1256 réponses à ce sujet

[MisterJB]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
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.

How about you don't presume to know what drives my "urges"? We'll get along a lot better that way.

In the case of synthesis: There was no threat of synthetics dominating organics.

There is. Just like humans dominate animals and the Council dominates the "lesser species".
It is simply more pronounced in the case of synthetics because their potential for advancement far surpasses ours. And any sufficiently advanced species will not take into account the well being of less advanced species when expanding.
 

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.

Destroying the Reapers gains nothing for the people of the galaxy and it won't bring back those they killed.

[memorysquid]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

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.

Nice fanfic.  Of course there is a threat of synthetics dominating organics, the in game expositor said there was one.  This valiant struggle against the internal logic of a written story is ridiculous.  It's easy enough to conceive of an intellect that is advanced enough that it would be able to help me avoid mistakes much like I help [and sometimes force] my children to avoid them.  The right of self-determination only makes sense among equals.  If someone REALLY knows better then they'd be remiss to allow me to engage in a course of action that might, for instance result in synthetics extinguishing organics.  This scenario is precisely how the Catalyst is presented but as shackled AI or something.  Hands off self-determination presupposes some context of knowledge beyond which no one really has a clue so all choices are equal.  This game is positing that the Catalyst actually understands that which most sentients simply couldn't; at least that was what I picked up on from all those times I kept getting told that the existence of a Reaper would simply be incomprehensible to Shepard.

Plus, all of the choices offer violations of a right to self-determine.  Destroy wipes out all synthetics.  I'd choose whatever apparently nonharmful change synthesis is supposed to entail over genocide any day.  Control is tougher although the constant and unbroken chain of failure that every other attempt to control AI has resulted in, in game, is a pretty big argument against it.  It clearly increases the risk every organic in the galaxy suffers of the Reapers one day coming right on back and finishing the job.  The point of the end scenario is that only Shepard gets to choose and he does so in a vacuum of further information; this applies equally to every choice.  Every choice offers pros and cons for the entire galactic population.  Why all the meta arguments to avoid a clear debate on the actual value conflict?

[Taboo]

And here I thought I was equal to Synthetics because that's how I saw the world.

Way to promote inequality people.

[o Ventus]

I'll believe the Crucible killed EDI/the geth as soon as Shepard dies.

After all, he did imply that Shepard would die, just like how he implied that EDI and the geth would die. You don't see it, so I'm not believing it.

Modifié par o Ventus, 16 juin 2012 - 11:55 .

[Taboo]

o Ventus wrote...

I'll believe the Crucible killed EDI/the geth as soon as Shepard dies.

After all, he did imply that Shepard would die, just like how he implied that EDI and the geth would die. You don't see it, so I'm not believing it.

And that's the beauty of interpretation. You aren't wrong.

[memorysquid]

Taboo-XX wrote...

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.

Based on what supposition?  Someone makes one mistake in reasoning re: the tech. singularity, which given that this is a fictional universe may well be considered canon and literally true, and everything they say is necessarily untrustworthy?  Nonsense.  Consider it stipulated by the game designers that one will happen, for sake of argument.  Now what?

[Reorte]

memorysquid wrote...
The right of self-determination only makes sense among equals.  If someone REALLY knows better then they'd be remiss to allow me to engage in a course of action that might, for instance result in synthetics extinguishing organics. 

How obnoxiously arrogant.

[Taboo]

memorysquid wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

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.

Based on what supposition?  Someone makes one mistake in reasoning re: the tech. singularity, which given that this is a fictional universe may well be considered canon and literally true, and everything they say is necessarily untrustworthy?  Nonsense.  Consider it stipulated by the game designers that one will happen, for sake of argument.  Now what?

He hasn't factored in feedback loops for the hyperbolic growth he uses as a mesurement for the need to harvest. That alone means he has no data. The lore contradicts what he says.

Going back all the way to the first game.

He's ****ed.

[memorysquid]

Taboo-XX wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

I'll believe the Crucible killed EDI/the geth as soon as Shepard dies.

