381 réponses à ce sujet

[Taboo]

jtav wrote...

Does Synthesis seem unpleasant to you from the few seconds we see? Do you have any reason to believe it is unpleasant, particularly? More unpleasant than erasing an entire class of people? I say no. And I will not kill an innocent or ally while other options remain.

And killing the Reapers was never our goal. Let me explain: suppose the Crucible wiped out all life in the galaxy along with the Reapers. Would you not say it's better for the non-spacefaring species to exist another 50k years? For more life to evolve. So no, our goal was to prevent the Reapers from harvesting us. I choose the leasy violent method.

Yes. Me telling you that I don't want to be Synthesized and that I'd rather die is a pretty good indication. If I don't want it, I would imagine someone else won't either. I'd ratehr die.

It's got nothing to do with you, if one can grasp it.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Tealjaker94 wrote...

"It gains us nothing." You sound just like TIM. Always looking for some way to take advantage of the situation. Sometimes you just need to solve the problem at hand instead of getting ahead of yourself. I personally see the elimination of the robo-cthulus as a good thing.

Looking for advantages and capitalizing is an admirable trait. Afterall, our successes against the Reapers have come predominantly through this method, turning their own tech/power against them. 

TIM only lost sight of this because he became indoctrinated. Even then, he still had the right idea, he was just unaware of how his actions were actively sabotaging the efforts. All that means is that the Reapers manipulated him well, not that the idea itself was flawed.

When you fight a war to win it, you really ought to be establishing yourself as the dominant power. Otherwise, have you really won the war? Choosing Destroy is a waste of the Crucible, it's like using the krogan to fight the rachni. The salarians/asari didn't really win the war, they just hid behind a weapon that they found to do all the fighting (sound familiar)? When the threat came back, in the form of the krogan, they were proven powerless once again, and didn't win conventionally. They could have avoided that if they conquered the rachni the first time. The krogan wouldn't have been there, but even if they had, they wouldn't have been so helpless.

Destroy doesn't conquer the threat. Control and Synthesis do provide that opportunity.

[Tealjaker94]

jtav wrote...

Does Synthesis seem unpleasant to you from the few seconds we see? Do you have any reason to believe it is unpleasant, particularly? More unpleasant than erasing an entire class of people? I say no. And I will not kill an innocent or ally while other options remain.

And killing the Reapers was never our goal. Let me explain: suppose the Crucible wiped out all life in the galaxy along with the Reapers. Would you not say it's better for the non-spacefaring species to exist another 50k years? For more life to evolve. So no, our goal was to prevent the Reapers from harvesting us. I choose the leasy violent method.

Not gonna lie I would sacrifice all life in the galaxy to kill the reapers. Life will emerge again eventually and be free of the reaper threat.
As far as synthesis not seeming unpleasant, I guess you're right about that. But if we now base everything on cutscenes alone, then the geth and EDI are not shown dying in destroy so they're still alive.

[Taboo]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Destroy doesn't conquer the threat. Control and Synthesis do provide that opportunity.

Neither do the others. The threat is hypothetical.

Adress the fallacy. Stop ignoring it.

[MisterJB]

jstme wrote...
There is such a concept as justice. Murdering multitude of innocents in horrible ways demands justice.

Justice doesn't equal murder.
Will commiting genocide bring the people the Cycle killed back? No, you will just be killing the last living remnants of their civilizations.

 

 
If reapers were nothing more then an indoctrinated tool, they were Catalyst tools. Catalyst still needs to answer for what he did. Whether reapers are indoctrinated or are just a tool of catalyst - you had no ethical problem of killing indoctrinated living creatures or husks. How different is destroying the reapers to get the catalyst and kill indoctinated cerberus troops? 

The Catalyst "dies" in all endings.

  
Instead you deliberately killed entire form of existence that you were part of. You just killed organic life as a concept.  I would say that ethics and formoflifecide do not go hand in hand. 

It was changed, improved. There is nothing wrong with that.

You just gave entire galatcic civilisation future and hope. Realys are gone, citadel is gone but people are alive, trees are green in normal way and reapers et Catalyst and their solutions are no more.
In synthesis you killed all organic life. And organo-synthetics ,via those precious upgrades, will become full synthetics in a short time. Plus ,all the suicides due to choice to rape  their organism with green wave are ultimately your moral responisbility.

What an unbiased statement. Allow me to be just as unbiased.
In Destroy, you just plunged the galaxy into the Dark Ages. Once the species realized they are trapped, anarchy will ensure. War will be fought for the dwindling resources. Billions will starve because their worlds; Tuchanka, for instance; relied on the Relay Network to survive, etc.

There is nothing that indicates anyone will become full synthetic anytime soon.

People are always going to commit suicide. Maybe they do it because they can't live with the horrors of war or the loss of a loved one or because they just couldn't accept synthesis.
It's tragic but it's also no one's fault but theirs.

[Taboo]

MisterJB wrote...

People are always going to commit suicide. Maybe they do it because they can't live with the horrors of war or the loss of a loved one or because they just couldn't accept synthesis.
It's tragic but it's also no one's fault but theirs.

