1256 réponses à ce sujet

[MisterJB]

Taboo-XX wrote...
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.

What can I say? You have a terrible weakness that impairs your life and you do not wish to see it changed.
I can only say I think you are making a mistake and I wish I could help you.

[antares_sublight]

anorling wrote...

 



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?

Best-case scenario: The hat was made of organic material like cotton, which has now been synthesized into hybrid-cotton. Feel free to speculate about if it's still soft now, and whether it's machine-washable or not.

Modifié par antares_sublight, 11 juin 2012 - 09:09 .

[jtav]

I have a disability. It has shaped me in both positive and negative ways. But if I could have a cure? Yes, please! There's nothing noble about infirmity per se or in limitation, only in striving against them. So if I can ensure no kid grows up with the problems I have, I'll do what I have to.

[Haargel]

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.

Damn right, I also have a Personality Disorder, it´s what you get when daddy doesn´t know how to raise me and beat the crap out of me for like 18 years. And for the same reason I am disabled caused by a very painfull back.

I´m weak, that doesn´t give anyone the right to change it, I have a wife and kid who love me.

Be carefull with your arguments, you could hurt someone´s feelings.

Or perhaps I´m overreacting, after all he´s talking about a game... but still

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...
Because Romanticism is wrong.

You have no idea what classic Romanticism entails, apparently. Romanticism is anti-rationalist, anti-science and anti-intellectual. It asserts that the world cannot be understood, that emotion is superior to reason, that tradition is better than progress, that there are things we "aren't meant" to know or do, that there is a sacred nature we must leave unchanged, no matter how much suffering it causes.

So, yes, Romanticism is a mindset I have no particular respect for. That's why I choose Synthesis. A good denied is an evil. Status quo bias is not good. If I could push a button and eliminate all infectious diseases by injecting nanites into everyone's bodies, I would feel like a monster not doing so. The only thing why the picture is muddier with Synthesis is that its results aren't that clear cut.  

[clennon8]

Again, the comparision of vaccines and cures to what Synthesis does.

Stop it. That's a cheap, emotional ploy.

[MisterJB]

Synthetics don't get sick. Shepard's synthetic uppgrades allow him to survive being poisoned.
It is quite possible that Synthesis will lead to miraculous advances in medical science.

[Reorte]

Ieldra2 wrote...

So, yes, Romanticism is a mindset I have no particular respect for. That's why I choose Synthesis. A good denied is an evil. Status quo bias is not good. If I could push a button and eliminate all infectious diseases by injecting nanites into everyone's bodies, I would feel like a monster not doing so. The only thing why the picture is muddier with Synthesis is that its results aren't that clear cut.  

I'd view you as a monster if you did. I'd also view you as a monster if you refused to for anyone who asked for it.

If Synthesis is supposed to eliminate entirely the (entirely hypothetical) possibility of a technological singularity it's also got to do something more than just stop our bodies from going wrong. It can only be achieved by changing minds somehow. You cannot change a mind without changing the person.

[Reorte]

MisterJB wrote...

Synthetics don't get sick. Shepard's synthetic uppgrades allow him to survive being poisoned.
It is quite possible that Synthesis will lead to miraculous advances in medical science.

Virus to rewrite the heretics? Will we all become vulnerable to such things?

[Ieldra]

I wanted to illustrate that results matter. The fact that you make a choice for everyone is most emphatically not the only consideration. Synthesis cannot be judged without taking its results into account.

[clennon8]

Yes it can, and should.

[Volc19]

When I saw the title of the thread, I though the starting post would continue with "I have poor critical thinking skills."

Synthesis is conceptually abhorrent. All organics basically have their souls "replaced by tech", as Mordin would put it. All synthetics... well, we can only speculate what happened to them, as it could be any middleground between "the robots now think like real boys now!" and every bit of technology growing patches of skin and teeth. Either way, synthesis changes everything fundamentally, in a direction that most would see as negative.

However, I can see your viewpoint and why you think the choice is acceptable. I simply disagree with it. If you honestly think that Synthesis the best case scenario for the galaxy, all the power to you. Just giving my two cents.

Modifié par Volc19, 11 juin 2012 - 09:27 .

