prediction come true, by trying to equate the three choices.

I'm not going to waste any time trying to defend Control.  Someone else can if they want.  I don't like that choice.

However, Destroy has a much, much more predictable and knowable result than Synthesis.  You destroy the Reapers, the geth, the relays, and possibly yourself.  Then the war-ravaged galaxy picks up the pieces and tries to rebuild.  That's it.  No big mystery.  No wacky and unasked for merging of organics and synthetics into a new DNA framework.

[The Angry One]

MisterJB wrote...

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.

And that is why we should not attempt to improve our society...wait, what?

The last time somebody tried to "improve" our society by force, he marched with goose-steps.

Modifié par The Angry One, 16 juin 2012 - 05:26 .

[The Angry One]

memorysquid wrote...

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.

They are, physiologically, exactly like husks, and exactly like Reapers in basic terms.
This is a form of life the Reapers approve of and endorse. The Reaper form of life.

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.

If you appeal to the crappiness of the other choices to bolster up your own, you've already lost.
Also, whatever destroy and control do, at least they don't violate the bodies of every single living being in the entire galaxy.

[clennon8]

The Angry One wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

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.

And that is why we should not attempt to improve our society...wait, what?

The last time somebody tried to "improve" our society by force, he marched with goose-steps.

Uh oh, brace yourself for a Godwin's Law citation.

A Shepard who chooses Synthesis has better intentions than Hitler did, but just as much hubris.  And no more right to inflict his idealogy on the world.

But just as I tried to get Taboo to stop going on about "fascist aesthetics," I would like to nip any further talk of ****s in the bud.

Modifié par clennon8, 16 juin 2012 - 05:39 .

[Seryl]

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.

I truly hope you never wield any real power. Much of the stuff you say, whether in context or not, could have been uttered by many dictators throughout history.

[Seryl]

clennon8 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

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.

And that is why we should not attempt to improve our society...wait, what?

The last time somebody tried to "improve" our society by force, he marched with goose-steps.

Uh oh, brace yourself for a Godwin's Law citation.

A Shepard who chooses Synthesis has better intentions than Hitler did, but just as much hubris.  And no more right to inflict his idealogy on the world.

But just as I tried to get Taboo to stop going on about "fascist aesthetics," I would like to nip any further talk of ****s in the bud.

Just curious, but is bringing up ****s in an argument an invocation of Godwin's Law if the comparisson is apt?

[MisterJB]

Do you really think WWII was the last time someone used force to get what they wanted? Please.

Anyway, I find it interesting how you lot talk about rights as if they were actually something tangible.

[memorysquid]

o Ventus wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

Why is synthesis a violation but genocide and subjecting people to whatever control entails is not

You're strawmanning again.

You know the renegade red choice will result in the Geth, EDI, Reapers, any other synthetics all dying.

The Catalyst says "You can destroy all synthetic life if you want, including the geth." He didn't say you "will" or "must". You never see any geth corpses or a dead EDI. Assuming they're dead with no evidence is baseless. 

I think you're wrong in both cases.

1) If synthesis is not a unique disadvantage then why bring it up?  A disad shared by all choices is not relevant to resolving the trilemma.  If I wrongly presumed you offered a cogent but mistaken argument, my apologies.  I grant your argument was completely irrelevant.

2) You're wrong about the context of his last statement.  He isn't saying Shepard has refined control; no reason at all to interpret the claim that way including his inflection.  Your italics use is unwarranted by anything but your wish to shape the narrative.  He is saying Shep is capable of wiping out all synthetic life, should he so desire.  Shep follows up with "But the Reapers will die?" indicating he understands the synthetics will eat it but wants to make sure the Reapers will definitely go too.  Big difference. 

You're even wrong about the lack of evidence.  EDI doesn't step out of the ship in which of the endings?  No reason for the change, huh?

[o Ventus]

memorysquid wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

Why is synthesis a violation but genocide and subjecting people to whatever control entails is not

You're strawmanning again.

You know the renegade red choice will result in the Geth, EDI, Reapers, any other synthetics all dying.