This completely undermines what you were raging about the other day. You said that people have no "right" to die and that you would cure them if they were ill, regardless of what they want.

Step up to the plate and assume responsibility.

[Nefla]

Who cares what you choose? The only consequence you see or hear about is the color of the explosion and some green lines in everyone in synthesis. All we know is what the leader of the reapers tells us (vaguely) will happen. We don't know what the outcome of ANY choice will actually be.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Neither do the others. The threat is hypothetical.

Adress the fallacy. Stop ignoring it.

The threat is the Reapers, now. It's naiive (and fallacious) to believe it can't happen again, either.

Especially since we don't know how the Reapers started, we can't even properly safeguard against them being recreated. Even if we did, it would be forgotten anyway, as all mistakes are.

[MisterJB]

Tealjaker94 wrote...
"It gains us nothing." You sound just like TIM. Always looking for some way to take advantage of the situation. Sometimes you just need to solve the problem at hand instead of getting ahead of yourself. I personally see the elimination of the robo-cthulus as a good thing.

Yes, let's NOT attempt to create something good out of all this destruction.
Is it better to let their deaths be in vain?

[Taboo]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Neither do the others. The threat is hypothetical.

Adress the fallacy. Stop ignoring it.

The threat is the Reapers, now. It's naiive (and fallacious) to believe it can't happen again, either.

Especially since we don't know how the Reapers started, we can't even properly safeguard against them being recreated. Even if we did, it would be forgotten anyway, as all mistakes are.

That is a fallacy.

A is probable/therefore A is absolute.

Stop bull****ting and address it. It invalidates a major point of Synthesis and this frustrates you, clearly.

[MisterJB]

Taboo-XX wrote...
This completely undermines what you were raging about the other day. You said that people have no "right" to die and that you would cure them if they were ill, regardless of what they want.
Step up to the plate and assume responsibility.

Responsability of what?. Bringing progress and advancement into the galaxy?
If I see someone trying to kill himself, I'll help. But I can't be everywhere at once.

[ardias89]

jtav wrote...

Does Synthesis seem unpleasant to you from the few seconds we see? Do you have any reason to believe it is unpleasant, particularly? More unpleasant than erasing an entire class of people? I say no. And I will not kill an innocent or ally while other options remain.

And killing the Reapers was never our goal. Let me explain: suppose the Crucible wiped out all life in the galaxy along with the Reapers. Would you not say it's better for the non-spacefaring species to exist another 50k years? For more life to evolve. So no, our goal was to prevent the Reapers from harvesting us. I choose the leasy violent method.

No we do not see anything unpleasant but when we go through game number 2 and 3 a very unpleasant thought can strike your mind.
Ok i have been in an argument on these forums whether or not the catalyst is lying. IT people argued that it was and pro-enders that it wasnt. I will go with the pro-enders explanation: That Catalyst has another view of the situation. We cant understand it and it cant understand us.
If that is really the best we can conclude with information on the situation then we can go figure out what exactly a being that has created giant machine monsters out of inslaved races for millions of years might interpret "A new DNA" as. Seing that the Reapers already themselves (and the Catalyst) think that they are a higher form of life or as they call it: Ascended life. Now go figure what exactly happens to all the people in the galaxy.
What if it began to rain after the Normandy crashes and we see Joker and EDI getting toasted or the many trapped people on Earth now sensing electricity in a whole new way overloading due to taking to much information in. Or the surviving people in the fleet getting severly damage to to the Eezo cores like its desciped in the codexes.
Holy crap a lot of **** can happen. Think if you to be afraid to take a shower

Modifié par ardias89, 16 juin 2012 - 07:55 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Taboo-XX wrote...

That is a fallacy.

A is probable/therefore A is absolute.

Stop bull****ting and address it. It invalidates a major point of Synthesis and this frustrates you, clearly.

Where do I say it's absolute?

I didn't.

It's probable. That, to me, is enough probability to take steps against it.

A (potential) threat that big, I'd rather be safe than sorry.

[Tealjaker94]

MisterJB wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...
"It gains us nothing." You sound just like TIM. Always looking for some way to take advantage of the situation. Sometimes you just need to solve the problem at hand instead of getting ahead of yourself. I personally see the elimination of the robo-cthulus as a good thing.

Yes, let's NOT attempt to create something good out of all this destruction.
Is it better to let their deaths be in vain?

Plenty of good can be achieved simply through the study of the dead reapers. It simply goes down to how much one is willing to risk to gain that advantage. I don't think the benefits outweigh the risk of keeping the reapers alive. If you think differently then okay, I probably couldn't change your mind even if I tried.

[frylock23]

jtav wrote...

Regarding "we must choose Destroy because it's the most certain means of solving the problem."

For three games, Paragon was always about trying to find the best solution, rejecting the most expedient path again and again even if it was risky. The rachni, Feros, The Council, Wrex, Maelon, the geth Heretics, Veetor, the pattern is overwhelming. That the subject is now the Reapers doesn't change my obligation. I'm supposed to believe, just this once, that the harder path that doesn't kill my allies is the path of the villain? No. I will not be ruled by fear.