[Ieldra]

Reorte wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

So, yes, Romanticism is a mindset I have no particular respect for. That's why I choose Synthesis. A good denied is an evil. Status quo bias is not good. If I could push a button and eliminate all infectious diseases by injecting nanites into everyone's bodies, I would feel like a monster not doing so. The only thing why the picture is muddier with Synthesis is that its results aren't that clear cut.  

I'd view you as a monster if you did. I'd also view you as a monster if you refused to for anyone who asked for it.

If Synthesis is supposed to eliminate entirely the (entirely hypothetical) possibility of a technological singularity it's also got to do something more than just stop our bodies from going wrong. It can only be achieved by changing minds somehow. You cannot change a mind without changing the person.

As things are, I have only the choice to force a change on everyone or to deny it to everyone. What is the greater good or evil? That would depend on the results.

jtav has explained how she sees Synthesis as the solution to the singularity in her OP. I have done the same in my thread "A different ascension - the Synthesis compendium"

[MisterJB]

Reorte wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Synthetics don't get sick. Shepard's synthetic uppgrades allow him to survive being poisoned.
It is quite possible that Synthesis will lead to miraculous advances in medical science.

Virus to rewrite the heretics? Will we all become vulnerable to such things?

Doubtful. Tough I'm sure it won't take long for someone to create virus that can affect hybrids.

[Ridwan]

Pre Synthesis.

Bob: Dude? You like Metallica? I think they're awesome!
Joe: No I don't. In fact I think they suck.
Bob: What the hell dude? **** you. *they fight*

Post Synthesis.

Bob: Wow, what happened? So any way, dude, you gotta listen to this new album by Metallica!
Joe: Why are you like, all green? And no, I think Metallica are crap!
Bob: Dude **** you! *they fight!*

Yeah, I don't see what makes Synthesis a big deal.

Modifié par M25105, 11 juin 2012 - 09:30 .

[Ajosraa]

A thought, moral arguments aside.

If people were able to selectively choose sythesis, then would the remaining discrepancy between new humans and old (or whatever other race) result in inevitable conflict? And since they are superior in most ways, they could eventually crowd out the pure organics overtime anyway. Maybe that is part of why it needs to be imposed on the entire galaxy all at once? Just an idea.

(besides the whole needing to keep up evolutionarily with synthetics and being able to understand eachother to not automatic have the "squish spider!" instinct when you see eachother, which are the other ideas in basic as I understand them.)

Thats where the societies in the ME universe seemed to be headed anyway in a sence imo, with ferther and ferther integration of organic and machine. A similar theme in lots of modern sci-fi, brought on by the recent changes in real life I think. I mean you have the omni-tool for starters, and implants of all kinds, even synthetic muscle. Ive also heard references to "anti technology types". It seemed to be a small conflict in the universe already, due to references here and their. Though ya, it should have been more explored if they were going to bring it up in the end.

[akenn312]

MisterJB wrote...

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.

Again, you cannot violate his ability to choose his destiny just for your own need to make everyone perfect or to change the galaxy to what you want it to be. If Joker decided to get a cure after you tell him what you can do for him then it is fine. But you cannot just put him through a procedure without telling him. That is not only unethical but cruel to not tell him what is about to happen. You are not given him any warning of his new state of being and again there are people that have afflictions and what some would call difficulties that they would not trade because it would change who they are. Not everyone hates or fears their differences or weaknesses. Miranda's story should give you a hint on that. You know the whole how being perfect is not all it's cracked up to be.

I have slight dyslexia and am nearsighted but I don't need anyone to change it because I don't want anyone screwing with my DNA just so they can have a master cyborg race. I don't care if you give me 20/20 vision or make me perfect. I want to stay the way I am.

You can't sugar coat it and pretend it's good or some new ascension or Shepard being Space Jesus to help everyone. Doctors, lawyers, researchers, everyone has to abide by the practice of consent. Bioware has no right to say we should not follow this basic human right of giving people choice to decide their fate.

Bioware soft-balling this in like it's nothing and then trying to put a cute face on it is revolting.

Only if you have questionable ethics can you find this choice acceptable.

