1256 réponses à ce sujet

[jla0644]

antares_sublight wrote...

jla0644 wrote...

antares_sublight wrote...

jla0644 wrote...
And you don't know how invasive the change is. It could be a subtle as what Shepard has.

That's one of the few things the Catalyst does explain. It's the most invasive change possible: the very "framework" of all life everywhere has been changed. Life forms are totally different now. That's not subtle.

So there is no longer anything remaining of what they were? Yes, merging organic and synthetic creates a new framework, but why are you assuming that is going to change everything about who a person once was? You have no idea what any of it means. I doubt Bioware does either. It's a stupid solution to a stupid problem.

The whole thing is dumb, and that should be more than enough reason to not like Synthesis. I dont' have to get on my soap box and become a self-righteous Defender of Freedom and Choice to not like Synthesis.

Yes, it's a stupid non-solution to a stupid non-problem. But saying it's not a far-reaching effect when it's described as a fundamental change of the very definition of life is something a BioWare employee would say.

Where is it described as a "fundamental change of the very definition of life"? A new framework does not have to mean they turn into something completely unrecognizable.

The only thing we see after Synthesis is EDI and Joker. Does EDI look less like a synthetic? Does Joker look less human? Neither of them seemed to be freaking out or ready to commit suicide from the radical, invasive change that had just been forced upon them.

[JamieCOTC]

If anyone is curious, here is an assimilated conversation between Shepard and the Catylist from an earlier draft of the script in which the Catlysts makes a bit better argument for synthesis. At least he makes it personal.

[Taboo]

MisterJB wrote...
The principle is exactly the same. The only difference is the scale of it.
Saying that it is unhetical is not a valid argument to me. If a procedure forced on a person will save or improve that person's life, then it was the right decision. Diversity is good and it will still exist after Synthesis. However, the only thing having weaknesses makes you is weak. That is not something to be cherished or preserved.

That. Right there. See it? Remember when I spoke about the weak earlier? That's exactly what I'm talking about.

You have no right. None. At all. You have zero right to make that choice for one indivual without their consent let alone the entire galaxy.

I have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. It's a terrible weakness, but it makes me who I am. I'm not changing it.

Don't you dare strawman this argument either, justify it.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 11 juin 2012 - 08:29 .

[Reorte]

[quote]jla0644 wrote...

I imagine anyone who thinks Synthesis is a good option, does so in relation to the other choices. And it is possible to look at it in a positive way. You choose not to. So don't choose it. But don't assume that people who choose it look at it as negatively as you do, and pick it anyway. Maybe they think Synthesis, with or without consent, is preferrable to the other options, maybe they think it won't change anything about the way people live, or who they are, or that any change won't necessarily be a negative thing.

]My comment was directed more at you saying that no one with any ethics could ever choose it. If that's what you think, you do need to get over yourself.[/quote]
Taken purely on its own merits it is unquestionably unethical and since I've not read a good enough explanation as to how it's the least evil choice I'll stand by that, particularly when most of its supporters seem to be claiming that it's a good thing in its own right, irrespective of the Reapers.

[quote]You said people told you they didn't want Synthesis. I was asking when and how that happened. It wasn't a defense of anything. And you dump your decision on the galaxy, no matter what you do. Did they tell you they wanted you to wipe out every synthetic being in the galaxy? Did they tell you they wanted you to become the new Reaper King/Queen? No. The game forces you to make this decision for the galaxy. One of them in no more ethical than the other. It's all a matter of what you think is the least horrible option.[/quote]
There is a massive, massive difference between making a decision that may or may not have an indirect affect on people and one that has an immediate, very personal one on every single life form in the galaxy (even more so when you consider the unpleasant implications of "the end to evolution" - there's no way that one can be spun positively).

[quote[What interpretations "don't stack up"? Whatever they are, I didn't suggest you couldn't disagree with them. I said you don't get to determine how other people interpret their ending. You may think Synthesis is revolting, that it turns everyone into a husk, whatever you want. If someone wants to take it in a positive direction, who are you to tell them they can't do that?
[/quote]
I never claimed anything about what synthesis would actually do, other than that it happens at a very fundamental level (if you believe the Catalyst) and that it will somehow change peoples' minds (again, if you believe the Catalyst). If I knew the details it may well turn out to be something that I'd like done to myself for all I know. That's entirely beside the point. Doing something to the very bodies of every single living thing, without consent, no matter how beneficial it might be is simply wrong and complete and utter destruction is probably the only thing worse.