After all, he did imply that Shepard would die, just like how he implied that EDI and the geth would die. You don't see it, so I'm not believing it.

And that's the beauty of interpretation. You aren't wrong.

Meh.  It's the beauty of having an imagination.  He's not wrong, but what he thinks isn't relevant to anything but the internal fanfic he is writing.

[memorysquid]

Reorte wrote...

memorysquid wrote...
The right of self-determination only makes sense among equals.  If someone REALLY knows better then they'd be remiss to allow me to engage in a course of action that might, for instance result in synthetics extinguishing organics. 

How obnoxiously arrogant.

I am betting you don't have children.

[memorysquid]

Taboo-XX wrote...

He hasn't factored in feedback loops for the hyperbolic growth he uses as a mesurement for the need to harvest. That alone means he has no data. The lore contradicts what he says.

Going back all the way to the first game.

He's ****ed.

What? And as I said, consider it stipulated that a singularity will occur in the absence of some intervention.  Then what?  Look the biggest plot hole in the whole game is that the Catalyst could simply have had a Reaper drop onto some world and say "Hey don't build AIs because they'll swallow your civilization; we'll have to spank if you do!" rather than start a war.  But the story is what it is. 

Modifié par memorysquid, 17 juin 2012 - 12:04 .

[Taboo]

memorysquid wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

I'll believe the Crucible killed EDI/the geth as soon as Shepard dies.

After all, he did imply that Shepard would die, just like how he implied that EDI and the geth would die. You don't see it, so I'm not believing it.

And that's the beauty of interpretation. You aren't wrong.

Meh.  It's the beauty of having an imagination.  He's not wrong, but what he thinks isn't relevant to anything but the internal fanfic he is writing.

I see you haven't figured art out yet either. Come back when you can answer the question about the red squares. Nothing o Ventus has said is wrong.

[o Ventus]

memorysquid wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

I'll believe the Crucible killed EDI/the geth as soon as Shepard dies.

After all, he did imply that Shepard would die, just like how he implied that EDI and the geth would die. You don't see it, so I'm not believing it.

And that's the beauty of interpretation. You aren't wrong.

Meh.  It's the beauty of having an imagination.  He's not wrong, but what he thinks isn't relevant to anything but the internal fanfic he is writing.

Ahh, the beauty of arrogance. Wait, there isn't anything good about arrogance. It just makes you look like an idiot. Stop that.

It's funny because I'm not writing anything.

And I was actually responding to one of your earlier posts. I just couldn't be arsed into filtering the stupid, so I said f**k it.

[Taboo]

memorysquid wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

He hasn't factored in feedback loops for the hyperbolic growth he uses as a mesurement for the need to harvest. That alone means he has no data. The lore contradicts what he says.

Going back all the way to the first game.

He's ****ed.

What?

Exactly. He has no data. He is a being who simply says ****.

[memorysquid]

Taboo-XX wrote...

I see you haven't figured art out yet either. Come back when you can answer the question about the red squares. Nothing o Ventus has said is wrong.

I'll come back when you can write something responsive.  As I said o Ventus isn't wrong, just indulging his imagination. A red square that is identical to another red square is identical; you stipulated the fact.  You can imagine it to be whatever you like.

[Taboo]

memorysquid wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

I see you haven't figured art out yet either. Come back when you can answer the question about the red squares. Nothing o Ventus has said is wrong.

I'll come back when you can write something responsive.  As I said o Ventus isn't wrong, just indulging his imagination. A red square that is identical to another red square is identical; you stipulated the fact.  You can imagine it to be whatever you like.

Only if you use a method to do so. You keep missing that fact. Without a method, they are seven identical red squares that are in different styles, and that doesn't make sense.

You can only understand it when you apply a method to the art. O Ventus has done this, you have not.

[Reorte]

memorysquid wrote...

Reorte wrote...

memorysquid wrote...
The right of self-determination only makes sense among equals.  If someone REALLY knows better then they'd be remiss to allow me to engage in a course of action that might, for instance result in synthetics extinguishing organics. 

