Catamantaloedis wrote...
Not having any evidence for it proves it is wrong.
I think if you say it again it might make it true.
You might want to try clicking your heels three times first, though.
Catamantaloedis wrote...
Not having any evidence for it proves it is wrong.
Sisterofshane wrote...
Seboist wrote...
Sisterofshane wrote...
Catamantaloedis wrote...
If you think that speculation can in any way be compared to a scientific theory, then you should go take some basic science classes.
The IT attempts to explain Shepard's indoctrination, which is not a verifiable fact, not the existence of Indoctrination in the Mass Effect universe, which is a verifiable fact.
The theory of evolution explains the observable fact that life changes over time.
A scientific theory in a science fiction setting.
The rest of your argument is semantically flawed. The IT attempts to explains the ending of the game as indoctrination, which we know within the game exists. We observe the ending, and can apply both literal and metaphorical interpretations to it.
IT attempts to explain what happened in a highly surreal and ambiguous ending. It is not the only way it can be explained. Nothing has yet been confirmed nor denied.
Mass Effect has proven it's not science fiction but bottom of the barrel pulp schlock.
Look no further than the Lazarus plot from ME2 that's used as a cheap plot device to fast forward two years and nothing else. Where's the crisis of mortality? The exploration of other themes such as what may happen after death or the impact of such a medical breakthrough on society?
For that matter why isn't the theme of Shepard becoming a Cyborg explored either?
Any science fiction writer worth his salt would flat out laugh in the face of Walters and co for passing this off as "Sci-fi".
I didn't say it was good science fiction, but it is nonetheless.
Hatred of the writers does not prove that IT is false.
Modifié par The Milky Waver, 16 juin 2012 - 04:35 .
Catamantaloedis wrote...
Sisterofshane wrote...
laecraft wrote...
wsandista wrote...
Why is the IT false? If it is false then prove it false.
There is a planet in this galaxy which is made entirely of cheese. If this claim is false, then prove it false.
I have a better theory than IT. The entire series is a dream Shepard's watching while in coma after being hit by the Prothean beacon in ME1. This would explain all the plot and character inconsistences across the series, like Liara personality switch in ME2, Udina changing course in ME2, VS on Horizon, Shepard death and miraculous revival, characters, species, and Reapers behaving odd in ME3, deus ex in ME3, et cetera. If it's false, then prove it false.
The whole point of a theory is to base it upon some sort of observation, and come up with a hypothesis to explain said observation. Then, using the scientific method, to either prove said theory either true or false.
An example of this was when people used to believe that Maggots were born of rotten food. This was thought to be true until someone proved that the maggots came first from the flies that layed eggs in the rotten food.
The problem with IT is that the only way to prove it false will be the writers explicity stating that it is not what they intended. Simply not liking it does not make it false.
Not having any evidence for it proves it is wrong.
You are taking for granted that this "theory" is valid. But even with the "speculative evidence" given in its support, simple counter-evidence can and has been provided. No need for the authors to step in at that point.Sisterofshane wrote...
The problem with IT is that the only way to prove it false will be the writers explicity stating that it is not what they intended. Simply not liking it does not make it false.
KevShep wrote...
Iconoclaste wrote...
First step is to prove, or try to prove, next one to disprove, or try to disprove. If first step is not completed adequatly, no need to go to step 2. Disproving of IT has been done along with each new "discovery", denial of rebuttal does not reinforce the so-called "facts" or "evidence" for IT.
most evidence has... NOT been disproven. Its the opposite. Infact I see more and more people going the direction of IT.
Sisterofshane wrote...
A scientific theory in a science fiction setting.
IT attempts to explain what happened in a highly surreal and ambiguous ending. It is not the only way it can be explained. Nothing has yet been confirmed nor denied.
HellishFiend wrote...
KevShep wrote...
Iconoclaste wrote...
First step is to prove, or try to prove, next one to disprove, or try to disprove. If first step is not completed adequatly, no need to go to step 2. Disproving of IT has been done along with each new "discovery", denial of rebuttal does not reinforce the so-called "facts" or "evidence" for IT.
most evidence has... NOT been disproven. Its the opposite. Infact I see more and more people going the direction of IT.
The HtL poll from Priestly stands at 80% in favor of IT, last time I looked. The OP is in the whiny minority at this point. Maybe he needs an affirmative action campaign?
The Milky Waver wrote...
Do tell of the indoctrination theory's repugnancies, and prove it false! I could offer you some clarification.
HellishFiend wrote...
KevShep wrote...
Iconoclaste wrote...
First step is to prove, or try to prove, next one to disprove, or try to disprove. If first step is not completed adequatly, no need to go to step 2. Disproving of IT has been done along with each new "discovery", denial of rebuttal does not reinforce the so-called "facts" or "evidence" for IT.
most evidence has... NOT been disproven. Its the opposite. Infact I see more and more people going the direction of IT.
The HtL poll from Priestly stands at 80% in favor of IT, last time I looked. The OP is in the whiny minority at this point. Maybe he needs an affirmative action campaign?
Iconoclaste wrote...
You are taking for granted that this "theory" is valid. But even with the "speculative evidence" given in its support, simple counter-evidence can and has been provided. No need for the authors to step in at that point.Sisterofshane wrote...
The problem with IT is that the only way to prove it false will be the writers explicity stating that it is not what they intended. Simply not liking it does not make it false.
HellishFiend wrote...
KevShep wrote...
Iconoclaste wrote...
First step is to prove, or try to prove, next one to disprove, or try to disprove. If first step is not completed adequatly, no need to go to step 2. Disproving of IT has been done along with each new "discovery", denial of rebuttal does not reinforce the so-called "facts" or "evidence" for IT.
most evidence has... NOT been disproven. Its the opposite. Infact I see more and more people going the direction of IT.
