1256 réponses à ce sujet

[MisterJB]

The Angry One wrote...
Only because you refuse to accept that genetic rape is an atrocity.
It is.

What I refuse to accept is that I belong to the same species as someone who would liken a painless procedure meant to improve the life of the subject to rape.

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.

The fact that people needed to fight to have the right to self-determinate simply proves my point. This right does not create some impervious barrier around a person that prevents other people's will from getting through.

Synthesis takes that away permanently, it removes choice and forces one specific set of ideals on everyone.

Nice fanfiction. Because it clearly did not come from anything even implied in the game, let alone stated.
Forcing a procedure on someone does not implant a completely different set of ideals

[The Angry One]

MisterJB wrote...

What I refuse to accept is that I belong to the same species as someone who would liken a painless procedure meant to improve the life of the subject to rape.

It is a genetic violation. The fact that you have to justify it by saying it's "painless" shows how indefensible it is.
I don't want to accept that I am of the same species as a person so malicious, cruel and insane as to ever wish this on anyone, let alone the entire galaxy.

You do not have the right to impose this on others without their consent. Period.
I don't care if you think it improves them. They may not agree. Why do you think you know better than them?

The fact that people needed to fight to have the right to self-determinate simply proves my point. This right does not create some impervious barrier around a person that prevents other people's will from getting through.

It is a right all beings deserve, the fact that some (like you) want to take that away reinforces this point.

Nice fanfiction. Because it clearly did not come from anything even implied in the game, let alone stated.
Forcing a procedure on someone does not implant a completely different set of ideals

Outright lie. You are forcing the Catalyst's ideal on all beings. You are forcing it's idea of the pinnacle of evolution on them.
How do you know that is the true, inevitable path of evolution? There is none! You're doing it because the Catalyst says so. If YOU believe it and want to do it to yourself, fine. But the minute you impose it on others you cross the line.

[The Angry One]

Oh, on the subject of violation and rape and how it relates to synthesis. I don't want to get into details because this isn't a subject I enjoy comparing to a videogame storyline, but I just want to illustrate what a fallacious argument appealing to the "painlessness" of synthesis is.

I recall seeing a story about a rapist who made absolutely sure his victims felt no pain and, in his sick mind, tried to make them feel good. The fact that he didn't hurt them did not change the fact that he forced them.
It didn't change that they were traumatised, that just because he thought he was making them feel good did not make it so.

It doesn't matter what you think synthesis is. It doesn't matter that you're not inflicting pain. It doesn't matter if you think you're helping people.
You are still violating them on a genetic level and taking away their free will. That is all that matters.

[memorysquid]

o Ventus wrote...

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.

1) No I meant that all the choices involve increased risk, forced change or outright obliteration for someone other than Shepard, so "violation" of rights is not a unique disad.  Forced homogenization is most certainly unique to synthesis.  Is it worse than obliterating all synthetic life?  Is it worse than leaving the Reapers intact and only debarred for some unknown period of time from Reaping?  I don't think so based on how the writers presented it.  In reality, who knows?  But the discussions is only of relevance within the Mass Effect universe.  Destroy is genocidal.  Control is a big risk based on prior outcomes of other AI control attempts and such a bad idea in game you just talked TIM into offing himself for trying.  Synthesis forces change on people.  Not a one of the options allows Shep to get a galactic consensus before offering potential harm to the rest of the galaxy.  That's what I mean.

2) You could just take it to mean, as I did with no further thought until encountering this debate, that Shepard shouldn't write off synthetic life as meaningless and wipe it with no further thought.  If the Catalyst meant "Destroy will kill you" rather than some oblique commentary he could have simply said it.  He didn't.  EDI may not always come out in control but she never comes out in destroy.  No one's posted a video of her doing it ever, through threads and threads of people asking about it.  To be honest I haven't seen a vid of her popping out in control either, but you just implied above that it can happen.

[MisterJB]

The Angry One wrote...

Oh, on the subject of violation and rape and how it relates to synthesis. I don't want to get into details because this isn't a subject I enjoy comparing to a videogame storyline, but I just want to illustrate what a fallacious argument appealing to the "painlessness" of synthesis is.