How obnoxiously arrogant.

I am betting you don't have children.

Ah, the "less advanced so no different from children" argument. Children aren't capable of informed self-determination. Tell an adult "Do as I say because I know better" and you should get told where to stuff it unless the person claiming to know better can demonstrate that they actually do. Equality has nothing to do with it, just the capability of informed decision making.

[memorysquid]

Reorte wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

Reorte wrote...

memorysquid wrote...
The right of self-determination only makes sense among equals.  If someone REALLY knows better then they'd be remiss to allow me to engage in a course of action that might, for instance result in synthetics extinguishing organics. 

How obnoxiously arrogant.

I am betting you don't have children.

Ah, the "less advanced so no different from children" argument. Children aren't capable of informed self-determination. Tell an adult "Do as I say because I know better" and you should get told where to stuff it unless the person claiming to know better can demonstrate that they actually do. Equality has nothing to do with it, just the capability of informed decision making.

Why aren't children capable of self-informed determination?  They know how to make decisions according to their preference before 2 at any rate.  So is something preventing them from determining their behavior?  The only thing I see preventing my children from behaving as they wish is me [and other caregivers].  Which we do simply because we have a superior context of knowledge.  If you can't imagine a similar situation arising where an extremely intelligent being would understand harmful consequences of an adult human's behavior long in advance of that adult human, well I can.  My kids tell me where to stuff it too, though not in so many words.  They're just little and I can control them. 

BTW, did I win my bet or do you just not get the connection?

[AngryFrozenWater]

memorysquid wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

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.

Nice fanfic.  Of course there is a threat of synthetics dominating organics, the in game expositor said there was one.  This valiant struggle against the internal logic of a written story is ridiculous.  It's easy enough to conceive of an intellect that is advanced enough that it would be able to help me avoid mistakes much like I help [and sometimes force] my children to avoid them.  The right of self-determination only makes sense among equals.  If someone REALLY knows better then they'd be remiss to allow me to engage in a course of action that might, for instance result in synthetics extinguishing organics.  This scenario is precisely how the Catalyst is presented but as shackled AI or something.  Hands off self-determination presupposes some context of knowledge beyond which no one really has a clue so all choices are equal.  This game is positing that the Catalyst actually understands that which most sentients simply couldn't; at least that was what I picked up on from all those times I kept getting told that the existence of a Reaper would simply be incomprehensible to Shepard.

Plus, all of the choices offer violations of a right to self-determine.  Destroy wipes out all synthetics.  I'd choose whatever apparently nonharmful change synthesis is supposed to entail over genocide any day.  Control is tougher although the constant and unbroken chain of failure that every other attempt to control AI has resulted in, in game, is a pretty big argument against it.  It clearly increases the risk every organic in the galaxy suffers of the Reapers one day coming right on back and finishing the job.  The point of the end scenario is that only Shepard gets to choose and he does so in a vacuum of further information; this applies equally to every choice.  Every choice offers pros and cons for the entire galactic population.  Why all the meta arguments to avoid a clear debate on the actual value conflict?

This is an in-game fact: There is no synthetic threat to be found.

The right of self-determination is certainly not intended to be valid among equals. What a silly notion. It is there to protect the victims of those who misuse it, and it is most likely never violated by the weak. In the case of synthesis this is extremely important, because invoking synthesis is irreversible. One cannot undo it by flipping a switch and apologize. "Oops. Sorry. I had no idea you didn't want this."

Assuming that the reapers have an intellect that is superior to ours is fine in a game, but once their motives become known then the player can interpret them. If the writers wanted to keep this a mystery then they shouldn't have revealed it. But they did. The hypothetical threat of synthetics dominating organics is that motivation. No evidence of such a threat is to be found in-game. The geth were even willing to side with the quarians, rebuild their home planet and improve their immune system. The geth were also willing to face the reapers in the final battle.