Modifié par akenn312, 11 juin 2012 - 09:32 .

[Taboo]

Your promotion of Synthesis is Romanticized. You promote your change because you think it will help people. Your choice. That's fairly Anti-Intellectual to me.

Have you heard of the deaf children that tear the cochlear implants from their heads? Why would they do such a thing? Because being deaf is who they are. It's an identity. You have no right to impose a change on them.

[General User]

MisterJB wrote...
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.

That makes no sense.  How could a Reaper have "demonstrated intelligence and individuality much similar to our own" if it was being controlled?

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

A couple things.  First, after Synthesis, there are no more "the Reapers", there are only Reapers.  Making Reapers independent would, well… make them independent.  As in there would be no inherent reason for them to cooperate on anything anymore, even with each other. 

And second, yes it would be impossible, since pretty much the only military force in the galaxy that could possibly do anything of the sort to even one Reaper is trapped in the immediate area of Sol for the foreseeable future.

You consider upgrading all of the galaxy tiny?

It is.  Look at your own wording: "upgrading", ie a new version of something already in existence.  I've yet to see anyone, yourself included, note anything Synthesis would bring besides new (and not necessarily better) ways to do things we were already doing without being "Synthesised".

Not to mention it could be organic's only chance of survival.

It's obviously not.  Organic races of all sorts have so far managed to survive just fine without Synthesis.

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

You're missing the point.  There's always going to be something.  You could treat everyone in the world to a feast, and the next day the "poor" will be hungry and the "rich" will be full.

Modifié par General User, 11 juin 2012 - 09:37 .

[MisterJB]

[quote]akenn312 wrote...
Again, you cannot violate his ability to choose his destiny just for your own need to make everyone perfect or to change the galaxy to what you want it to be. If Joker decided to get a cure after you tell him what you can do for him then it is fine. But you cannot just put him through a procedure without telling him. That is not only unethical but cruel to not tell him what is about to happen. You are not given him any warning of his new state of being and again there are people that have afflictions and what some would call difficulties that they would not trade because it would change who they are. Not everyone hates or fears their differences or weaknesses. Miranda's story should give you a hint on that. You know the whole how being perfect is not all it's cracked up to be.[/quote]
[/quote]
I am not denying Joker the ability to choose his own destiny. I am, in fact, giving him more options by curing his cripling disability.

Miranda had emotional problems due to abuse. But physically? She is more intelligent, attractive, stronger, has faster reflexes, etc. Where do I sign up for this?

Modifié par MisterJB, 11 juin 2012 - 09:45 .

[Taboo]

I like having OCD. I like having Crippling Depression. I wouldn't be who I am without it.

I like being me. I don't want to change. Not now. Not ever.

[General User]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I wanted to illustrate that results matter. The fact that you make a choice for everyone is most emphatically not the only consideration. Synthesis cannot be judged without taking its results into account.

And what results would those be?

[General User]

MisterJB wrote...

Synthetics don't get sick. Shepard's synthetic uppgrades allow him to survive being poisoned.
It is quite possible that Synthesis will lead to miraculous advances in medical science.

All of the "miraculous" advances repesented by Commander Shepard were obviously discovered prior to Synthesis.

[clennon8]

It really is strange to make the simultaneous arguments that Destroy is unacceptable because it kills the geth (The geth are my pals!), and Synthesis is best because it potentially solves the Singularity issue (The geth will eventually kill us all!).

Also, it seems very, very strange to impose such a radical, invasive solution as Synthesis as a solution for a purely theoretical problem.

Finally, after railing against Synthesis for the moral issue of imposing unasked for biological changes on all organisms in the galaxy, I think it's only fair to point out that all existing synthetics are also affected in potentially undesired and possibly even inhibitive ways.

Modifié par clennon8, 11 juin 2012 - 09:46 .

[Ieldra]

@Taboo:
Flaws and diseases are not virtues. Period. People learn to live with them because they don't have an alternative. Don't you *DARE* lecture me about the virtue of suffering (except if self-imposed). I have nothing but contempt for such a mindset. If you want to stay blind, just cut out your eyes again after being healed.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 11 juin 2012 - 09:46 .