I recall seeing a story about a rapist who made absolutely sure his victims felt no pain and, in his sick mind, tried to make them feel good. The fact that he didn't hurt them did not change the fact that he forced them.
It didn't change that they were traumatised, that just because he thought he was making them feel good did not make it so.

It doesn't matter what you think synthesis is. It doesn't matter that you're not inflicting pain. It doesn't matter if you think you're helping people.
You are still violating them on a genetic level and taking away their free will. That is all that matters.

That is an absolutely awful and innacurate comparision.

That rapist acted out of selfish desire unlike Synthesis which is completely selfless.
That rapist's purpose was to have an orgasm, Shepard's purpose is to improve the life of all and ensure the survival of organics.

What matters is the result and, to a lesser degree, the purpose of any action. The result of that was a traumatised woman whereas Synthesis unites organics and synthetics.
While it is probrable some people will be traumatised, the effects on society as a whole have the potential to be very benefic. 

[MisterJB]

The Angry One wrote...
It is a genetic violation. The fact that you have to justify it by saying it's "painless" shows how indefensible it is.
I don't want to accept that I am of the same species as a person so malicious, cruel and insane as to ever wish this on anyone, let alone the entire galaxy.

No, it's not. It's more akin to a medical procedure performed on an uncouscious patient that will die without it.

You do not have the right to impose this on others without their consent. Period.
It is a right all beings deserve, the fact that some (like you) want to take that away reinforces this point.

You have no point! You keep talking about having rights as if it was something tangible, something we can use to defend ourselves. It's not!
And now it's "deserve". How do you objectivelly determine what people deserve or don't?

Outright lie. You are forcing the Catalyst's ideal on all beings. You are forcing it's idea of the pinnacle of evolution on them.
How do you know that is the true, inevitable path of evolution? There is none! You're doing it because the Catalyst says so. If YOU believe it and want to do it to yourself, fine. But the minute you impose it on others you cross the line.
I don't care if you think it improves them. They may not agree. Why do you think you know better than them?

I don't believe it is the pinnacle of evolution. However, I don't need the Catalyst to tell me that having synthetic upgrades can have amazing physical benefits.
I need only to look Shepard. His abilities are, objectivelly, good.

[memorysquid]

The Angry One wrote...

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.

You're wrong and writing an editorial term in CAPS doesn't change that.  They stick live and dead people onto Dragon's Teeth and fill them full of mineral and wiring to make husks.  That isn't how roboDNA got blasted out there; the process is different, the result is different.  You appear unfamiliar with the meaning of "exact."

I know you don't like the ending but how about stopping the indignant misrepresentation?  And of course synthetics are not cyborgs, not that I see the relevance.  They're some undefined magical output of roboDNA with glowy eyes and circuit skin.  A cyborg is a person with robot parts.  That isn't what happens in the synthesis ending.  You are just determined to rewrite the game to fit your narrative.  That's silly.

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.

They get their body changed in a way that is neither inherently bad or harmful by the game canon; as far as we can tell it consists of minor physical changes plus ???.  Your head canon is none of my concern and irrelevant to the game qua the game.  Weighing an apparently unharmful change against genocide or a very risky strategy was easy for me. 

What I find revolting about you is that even in this most trivial of discussions you feel the need to misrepresent a reality that is easily referenced to bolster your point.  You're not just a liar, you're a shockingly bad one and very oddly emotionally invested in this.

RACISM!  I am truly stunned.  I have no further need to discuss anything with you.  Best of luck to you: I hope someone shakes you out of whatever bubble of self-delusion you live in but I don't care enough to try any longer.

[clennon8]

I've decided that you're a very clever troll, MisterJB. Well done on getting this far without being discovered.

[MisterJB]

Do you consider everyone you disagree with a troll?

[clennon8]

Nope. Ieldra, jtav, and memorysquid aren't trolls. You can stop now. Seriously. I'm onto you.

[MisterJB]

Indeed? Oh well, I'm sorry you feel that way but I won't waste my time attempting to convince you otherwise. In fact, I wouldn't even know how to begin.
I suggest we simply ignore each other from now on, yes?