There are fundamental differences between the relation of parent and child and that of the reapers and organics: A parent has the responsibility to help a child mature and is most likely protecting the child form harm; the reapers on the other hand have no such responsibility, nor are they invited to fulfill that role, and instead of protecting the organics they use a cyclical maniacal genocidal "ascension through destruction" harvesting method using the most horrific ways imaginable just to reproduce and keep them on top of the food chain. And that's the reality. Star Child didn't say: "Hey guys, we have a problem and perhaps you have one too. Care to sit down and talk about it?"

But that's not all, even when Star Child finds out that his preferred annihilation tactics don't work he tries to find ways to save his ass. Synthesis not only lets the reapers and the brat off the hook, Shepard would also agree that this hypothetical threat, for which there is no evidence at all, is a valid reason to betray all his allies by violating their right of self-determination.

There is no vacuum in which the player has to make a decision. Shepard's mission is clear. He was supposed to destroy the reapers and was given the green light to get all allies he could find to accomplish this goal. Shepard found those, and even the most unlikely ones, from rachni to Aria's gangs, were willing to follow him into death to reach that goal. Again, by siding with the reapers and to further help them to achieve their nonsensical goal Shepard would betray all of them by violating their right of self-determination.

And the other options? If those were bad then that doesn't mean that synthesis is better. I would go as far as to say that all 3 options were solutions to a non-existent problem, because synthetics never showed the urge to dominate organics. Even the destroy option kills an innocent synthetic race, which would at least partially, agree with the brat's agenda once more.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 17 juin 2012 - 02:32 .

[memorysquid]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...


This is an in-game fact: There is no synthetic threat to be found.

It is a fact you are ignoring the events written into a game we both presumably played. 

The right of self-determination is certainly not intended to be valid among equals. What a silly notion. It is there to protect the victims of those who misuse it, and it is most likely never violated by the weak. In the case of synthesis this is extremely important, because invoking synthesis is irreversible. One cannot undo it by flipping a switch and apologize. "Oops. Sorry. I had no idea you didn't want this."

Assuming that the reapers have an intellect that is superior to ours is fine in a game, but once their motives become known then the player can interpret them. If the writers wanted to keep this a mystery then they shouldn't have revealed it. But they did. The hypothetical threat of synthetics dominating organics is that motivation. No evidence of such a threat is to be found in-game. The geth were even willing to side with the quarians, rebuild their home planet and improve their immune system. The geth were also willing to face the reapers in the final battle.

You're simply ignoring much of the game to make this claim as well as the point I was making about self-determination.  Children have the ability to self-determine; they would simply have a high mortality rate if allowed to exercise it.  As a parent I find that unacceptable and have the foresight and ability to constrain their behavior; if you can't understand the comparison I am drawing, no problem, but then I am done with the discussion.

As to the "hypothetical" threat of synthetics we have the Geth, they blasted Eden Prime in ME1, they fought the Quarians, they allied with the Reapers not once but twice - albeit provoked to do so.  We have the Metacon war which the Protheans were fighting against their own AIs in a galaxy wide battle before the Reapers jumped in, we have the Citadel finance district AI, and various other examples of synthetics and organics coming into violent conflict.  Just because the Geth allied in the face of the Reaper invasion who indoctrinated them as well means they can never be a threat in the future?  Especially given the evidence presented in the game including the Catalyst's testimony, you are simply ignoring the evidence the authors gave you because you don't like the story they wrote.  Silly.

There are fundamental differences between the relation of parent and child and that of the reapers and organics: A parent has the responsibility to help a child mature and is most likely protecting the child form harm; the reapers on the other hand have no such responsibility, nor are they invited to fulfill that role, and instead of protecting the organics they use a cyclical maniacal genocidal "ascension through destruction" harvesting method using the most horrific ways imaginable just to reproduce and keep them on top of the food chain. And that's the reality. Star Child didn't say: "Hey guys, we have a problem and perhaps you have one too. Care to sit down and talk about it?"