The Catalyst says "You can destroy all synthetic life if you want, including the geth." He didn't say you "will" or "must". You never see any geth corpses or a dead EDI. Assuming they're dead with no evidence is baseless. 

I think you're wrong in both cases.

1) If synthesis is not a unique disadvantage then why bring it up?  A disad shared by all choices is not relevant to resolving the trilemma.  If I wrongly presumed you offered a cogent but mistaken argument, my apologies.  I grant your argument was completely irrelevant.

2) You're wrong about the context of his last statement.  He isn't saying Shepard has refined control; no reason at all to interpret the claim that way including his inflection.  Your italics use is unwarranted by anything but your wish to shape the narrative.  He is saying Shep is capable of wiping out all synthetic life, should he so desire.  Shep follows up with "But the Reapers will die?" indicating he understands the synthetics will eat it but wants to make sure the Reapers will definitely go too.  Big difference. 

You're even wrong about the lack of evidence.  EDI doesn't step out of the ship in which of the endings?  No reason for the change, huh?

1. Unique disadvantage? You mean forced homogenization isn't a bad thing? Possibly condemning future offspring of the already synthesized people to death isn't a bad thing? What about all the species that come into existence after the Synthesis wave hits? There are PLENTY of disadvantages to this turd of an ending.

2. I say this because the Catalyst also says "Even you are partly synthetic". Do I have to take that as meaning Shepard WILL die, when I clearly see him live? EDI also doesn't come out in all of the Control endings. She only comes out in Synthesis because it's scripted, much like how her getting friendly with Joker is scripted.

[Seryl]

MisterJB wrote...

Anyway, I find it interesting how you lot talk about rights as if they were actually something tangible.

Love, anger, hatred, disgust, indifference, etc. are all also not tangible, but just as real. Ideas are not tangible, want to make an argument about how those don't exist? How about language?

The list is quite long for things that are not tangible, but are still there and are still worth discussing and defending if need be.

[The Angry One]

MisterJB wrote...

Do you really think WWII was the last time someone used force to get what they wanted? Please.

It was one of last times someone committed atrocities on such a large scale in the name of "improving" society.
Of course you also have Stalin and Mao's forced modernisations with similar attempts at "improvement" at the cost of the people.

Later on you have smaller scale attempts, such as Pol Pot. My what an elite group synthesis-Shepard is joining.

Anyway, I find it interesting how you lot talk about rights as if they were actually something tangible.

Self-determination is the right of every sentient being. If you think it isn't then I pity you.

[clennon8]

Morals are for losers, man.

[memorysquid]

The Angry One wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

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.

They are, physiologically, exactly like husks, and exactly like Reapers in basic terms.
This is a form of life the Reapers approve of and endorse. The Reaper form of life.

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.

If you appeal to the crappiness of the other choices to bolster up your own, you've already lost.
Also, whatever destroy and control do, at least they don't violate the bodies of every single living being in the entire galaxy.

1) You're just making stuff up about synth people and husk similarity.  There's no in game dissection to validate your claim and roboDNA blasted across the galaxy by the Crucible is clearly not how the Reapers make husks.  You just keep delving farther and farther into your imagination to make your point.

2) And pointing out the crappiness of the other choices makes this one only mildly unpalatable seems fine to me.  I'll take your blanket and unsupported assertion to the contrary exactly FWIW.

Destroy only completely obliterates synth life, which is far worse than simple violation.  Control who knows?  I do know that in game, you've watched every attempt at similiar things just necessitate you adding to that killcount, and you've just convinced that shrewd operator TIM the idea is so bad he kills himself for trying.  Control simply leaves the Reapers intact but currently debarred from proceeding and you dead and no longer able to help at its most basic without further supposition. 

I also don't get how forcing evolution onto people to prevent the Reapers from winning and killing/storing them is a violation per se.  You have no in game reason to presume synthesis does something bad.  You keep reading things into the text that I don't see anywhere.  Say that Shepard's solution involved everyone in the universe getting an unsolicited foot massage; would you claim they'd been violated then?  You presume synthesis is bad or a mixed bag at best, and nothing in game supports that at all.