The HtL poll from Priestly stands at 80% in favor of IT, last time I looked. The OP is in the whiny minority at this point. Maybe he needs an affirmative action campaign?
The vast majority of players are not here anymore. They disappeared after the "clarification DLC" was announced. Any poll conducted now would only reflect biased numbers since IT supporters are probably the only ones haunting the subject in significant numbers.HellishFiend wrote...
KevShep wrote...
Iconoclaste wrote...
First step is to prove, or try to prove, next one to disprove, or try to disprove. If first step is not completed adequatly, no need to go to step 2. Disproving of IT has been done along with each new "discovery", denial of rebuttal does not reinforce the so-called "facts" or "evidence" for IT.
most evidence has... NOT been disproven. Its the opposite. Infact I see more and more people going the direction of IT.
The HtL poll from Priestly stands at 80% in favor of IT, last time I looked. The OP is in the whiny minority at this point. Maybe he needs an affirmative action campaign?
Modifié par Iconoclaste, 16 juin 2012 - 04:36 .
wsandista wrote...
Catamantaloedis wrote...
Sisterofshane wrote...
laecraft wrote...
wsandista wrote...
Why is the IT false? If it is false then prove it false.
There is a planet in this galaxy which is made entirely of cheese. If this claim is false, then prove it false.
I have a better theory than IT. The entire series is a dream Shepard's watching while in coma after being hit by the Prothean beacon in ME1. This would explain all the plot and character inconsistences across the series, like Liara personality switch in ME2, Udina changing course in ME2, VS on Horizon, Shepard death and miraculous revival, characters, species, and Reapers behaving odd in ME3, deus ex in ME3, et cetera. If it's false, then prove it false.
The whole point of a theory is to base it upon some sort of observation, and come up with a hypothesis to explain said observation. Then, using the scientific method, to either prove said theory either true or false.
An example of this was when people used to believe that Maggots were born of rotten food. This was thought to be true until someone proved that the maggots came first from the flies that layed eggs in the rotten food.
The problem with IT is that the only way to prove it false will be the writers explicity stating that it is not what they intended. Simply not liking it does not make it false.
Not having any evidence for it proves it is wrong.
IT is very wrong. IT does horrible things to people. IT is a MASSIVE destroyer that kills anyone with IT's brute power.
Catamantaloedis wrote...
HellishFiend wrote...
KevShep wrote...
Iconoclaste wrote...
First step is to prove, or try to prove, next one to disprove, or try to disprove. If first step is not completed adequatly, no need to go to step 2. Disproving of IT has been done along with each new "discovery", denial of rebuttal does not reinforce the so-called "facts" or "evidence" for IT.
most evidence has... NOT been disproven. Its the opposite. Infact I see more and more people going the direction of IT.
The HtL poll from Priestly stands at 80% in favor of IT, last time I looked. The OP is in the whiny minority at this point. Maybe he needs an affirmative action campaign?
As if vast majorities haven't been deluded before.
But alas, I've had enough of this for the night. I will continue with this discussion tomorrow.
Seboist wrote...
The Milky Waver wrote...
Do tell of the indoctrination theory's repugnancies, and prove it false! I could offer you some clarification.
I see you have an IT banner and a "where is my choice?" banner.... oh the irony.
Modifié par The Milky Waver, 16 juin 2012 - 04:38 .
HellishFiend wrote...
The HtL poll from Priestly stands at 80% in favor of IT, last time I looked. The OP is in the whiny minority at this point. Maybe he needs an affirmative action campaign?
UrgentArchengel wrote...
@Alec
The point I'm trying to make is there is clearly something going on. That, and that Cat's clearly talking out of his a**. He can not like IT all he wants, I couldn't careless, but if he starts a thread on a board designates for discussion, he should discuss the "things" we bring up. He just ignores them. As for what it has to do with Indoct? That's for a smarter man then I. I just think it means there's more going on then meets the eye.
Modifié par alec1898, 16 juin 2012 - 04:35 .
Erield wrote...
HellishFiend wrote...
The HtL poll from Priestly stands at 80% in favor of IT, last time I looked. The OP is in the whiny minority at this point. Maybe he needs an affirmative action campaign?
I don't go to the HtL forums at all. What sorts of numbers does that poll have? When was it last posted, to allow players updated opinions? (Honest questions. It's hard to tell the validity of a poll with a simple percentage. Numbers don't tell the whole story, but help fill it in a little bit, at least.)
alec1898 wrote...
UrgentArchengel wrote...
@Alec
The point I'm trying to make is there is clearly something going on. That, and that Cat's clearly talking out of his a**. He can not like IT all he wants, I couldn't careless, but if he starts a thread on a board designates for discussion, he should discuss the "things" we bring up. He just ignores them. As for what it has to do with Indoct? That's for a smarter man then I. I just think it means there's more going on then meets the eye.
I'm drifting further and further away from his opinions and asstalk he's made in this thread while still keeping my belief that IT was not the Bioware's intent.
He's kind of talking himself into a corner, I'm trying to provide fact.
wsandista wrote...
Catamantaloedis wrote...
As if vast majorities haven't been deluded before.
But alas, I've had enough of this for the night. I will continue with this discussion tomorrow.
Ahh running away I see. Be sure to comfort your mules with the knowledge your troll thread was over run.
I will only provide the fact that Ray Musika's statement a few months ago clearly hinted towards the endings to be taken at face value, and he clearly didn't "fake" his surprise at the fanbase's negative reaction. Remember the "artistic integrity" meme?Sisterofshane wrote...
In an intentionally ambiguous and surreal ending? Of course it is valid - it's just as valid as saying that it was because the writing was poor, or that it was all meant to be literal.
If you have definitive proof that it is false, then offer it up.