The Catalyst apparently HAS been given the task of safeguarding organics from synthetics, much like a parent, he just uses a method we find abhorrent.  Yes I find it illogical that he didn't break the cycle by simply having a chat with races primed to make AIs; perhaps he was programmed not to, perhaps the writers didn't consider it.  But the fact is that without some big galactic baddies, there would not be a video game to play.  Stop substituting your own imagination for the internal logic of this game.

But that's not all, even when Star Child finds out that his preferred annihilation tactics don't work he tries to find ways to save his ass. Synthesis not only lets the reapers and the brat off the hook, Shepard would also agree that this hypothetical threat, for which there is no evidence at all, is a valid reason to betray all his allies by violating their right of self-determination.

His choices include a chance to betray his allies by slaughtering them, a chance [note I say CHANCE] to simply  delay the Reaping through however control would work and a chance to advance evolution in an apparently unharmful fashion through roboDNA.  One action entails choosing to destroy innocent life.  One action entails a high risk of Reapers coming right back given the outcomes in the game of other attempts to control AI.  One action presents no apparent downside, except glowy green eyes and circuit imprint skin.

There is no vacuum in which the player has to make a decision. Shepard's mission is clear. He was supposed to destroy the reapers and was given the green light to get all allies he could find to accomplish this goal. Shepard found those, and even the most unlikely ones, from rachni to Aria's gangs, were willing to follow him into death to reach that goal. Again, by siding with the reapers and to further help them to achieve their nonsensical goal Shepard would betray all of them by violating their right of self-determination.

You view synthesis as siding with the Reapers; I don't.  I don't believe the authors did either.

And the other options? If those were bad then that doesn't mean that synthesis is better. I would go as far as to say that all 3 options were solutions to a non-existent problem, because synthetics never showed the urge to dominate organics. Even the destroy option kills an innocent synthetic race, which would at least partially, agree with the brat's agenda once more.

You can go that far, but then you'd be talking about some product of your imagination rather than Mass Effect 3.

[frylock23]

@memorysquid

Convenient of you blame people for ignoring the facts without citing any examples of the facts being ignored. People countering you can at least cite examples of synthetics willing to work with organics rather than try to destroy them on contact.

You are conveniently ignoring that synthesis completely wipes out all organic and synthetic life. If you are tasked with saving the races of the galaxy, wiping them out by completely rewriting them into some alien, third kind of life seems like a really strange way to go about it. Oh and let's not forget that you are also letting the Reapers off the hook while you're at it. For someone overly concerned about the genocide of one race, committing galaxy-wide genocide hardly seems like an acceptable alternative.

You can say you don't believe the authors intended synthesis to be like siding with the Reapers, but since all the evidence in the game points toward Reaper-hood as techno-organic synthesis ... It's hard to see another conclusion especially since the Reapers get to live apparently unchanged in every way. All other life has been "ascended" to the pinnacle of evolution much like the Reapers claim that they are in just about every lengthy dialogue you ever have with them.

[AngryFrozenWater]

MisterJB wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
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.

How about you don't presume to know what drives my "urges"? We'll get along a lot better that way.

In the case of synthesis: There was no threat of synthetics dominating organics.

There is. Just like humans dominate animals and the Council dominates the "lesser species".
It is simply more pronounced in the case of synthetics because their potential for advancement far surpasses ours. And any sufficiently advanced species will not take into account the well being of less advanced species when expanding.
 

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.

Destroying the Reapers gains nothing for the people of the galaxy and it won't bring back those they killed.

You think that synthetics want to dominate organics. But there is no evidence that this is an in-game fact. There are, however, many examples that the geth were provoked by the quarians and that the reapers turned some of the geth hostile. The reapers even turned the synthetics in Javik's cycle hostile.

Because of your false assumption that synthetics want to dominate organics you want to invoke synthesis because *you* believe it is better than their current state, change the racial identity and violate the right of self-determination of those involved. You even feel it is a good idea to keep the reapers alive. Those are the same reapers who were using a cyclical maniacal genocidal "ascension through destruction" method in the most horrific ways imaginable to reproduce and stay on top of the food chain. Shepard's allies all agreed, for obvious reasons, that it was agood idea to get rid of them. But no, you think your opinion is to be more valued than any of your allies.