Modifié par MisterJB, 16 juin 2012 - 07:18 .

[lillitheris]

memorysquid 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.

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...

No, but you can express the idea inversely: when trying to judge the morality of a choice, things learned after the choice is made are irrelevant.
…

Your ethics digression is exactly as I suspected, a ridiculous syntactic appeal of a backpedaling pseudo-intellectual, which is why I said it was beside the point.

I should probably have mentioned this yesterday but, despite your superiority complex, we really do get that the writers wrote what they wrote. That’s not the argument. Until you understand that, it’d be better you simply lurk rather than continue to make a fool of yourself.

Modifié par lillitheris, 16 juin 2012 - 09:19 .

[Reorte]

MisterJB wrote...

No, it's not. It's more akin to a medical procedure performed on an uncouscious patient that will die without it.

No it isn't. That would be saying that everyone will die without synthesis. Even if StarBrat's hypothesis is true it won't affect the people you're changing. In any case such a medical procedure will try to make as few changes as possible to the patient and still keep them alive. It's really frightening that anyone could defend synthesis without resorting to "I really, honestly believe that it's the only way the Reapers won't kill us all." It would be interesting to hear the input of a psychiatrist on people who don't have an issue with it.

[bleetman]

MisterJB wrote...

No, it's not. It's more akin to a medical procedure performed on an uncouscious patient that will die without it.

Which generally require consent from someone in a position to give it beforehand.

[lillitheris]

bleetman wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

No, it's not. It's more akin to a medical procedure performed on an uncouscious patient that will die without it.

Which generally require consent from someone in a position to give it beforehand.

Not when there’s an accident or something. It’s still a false dilemma, of course, since the ‘patient’ is not unconscious and this ‘medical procedure’ isn’t the only option.

[The Night Mammoth]

MisterJB wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
It is a genetic violation. The fact that you have to justify it by saying it's "painless" shows how indefensible it is.
I don't want to accept that I am of the same species as a person so malicious, cruel and insane as to ever wish this on anyone, let alone the entire galaxy.

No, it's not. It's more akin to a medical procedure performed on an uncouscious patient that will die without it.

How is it anything like that? 

You're merely changing something that doesn't need or ask for it, not performing something that needs to happen. 

[PanzerGr3nadier]

I didn't even considered the synthesis...

"We destroy them, Or they destroy us"

[MisterJB]

lillitheris wrote...
Not when there’s an accident or something.

Correct.

the ‘patient’ is not unconscious

Shepard can't contact every single sentient being that is going to be affected and conduct a democratic vote.
He has to make the decisions by himself.
 

and this ‘medical procedure’ isn’t the only option.

The other option is the Cycle which is, undeniably, going too far.
I believe the Catalyst is right; not that synthetics will always rebel but that they are a threat to organics much like we are a threat to the fauna on Earth. But, even if there was no danger of organic extinction, I'd still pick Synthesis.
I truly believe using this new technology for the good of all species is the right thing to do. It is unfortunate Shepard must force this change but a bad act can lead to good things.

[o Ventus]

MisterJB wrote...

The other option is the Cycle which is, undeniably, going too far.
I believe the Catalyst is right; not that synthetics will always rebel but that they are a threat to organics much like we are a threat to the fauna on Earth. But, even if there was no danger of organic extinction, I'd still pick Synthesis.
I truly believe using this new technology for the good of all species is the right thing to do. It is unfortunate Shepard must force this change but a bad act can lead to good things.

If there was no danger of extinction, why the hell bother? That's like splashing yourself with toxic waste on the off chance you might get superpowers.

A bad act leading to good things? Did the holocaust lead to anything meaningful? Did Guyana lead to anything meaningful?

[Taboo]

o Ventus wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

The other option is the Cycle which is, undeniably, going too far.
I believe the Catalyst is right; not that synthetics will always rebel but that they are a threat to organics much like we are a threat to the fauna on Earth. But, even if there was no danger of organic extinction, I'd still pick Synthesis.
I truly believe using this new technology for the good of all species is the right thing to do. It is unfortunate Shepard must force this change but a bad act can lead to good things.