And the entire idea is ridiculous but I think that you've said the same thing so at least we agree there.

[akenn312]

MisterJB wrote...

akenn312 wrote...
You cannot relate a physical change on the genetic level to a simple vaccination of a child. That is romanticizing this unethical concept and synthesis is unethical. The point of my example was not about cosmetics it was about ethics, a procedure cannot be forced on someone, cosmetic or medical without their knowledge or consent. That is playing god and it's unethical to do so even in a RPG game.

Your example of a father consenting to a child being vaccinated is a nice try but synthesis is much worse than that. First the father is informed on what the vaccine will do to the child. Second the child will not be changed genetically by the vaccine forever. Also the child knows maybe not what the vaccine does but that he is going to get one.

No matter how you try to clean this synthesis concept up so you can have your genetically perfect cyborg master race. It still is unethical to force it on the galaxy. People can never return to being what they were if they don't like the change. It's forcing them into something you want them to be. What ever happened to people being okay just the ay they are?

Anyone remember that concept? Having differences being a good thing?

The principle is exactly the same. The only difference is the scale of it.
Saying that it is unhetical is not a valid argument to me. If a procedure forced on a person will save or improve that person's life, then it was the right decision. Diversity is good and it will still exist after Synthesis. However, the only thing having weaknesses makes you is weak. That is not something to be cherished or preserved.

Wow i'm sorry I had to take some time to take that in.

The only thing having weaknesses makes you is weak. That is not something to be cherished or preserved.

I have to say that is just very cynical and almost tips over to totalitarianism possibly? I'm not sure... but it seems you want to be able to control everyone's life and make everyone the same perfect template? Even to the point of not giving them a choice? All our strengths and weaknesses make us who we are that is a great thing.

So one question, you want to eradicate all flaws from everyone and that's noble. But what about the people that have embraced these so called flaws? What do you say to them when they don't want you to change who they are?

The one thing that life can show you is your struggles and weaknesses can be your best strength or asset. For example lets take Joker for instance. If Joker did not have Frolic Syndrome would he have become the best pilot in the Fleet? No I highly doubt it. Yes he might have become a pilot but Frolic syndrome gave him the drive to be the best. But all you see is his weakness and suffering? Joker never wanted sympathy for anything he was actually a sarcastic ****** if you tried to be sympathetic. So even if he has embraced his issue now you want to take it upon yourself to control him for his own good?

This is why I don't like the message Bioware is putting out there. This treads on taking away peoples free will for their own good. This is bad stuff.

Modifié par akenn312, 11 juin 2012 - 08:35 .

[xsdob]

Taboo-XX wrote...

MisterJB wrote...
The principle is exactly the same. The only difference is the scale of it.
Saying that it is unhetical is not a valid argument to me. If a procedure forced on a person will save or improve that person's life, then it was the right decision. Diversity is good and it will still exist after Synthesis. However, the only thing having weaknesses makes you is weak. That is not something to be cherished or preserved.

That. Right there. See it? Remember when I spoke about the weak earlier? That's exactly what I'm talking about.

You have no right. None. At all. You have zero right to make that choice for one indivual without their consent let alone the entire galaxy.

I have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. It's a terrible weakness, but it makes me who I am. I'm not changing it.

Don't you dare strawman this argument either, justify it.

Not to support synthesis or anything, but what about when shepard choose for every council race in the galaxy when he let the council get slaughtered by soverign along with the 10,000 or more military personal?

Modifié par xsdob, 11 juin 2012 - 08:33 .

[akenn312]

Taboo-XX wrote...

MisterJB wrote...
The principle is exactly the same. The only difference is the scale of it.
Saying that it is unhetical is not a valid argument to me. If a procedure forced on a person will save or improve that person's life, then it was the right decision. Diversity is good and it will still exist after Synthesis. However, the only thing having weaknesses makes you is weak. That is not something to be cherished or preserved.