If all of the above are not elitist then what is?

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 17 juin 2012 - 06:41 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

memorysquid wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

This is an in-game fact: There is no synthetic threat to be found.

It is a fact you are ignoring the events written into a game we both presumably played. 

The right of self-determination is certainly not intended to be valid among equals. What a silly notion. It is there to protect the victims of those who misuse it, and it is most likely never violated by the weak. In the case of synthesis this is extremely important, because invoking synthesis is irreversible. One cannot undo it by flipping a switch and apologize. "Oops. Sorry. I had no idea you didn't want this."

Assuming that the reapers have an intellect that is superior to ours is fine in a game, but once their motives become known then the player can interpret them. If the writers wanted to keep this a mystery then they shouldn't have revealed it. But they did. The hypothetical threat of synthetics dominating organics is that motivation. No evidence of such a threat is to be found in-game. The geth were even willing to side with the quarians, rebuild their home planet and improve their immune system. The geth were also willing to face the reapers in the final battle.

You're simply ignoring much of the game to make this claim as well as the point I was making about self-determination.  Children have the ability to self-determine; they would simply have a high mortality rate if allowed to exercise it.  As a parent I find that unacceptable and have the foresight and ability to constrain their behavior; if you can't understand the comparison I am drawing, no problem, but then I am done with the discussion.

As to the "hypothetical" threat of synthetics we have the Geth, they blasted Eden Prime in ME1, they fought the Quarians, they allied with the Reapers not once but twice - albeit provoked to do so.  We have the Metacon war which the Protheans were fighting against their own AIs in a galaxy wide battle before the Reapers jumped in, we have the Citadel finance district AI, and various other examples of synthetics and organics coming into violent conflict.  Just because the Geth allied in the face of the Reaper invasion who indoctrinated them as well means they can never be a threat in the future?  Especially given the evidence presented in the game including the Catalyst's testimony, you are simply ignoring the evidence the authors gave you because you don't like the story they wrote.  Silly.

There are fundamental differences between the relation of parent and child and that of the reapers and organics: A parent has the responsibility to help a child mature and is most likely protecting the child form harm; the reapers on the other hand have no such responsibility, nor are they invited to fulfill that role, and instead of protecting the organics they use a cyclical maniacal genocidal "ascension through destruction" harvesting method using the most horrific ways imaginable just to reproduce and keep them on top of the food chain. And that's the reality. Star Child didn't say: "Hey guys, we have a problem and perhaps you have one too. Care to sit down and talk about it?"

The Catalyst apparently HAS been given the task of safeguarding organics from synthetics, much like a parent, he just uses a method we find abhorrent.  Yes I find it illogical that he didn't break the cycle by simply having a chat with races primed to make AIs; perhaps he was programmed not to, perhaps the writers didn't consider it.  But the fact is that without some big galactic baddies, there would not be a video game to play.  Stop substituting your own imagination for the internal logic of this game.

But that's not all, even when Star Child finds out that his preferred annihilation tactics don't work he tries to find ways to save his ass. Synthesis not only lets the reapers and the brat off the hook, Shepard would also agree that this hypothetical threat, for which there is no evidence at all, is a valid reason to betray all his allies by violating their right of self-determination.

His choices include a chance to betray his allies by slaughtering them, a chance [note I say CHANCE] to simply  delay the Reaping through however control would work and a chance to advance evolution in an apparently unharmful fashion through roboDNA.  One action entails choosing to destroy innocent life.  One action entails a high risk of Reapers coming right back given the outcomes in the game of other attempts to control AI.  One action presents no apparent downside, except glowy green eyes and circuit imprint skin.