I can tell you with about 95% certainty that the writers presented synthesis as a way to overcome the incomplete and competing paradigms of paragon/renegade which is supported by the color coding.  It's logically possible that they stumbled onto the thesis/antithesis/synthesis notion unintentionally and don't actually favor synthesis, but knowing what I know about Hegelian dialectic, it seems highly unlikely.  It is a damn good fit for a complete coincidence.  You may dislike their choice, but that simply isn't relevant to the game per se.

[MisterJB]

The Angry One wrote...
It was one of last times someone committed atrocities on such a large scale in the name of "improving" society.
Of course you also have Stalin and Mao's forced modernisations with similar attempts at "improvement" at the cost of the people.

Later on you have smaller scale attempts, such as Pol Pot. My what an elite group synthesis-Shepard is joining.

Also, Abraham Lincoln.
Regardless, no attrocity is commited in the Synthesis ending.

Self-determination is the right of every sentient being. If you think it isn't then I pity you.

I think it's something we invented. It has no real value besides that which we give it.

[The Angry One]

MisterJB wrote...

Also, Abraham Lincoln.
Regardless, no attrocity is commited in the Synthesis ending.

Only because you refuse to accept that genetic rape is an atrocity.

It is.

I think it's something we invented. It has no real value besides that which we give it.

Nonsense. It's a basic state that every sentient being desires and is willing to fight for.
Entire wars have been fought over the right to self-determinate, as individuals and as nations. Synthesis takes that away permanently, it removes choice and forces one specific set of ideals on everyone.

[The Angry One]

memorysquid wrote...

1) You're just making stuff up about synth people and husk similarity.  There's no in game dissection to validate your claim and roboDNA blasted across the galaxy by the Crucible is clearly not how the Reapers make husks.  You just keep delving farther and farther into your imagination to make your point.

It is EXACTLY how Reapers make husks. Forcible combination of organics with synthetics to make a life form that is useful to them.
Don't even think of arguing that synthetics are not cyborgs. The entire process uses a cyborg as the template.

2) And pointing out the crappiness of the other choices makes this one only mildly unpalatable seems fine to me.  I'll take your blanket and unsupported assertion to the contrary exactly FWIW.

You can use the other choices in an attempt to justify your war crime all you want. It's still a war crime.

Destroy only completely obliterates synth life, which is far worse than simple violation.  Control who knows?  I do know that in game, you've watched every attempt at similiar things just necessitate you adding to that killcount, and you've just convinced that shrewd operator TIM the idea is so bad he kills himself for trying.  Control simply leaves the Reapers intact but currently debarred from proceeding and you dead and no longer able to help at its most basic without further supposition. 

I also don't get how forcing evolution onto people to prevent the Reapers from winning and killing/storing them is a violation per se.  You have no in game reason to presume synthesis does something bad.  You keep reading things into the text that I don't see anywhere.  Say that Shepard's solution involved everyone in the universe getting an unsolicited foot massage; would you claim they'd been violated then?  You presume synthesis is bad or a mixed bag at best, and nothing in game supports that at all.

I can tell you with about 95% certainty that the writers presented synthesis as a way to overcome the incomplete and competing paradigms of paragon/renegade which is supported by the color coding.  It's logically possible that they stumbled onto the thesis/antithesis/synthesis notion unintentionally and don't actually favor synthesis, but knowing what I know about Hegelian dialectic, it seems highly unlikely.  It is a damn good fit for a complete coincidence.  You may dislike their choice, but that simply isn't relevant to the game per se.

Your complete ignorance of the situation revolts me. Everybody in  the universe is getting their body changed. Permanently. Without their knowledge or consent. A foot massage? A FOOT MASSAGE? REALLY?  Get lost. Seriously. I've heard some outright sorry justifications for synthesis in my time, but YOU take the cake and once again prove how low synthesis supporters will sink just to justify this terrible, appalling violation on all beings.

As for the writers, they either didn't do their homework, or genuinely buy into this shockingly racist and offensive outcome. Either way, it isn't good.