That. Right there. See it? Remember when I spoke about the weak earlier? That's exactly what I'm talking about.

You have no right. None. At all. You have zero right to make that choice for one indivual without their consent let alone the entire galaxy.

I have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. It's a terrible weakness, but it makes me who I am. I'm not changing it.

Don't you dare strawman this argument either, justify it.

Yes I see it, this is not good, this is a bad message to put out.

[Taboo]

xsdob wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

MisterJB wrote...
The principle is exactly the same. The only difference is the scale of it.
Saying that it is unhetical is not a valid argument to me. If a procedure forced on a person will save or improve that person's life, then it was the right decision. Diversity is good and it will still exist after Synthesis. However, the only thing having weaknesses makes you is weak. That is not something to be cherished or preserved.

That. Right there. See it? Remember when I spoke about the weak earlier? That's exactly what I'm talking about.

You have no right. None. At all. You have zero right to make that choice for one indivual without their consent let alone the entire galaxy.

I have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. It's a terrible weakness, but it makes me who I am. I'm not changing it.

Don't you dare strawman this argument either, justify it.

Not to support synthesis or anything, but what about when shepard choose for every council race in the galaxy when he let the council get slaughtered by soverign along with the 10,000 or more military personal?

You just strawmanned...

You don't affect every being permenantly. It's also an unethical choice.

[antares_sublight]

jla0644 wrote...
Where is it described as a "fundamental change of the very definition of life"? A new framework does not have to mean they turn into something completely unrecognizable.

The only thing we see after Synthesis is EDI and Joker. Does EDI look less like a synthetic? Does Joker look less human? Neither of them seemed to be freaking out or ready to commit suicide from the radical, invasive change that had just been forced upon them.

Seriously?

"the chain reaction will combine all synthetic and organic life into a new framework. A new DNA."

That sounds pretty fundamental to me.

Who cares what exactly Joker & EDI look like? That's a red herring. "They look the same, so synthesis didn't do anything." Except that Joker's skin is glowing exactly the same way the tree is next to them, exactly the same way his freaking HAT is glowing. You're shown a silent few seconds of footage and you rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeach to say that nothing is different and they're all just as happy as can be.

You really are a BioWare employee, aren't you?

Freaking absurd.

[xsdob]

Taboo-XX wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

MisterJB wrote...
The principle is exactly the same. The only difference is the scale of it.
Saying that it is unhetical is not a valid argument to me. If a procedure forced on a person will save or improve that person's life, then it was the right decision. Diversity is good and it will still exist after Synthesis. However, the only thing having weaknesses makes you is weak. That is not something to be cherished or preserved.

That. Right there. See it? Remember when I spoke about the weak earlier? That's exactly what I'm talking about.

You have no right. None. At all. You have zero right to make that choice for one indivual without their consent let alone the entire galaxy.

I have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. It's a terrible weakness, but it makes me who I am. I'm not changing it.

Don't you dare strawman this argument either, justify it.

Not to support synthesis or anything, but what about when shepard choose for every council race in the galaxy when he let the council get slaughtered by soverign along with the 10,000 or more military personal?

You just strawmanned...

You don't affect every being permenantly. It's also an unethical choice.

Damn. Why is strawmanning so easy to do? I honestly thought it was a non-faulistic(don't know if this is a word) point to bring up.

Modifié par xsdob, 11 juin 2012 - 08:41 .

[MisterJB]

General User wrote...
Poor choice of words on my part.  Apologies.   My point was rather that given what we do know about the Reapers, there is simply no way to justify turning that sort of threat loose on the galaxy.

Now, I'm sure it hadn't escaped your notice that the Reapers aren't free-willed life forms!   They weren't designed to be.  Whether or not they even have the capacity to become such is a huge, and largely baseless, leap of faith all by itself.

Hardly. Reapers have demonstrated intelligence and individuality much similar to our own. The only assumption I make is that they are being controlled but there is a good basis for this. Should this control be removed, I don't see why it would remove the previously mentioned traits.

Because before Synthesis the Reapers are under the Catalyst's control, they can't negotiate or agree to anything.  After Synthesis, other than at Earth and a handful of other places, there's nothing to stop them from doing as they please.