There is no vacuum in which the player has to make a decision. Shepard's mission is clear. He was supposed to destroy the reapers and was given the green light to get all allies he could find to accomplish this goal. Shepard found those, and even the most unlikely ones, from rachni to Aria's gangs, were willing to follow him into death to reach that goal. Again, by siding with the reapers and to further help them to achieve their nonsensical goal Shepard would betray all of them by violating their right of self-determination.

You view synthesis as siding with the Reapers; I don't.  I don't believe the authors did either.

And the other options? If those were bad then that doesn't mean that synthesis is better. I would go as far as to say that all 3 options were solutions to a non-existent problem, because synthetics never showed the urge to dominate organics. Even the destroy option kills an innocent synthetic race, which would at least partially, agree with the brat's agenda once more.

You can go that far, but then you'd be talking about some product of your imagination rather than Mass Effect 3.

If you played the game then you must have kept your eyes shut and ears covered whenever facts about the geth appeared. I'll address that later.

BTW, you have interesting view about how to treat your children. I will not go into that, others already replied to that and I agree with them.

But if you compare the relation of parents/children to reapers/organics then think about this: The reapers are not responsible for the well being of organics. Nobody asked them to. And I doubt that anyone wants them to, because they do a poor job in protecting those organics by exterminating them. I wouldn't call exterminating civilizations a respect for the right of self-determination. And synthesis doesn't respect that either. The racial identity of the civilizations is altered in such a way that you can safely assume that the original races have ceased to exist. It doesn't matter that nobody dies and that it is painless. You and you alone have decided that somehow it is better to merge organic and synthetic life for no other reason than it is better because *you* say so. If synthesis has a role to play in the domination of synthetics over organics then it better be not hypothetical.

You are not getting your facts right about the geth...

The geth were not involved in Eden Prime. The heretics were. The heretics were a small number of geth turned hostile by the reapers.

The geth defended themselves against the quarians who were trying to exterminate them. That seems very reasonable as a defense against genocide. It is interesting to note that at the end of the Morning War the geth let the quarians go. There was no consensus about whether it was a good idea to exterminate their creators or not.

The quarians thought it was a great plan to retake their homeworld and thus the quarians attacked the geth. Obviously the geth defended themselves against yet another quarian attack. Sounds reasonable when those who were planning to wipe you out attack again.

I am sure you must have encountered Legion in ME3. He wasn't exactly playing cards, was he? Any idea what was going on? Correct. The reapers were using him to control the geth.

Javik can tell you that the reapers made sure that the synthetics turned against the organics.

But back to our cycle. Those "various other examples of synthetics and organics coming into violent conflict" are a bit vague. But I remember a couple.

A very funny one is the AI on the Citadel in ME1. It was created by a thief to help him steal from quasar machines. Not a very good start to meet your first organic and have confidence in it, right? Of course you know about the trick with the second AI in that story. Amusing, wasn't it?

Remember the VI that went berserk on the Moon? That was an Alliance experiment trying to create an AI. When the experiment went wrong it was attacked. While under attack the AI became conscious. Hostile organics were the first thing it became aware of. And of course we know where that AI ended up. Not very hostile, is it? The AI saved Shepard's ass and the crew on multiple occasions.

We see a lot of violent geth in the ME-series, but all those are either heretics or under reaper control.

The other geth were trying to find out about Shepard, because he was the only one who was opposing the Old Machines. We never see those non-violent geth until Shepard meets Legion in ME2. Legion was able to kill Shepard and get rid of one of the most dangerous organics known. Interestingly enough, Legion didn't do that and saved Shepard instead. Doesn't sound very hostile to me.

You can have interesting conversations with Tali and Legion about the geth. Both give the same story about the origin of the Morning War. Remember the "Does this unit have a soul?" question? It was mentioned by both Tali (in ME1) and Legion (in ME2). Tali even answered the question in ME3.

To paragon Shepard and Legion the right of self-determination was important. Shepard went as far as allowing Legion to upload the reaper code on Rannoch. If Shepard refused then Legion mentioned that Shepard "will not decide the fate of its people" and becomes hostile. I think Legion had every right to do that, because not allowing it would violate the right of self-determination. If that scene ends in peace with quarians then Legion's last words are "Keelah se'lai". I hope you see the significance of that.