If there was no danger of extinction, why the hell bother? That's like splashing yourself with toxic waste on the off chance you might get superpowers.

A bad act leading to good things? Did the holocaust lead to anything meaningful? Did Guyana lead to anything meaningful?

I don't know o Ventus, I think one in a million chances is a pretty good bet if I get some REALLY cool superpowers.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 16 juin 2012 - 07:35 .

[MisterJB]

o Ventus wrote...
If there was no danger of extinction, why the hell bother? That's like splashing yourself with toxic waste on the off chance you might get superpowers.

You're honestly comparing synthetic upgrades that are, in fact, scientifically viable and have been done before Synthesis to splashing yourself with toxic waste? Please.

A bad act leading to good things? Did the holocaust lead to anything meaningful? Did Guyana lead to anything meaningful?

Many of the medical science that saves lives nowadays is only possible because of the experiments conducted in those camps, in fact; dropping the atomic bombs was an horrible action but it ended a world war, just to mention a few.

Forcing a change on the entire galaxy without consent is a bad action but it can lead to progress and advancement. It is my belief this makes it worth it.

[The Night Mammoth]

MisterJB wrote...

o Ventus wrote...
If there was no danger of extinction, why the hell bother? That's like splashing yourself with toxic waste on the off chance you might get superpowers.

You're honestly comparing synthetic upgrades that are, in fact, scientifically viable and have been done before Synthesis to splashing yourself with toxic waste? Please.

Obviously not literally. 

Well, obviously not obvious to you. 

Or this is a strawman, take your pick. 

A bad act leading to good things? Did the holocaust lead to anything meaningful? Did Guyana lead to anything meaningful?

Many of the medical science that saves lives nowadays is only possible because of the experiments conducted in those camps, in fact; dropping the atomic bombs was an horrible action but it ended a world war, just to mention a few.

The results do not always take precedence over the means, unless you hold no value over anyone's rights or lives. 

Forcing a change on the entire galaxy without consent is a bad action but it can lead to progress and advancement. It is my belief this makes it worth it.

YOUR beliefs, that you have no right to impose based on the words of a source of information as dubious as the Reapers. 

[AngryFrozenWater]

MisterJB wrote...

o Ventus wrote...
If there was no danger of extinction, why the hell bother? That's like splashing yourself with toxic waste on the off chance you might get superpowers.

You're honestly comparing synthetic upgrades that are, in fact, scientifically viable and have been done before Synthesis to splashing yourself with toxic waste? Please.

A bad act leading to good things? Did the holocaust lead to anything meaningful? Did Guyana lead to anything meaningful?

Many of the medical science that saves lives nowadays is only possible because of the experiments conducted in those camps, in fact; dropping the atomic bombs was an horrible action but it ended a world war, just to mention a few.

Forcing a change on the entire galaxy without consent is a bad action but it can lead to progress and advancement. It is my belief this makes it worth it.

That makes your beliefs dangerous, because you are willing to violate the right of self-determination and don't have a clue why it is bad. You merely think it's "a bad action". But that action does not show any respect to anyone involved. It is merely your elitist ideology that is driving your urges and not your desire to improve the well being of the citizens. In the case of synthesis: There was no threat of synthetics dominating organics. The only threat that appear to be real were the reapers. The reapers are the laughing third and they fly away unpunished for their countless genocides. You just ran into their Saren trap.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 16 juin 2012 - 10:03 .

[memorysquid]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

YOUR beliefs, that you have no right to impose based on the words of a source of information as dubious as the Reapers. 

The source of all the information is the Catalyst.  So every result is equally suspect.  Where are you getting evidence for the supposition that he can lie just a little or only in one instance?

[Taboo]

memorysquid wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

YOUR beliefs, that you have no right to impose based on the words of a source of information as dubious as the Reapers. 

The source of all the information is the Catalyst.  So every result is equally suspect.  Where are you getting evidence for the supposition that he can lie just a little or only in one instance?

He doesn't lie, he presents a fallacy. Anything he says is irrelevant.