The Reapers are not indestructible. While it wouldn't be easy, it shouldn't be impossible to bring them to the negotiation table.

It's not that shortcuts lead to disaster.  It's that they simply aren't that important in the first place.  Synthesis represents taking a enormous risk all for a relatively tiny potential reward.

You consider upgrading all of the galaxy tiny? Not to mention it could be organic's only chance of survival.

In human societies (ALL human societies) the elites will have access to goods and services that others do not.  That's just how humans work.

And Synthesis allows us to spread this good to all.
That in itself greatly influenced my choice.

[jaktuk]

Taboo-XX wrote...

MisterJB wrote...
The principle is exactly the same. The only difference is the scale of it.
Saying that it is unhetical is not a valid argument to me. If a procedure forced on a person will save or improve that person's life, then it was the right decision. Diversity is good and it will still exist after Synthesis. However, the only thing having weaknesses makes you is weak. That is not something to be cherished or preserved.

That. Right there. See it? Remember when I spoke about the weak earlier? That's exactly what I'm talking about.

You have no right. None. At all. You have zero right to make that choice for one indivual without their consent let alone the entire galaxy.

I have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. It's a terrible weakness, but it makes me who I am. I'm not changing it.

Don't you dare strawman this argument either, justify it.

Regardless of what ending you prefer by that logic Shepard has no right to do anything. Why are the other choices better than synthesis? Instead he should just refuse to choose anything meaning the entire galaxy fleet will be slaughtered by the reapers. Sometimes you have to make harsh choices and sometimes you do not have the luxury of being able to ask the ones affected if they want it.

[Reorte]

jaktuk wrote...

Regardless of what ending you prefer by that logic Shepard has no right to do anything. Why are the other choices better than synthesis? Instead he should just refuse to choose anything meaning the entire galaxy fleet will be slaughtered by the reapers. Sometimes you have to make harsh choices and sometimes you do not have the luxury of being able to ask the ones affected if they want it.

The other choices don't impose a fundamental change on every living creature in the galaxy, even the less developed ones who would survive entirely unscathed if the Reapers win.

[Taboo]

jaktuk wrote...

Regardless of what ending you prefer by that logic Shepard has no right to do anything. Why are the other choices better than synthesis? Instead he should just refuse to choose anything meaning the entire galaxy fleet will be slaughtered by the reapers. Sometimes you have to make harsh choices and sometimes you do not have the luxury of being able to ask the ones affected if they want it.

Stop. Strawmanning. We are talking about Synthesis, not the other choices.

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...
Ethics matter. Stop Romanticizing content in order to justify it's inclusion. The Dark Knight isn't very popular in certain places in Europe for example, because it too has fascist aesthetics.

That's what art is. You take it as a whole. Stop denying it's inclusion. Making the choice is the issue, the aftermath is yours to interpret, but the primarily set up is still the same.

I have partly consequentialist ethics. If the result is good, then that counts for something. That you assert the opposite means nothing.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 11 juin 2012 - 08:50 .

[jaktuk]

Taboo-XX wrote...

jaktuk wrote...

Regardless of what ending you prefer by that logic Shepard has no right to do anything. Why are the other choices better than synthesis? Instead he should just refuse to choose anything meaning the entire galaxy fleet will be slaughtered by the reapers. Sometimes you have to make harsh choices and sometimes you do not have the luxury of being able to ask the ones affected if they want it.

Stop. Strawmanning. We are talking about Synthesis, not the other choices.

You cannot speak about synthesis in a vaccum that is the whole point. Most people only choose synthesis because the other choices are worse not because synthesis in itself is great or because they are power hungry psychopats which you seem to believe.

[The Night Mammoth]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
Ethics matter. Stop Romanticizing content in order to justify it's inclusion. The Dark Knight isn't very popular in certain places in Europe for example, because it too has fascist aesthetics.

That's what art is. You take it as a whole. Stop denying it's inclusion. Making the choice is the issue, the aftermath is yours to interpret, but the primarily set up is still the same.

I have partly consequentialist ethics. If the result is good, then that counts for something. That you assert the opposite means nothing.

Good from your perspective, which is the crux of the issue. 