This is a completely different picture then you paint. I wonder why?

You mentioned: "The Catalyst apparently HAS been given the task of safeguarding organics from synthetics, much like a parent, he just uses a method we find abhorrent."

Ah, yes. The brat said that the reapers were his solution. Didn't I mention how sweet the reapers are? Let me repeat it. You may have forgotten it: "Those are the same reapers who were using a cyclical maniacal genocidal "ascension through destruction" method in the most horrific ways imaginable to reproduce and stay on top of the food chain." And maybe you can recall those lovely images of humans who were liquified alive and the resulting goo was pumped through tubes to create a humanoid reaper. You are able to justify that? Let's hope not.

Don't you think it is very counterproductive to exterminate the races you are trying to preserve? If genocide also seems to be a reproduction method then we can safely assume that this saving business is merely a rationalization.

At least you find it illogical. That's a plus. I guess.

I am not substituting anything, BTW. I am using reasonable alternatives that show how silly the situation is. And alas, you cannot command me to stop reasoning. That's what the reapers are good at. And by now you may have noticed I don't like their way to go about things, such as indoctrination.

Hey, wait... You said that "The Catalyst apparently HAS been given the task ..." Who gave him that task?

You mentioned: "advance evolution in an apparently unharmful fashion through roboDNA."

Is that the one which violates the right of self-determination and has no respect for the current racial identities? The Lebensborn project, but without the mothers?

You mentioned: "One action presents no apparent downside, except glowy green eyes and circuit imprint skin."

Don't forget the violation of that right, etc. Just read the response above. So far you didn't mention any advantages of synthesis that are supposed to help with the hypothetical domination of synthetics over organics. Is there one, if so, what is it, and why didn't the brat implement it in the reapers and leave the organics alone? Because, whatever it is, we seem to do perfectly well without it. The only problems we have so far are the reapers.

You make all kinds of assumptions about the other options. I wouldn't make those, but I don't want to go off-topic.

Of course you side with the reapers. Synthesis means that they fly away and that you don't condemn their actions. The moment they are gone, nobody has any control over them. They are free to do whatever they want. You have authorized that. Doesn't sound safe to me.

I rather not analyze what the authors think about synthesis, so do not bring that up.

And about your last sentence. Nah. No one was able to give any in-game example of a synthetic threat that exterminated all organics as efficient as the reapers. And these are really good in what they do. If they had any emotion then they would probably be pissed that Javik escaped.

Have fun and don't synthesize me, please.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 17 juin 2012 - 08:35 .

[lillitheris]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

This is an in-game fact: There is no synthetic threat to be found.

This is a poor argument — and rather irrelevant to this conversation, as odd as it seems. Probability dictates that the Catalyst is more likely to be correct than you. It needs to only be correct once about a hostile singularity. You need to be correct every single time.

This does not mean that it will happen, just that you can’t claim that it won’t based on a sample size of 2.

Modifié par lillitheris, 17 juin 2012 - 09:11 .

[Vigilant111]

lillitheris wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

This is an in-game fact: There is no synthetic threat to be found.

This is a poor argument — and rather irrelevant to this conversation, as odd as it seems. Probability dictates that the Catalyst is more likely to be correct than you. It needs to only be correct once about a hostile singularity. You need to be correct every single time.

This does not mean that it will happen, just that you can’t claim that it won’t based on a sample size of 2.

Bolded part, NO, probability based on simulations, calculations, estimations, must expect deviation from actual result

Yes, the Geth did pose threat, but "threat" is only a concept, nothing actually happened

EDIT: so this probability issue is going nowhere, the bottom line is, it is of our best interest to view Catalyst's claim as incorrect, even though it MAY be right, we are simply rejecting its way of thinking and way of conduct

"Catalyst, it is time for you to go, and no more of that created will always destroy their creators crap"

Modifié par Vigilant111, 17 juin 2012 - 09:48 .