[clennon8]

Yeah, the rationalization and straw-manning that occurs in defense of Synthesis is pretty unbelievable. I remember another thread where the consent issue was compared to telling your dog what to do. If it's okay to impose your will on your dog, then it's okay to violate every living organism in the entire galaxy, right?

Btw, I really love it when people reference Joker and EDI stepping off the Normandy together. "See? They look happy!" Yeah, okay. They look happy, I guess. But, really? That 5-second, 2-person sample is all you need to judge the results of merging all organic and synthetic life in the galaxy? And that's assuming that scene is even real, and not some death-dream or hallucination or something.

[jtav]

When that 5-second clip is all I have to go on? Yes, I'll use it.

[Haargel]

Well, everyone has the right to have it´s own opinion. Yours is clear to me.

There´s one thing though, something I´ve seen in several posts in several threads. Why do people suggest or think that the mass relays are not destroyed when choosing control?

I know the citadel is not destroyed, but from what I´ve seen is that the one mass relay that is shown to be destroyed when the crucible fires is exploding the same in all 3 endings, or am I wrong ? It just blows in pieces. ????

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Interesting first part.

And, I reasoned along similar lines on the second part, myself.

[Haargel]

clennon8 wrote...

Yeah, the rationalization and straw-manning that occurs in defense of Synthesis is pretty unbelievable. I remember another thread where the consent issue was compared to telling your dog what to do. If it's okay to impose your will on your dog, then it's okay to violate every living organism in the entire galaxy, right?

Btw, I really love it when people reference Joker and EDI stepping off the Normandy together. "See? They look happy!" Yeah, okay. They look happy, I guess. But, really? That 5-second, 2-person sample is all you need to judge the results of merging all organic and synthetic life in the galaxy? And that's assuming that scene is even real, and not some death-dream or hallucination or something.

Not only them, but everyone who randomly steps out of the Normandy looks pretty happy to me.

My Shep just perhaps took his last breath (? speculations ftw) in some rubble and for others their Sheps are dead for sure.... and yet they look happy.

Ah well... guess I wasn´t as popular as I thought.

[clennon8]

jtav wrote...

When that 5-second clip is all I have to go on? Yes, I'll use it.

Fine.  But that's post-choice rationalization.  Meta-gaming, a.k.a. "The complete opposite of role-playing."  As flimsy as that 5-second clip is, your Shepard doesn't even have that much evidence to go on.

[Peranor]

 



There is one question about synthesis that always has intrigued me.
Since Jokers hat also have the circuit board pattern. Does that mean that Joker is now wearing a sentient being as a hat?
If that is the case, Isn't that kind of degradig towards the hat and the whole hat species? Also, will the hats get a place in the new galactic council or will they just get treated like second hand citizens like the Batarians was?

Modifié par anorling, 11 juin 2012 - 09:04 .

[MisterJB]

akenn312 wrote...
I have to say that is just very cynical and almost tips over to totalitarianism possibly? I'm not sure... but it seems you want to be able to control everyone's life and make everyone the same perfect template? Even to the point of not giving them a choice? All our strengths and weaknesses make us who we are that is a great thing.

So one question, you want to eradicate all flaws from everyone and that's noble. But what about the people that have embraced these so called flaws? What do you say to them when they don't want you to change who they are?

The one thing that life can show you is your struggles and weaknesses can be your best strength or asset. For example lets take Joker for instance. If Joker did not have Frolic Syndrome would he have become the best pilot in the Fleet? No I highly doubt it. Yes he might have become a pilot but Frolic syndrome gave him the drive to be the best. But all you see is his weakness and suffering? Joker never wanted sympathy for anything he was actually a sarcastic ****** if you tried to be sympathetic. So even if he has embraced his issue now you want to take it upon yourself to control him for his own good?

This is why I don't like the message Bioware is putting out there. This treads on taking away peoples free will for their own good. This is bad stuff.

Joker has not "embraced" his deficiency, he has learned to live with it because he had no other choice and I'm quite certain he would love for a cure.
While it is true that it was his condition that gave him the drive to excell, if he did not wish to be the best in his area of work had he been healthy, then he would be a contemptible human being but that is not my responsability to fix. I simply gave him legs.