I beg to differ with you as to which one is most expedient though.

Control and Synthesis both offer you the chance to not kill anyone else so that no one has to "suffer" for your choice. The only one who does is Shepard. Synthesis supposedly has less suffering if you consider that Control has you "enslaving" the Reapers.

Those are both the easy paths for people like yourself who just cannot bear the thought that you might be sacrificing others outside your Shepard. They let you still think noble thoughts about your Shepard without having to consider that you might have a black mark or some blood on your hands.

But you never consider that you might have made morally flawed choices. One might not let you take control at all. The other has you re-writing all life in the known universe arbitrarily without any guarantee that it actually solves the problem. And both choices let the main antagonists go free to do who-knows-what afterwards. There are no guarantees at all that they simply won't return and continue their purpose in another 50,000 years.

So, what you see as "expedient" I saw as the tough choice that was also the only one who removed the enemy from the equation. The other two were the easy ways meant to leave me with an easy conscience but no guarantees of a Cycle-free future for the galaxy.

[The Night Mammoth]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

That is a fallacy.

A is probable/therefore A is absolute.

Stop bull****ting and address it. It invalidates a major point of Synthesis and this frustrates you, clearly.

Where do I say it's absolute?

I didn't.

You didn't, the Catalyst did. 

It's probable. That, to me, is enough probability to take steps against it.

A (potential) threat that big, I'd rather be safe than sorry.

Probable is irrelevant. Prove that it's possible first. 

[Taboo]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

That is a fallacy.

A is probable/therefore A is absolute.

Stop bull****ting and address it. It invalidates a major point of Synthesis and this frustrates you, clearly.

Where do I say it's absolute?

I didn't.

It's probable. That, to me, is enough probability to take steps against it.

A (potential) threat that big, I'd rather be safe than sorry.

It's possible that the Caldera underneath Yellowstone will blow up and blanket the Earth in ash. But the chance is VERY small.

Given the state of the Galaxy, I don't think we'll be seeing anything that advanced for a LONG time.

Possible =/= Probable.

It isn't your right OR responsibility to change the way life is.

[Taboo]

MisterJB wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...
This completely undermines what you were raging about the other day. You said that people have no "right" to die and that you would cure them if they were ill, regardless of what they want.
Step up to the plate and assume responsibility.

Responsability of what?. Bringing progress and advancement into the galaxy?
If I see someone trying to kill himself, I'll help. But I can't be everywhere at once.

No. It isn't. This isn't a lightbulb. You change everything fundamentally. You have no right to do the latter to achieve the first.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Given the state of the Galaxy, I don't think we'll be seeing anything that advanced for a LONG time.

How about that time when Project Overlord unleashed an out-of-control VI that turned all synthetics against us (eerily similar to what the Catalyst prophesized) - ?

I disagree. We are not long removed from another major galactic threat.

[frylock23]

jtav wrote...

Does Synthesis seem unpleasant to you from the few seconds we see? Do you have any reason to believe it is unpleasant, particularly? More unpleasant than erasing an entire class of people? I say no. And I will not kill an innocent or ally while other options remain.

And killing the Reapers was never our goal. Let me explain: suppose the Crucible wiped out all life in the galaxy along with the Reapers. Would you not say it's better for the non-spacefaring species to exist another 50k years? For more life to evolve. So no, our goal was to prevent the Reapers from harvesting us. I choose the leasy violent method.

Actually, yes, Synthesis does seem unpleasant to me from what I saw. The implications are damn creepy.

Yes, it's more unpleasant than erasing an entire race because it erases all life as we know it and replaces it with something else. Imagine being a Geth or EDI. They have no corporeal bodies and Synthesis necessarily must give them that ... That must be terrifying ... something else that will be entirely new - terror. Oh, and you did pretty much kill them. They were changed at the genetic level.

[Taboo]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Given the state of the Galaxy, I don't think we'll be seeing anything that advanced for a LONG time.

How about that time when Project Overlord unleashed an out-of-control VI that turned all synthetics against us (eerily similar to what the Catalyst prophesized) - ?

I disagree. We are not long removed from another major galactic threat.

The Star Gazer scene takes place ten thousand years in the future.

It isn't going to happen in the near future.

Stop bull****ting me.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 16 juin 2012 - 08:04 .

[frylock23]

Taboo-XX wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

That is a fallacy.

A is probable/therefore A is absolute.

Stop bull****ting and address it. It invalidates a major point of Synthesis and this frustrates you, clearly.

Where do I say it's absolute?

I didn't.

It's probable. That, to me, is enough probability to take steps against it.

A (potential) threat that big, I'd rather be safe than sorry.

It's possible that the Caldera underneath Yellowstone will blow up and blanket the Earth in ash. But the chance is VERY small.

Given the state of the Galaxy, I don't think we'll be seeing anything that advanced for a LONG time.

Possible =/= Probable.

It isn't your right OR responsibility to change the way life is.

Thank you! I suppose that since Yellowstone is probably going to explode catastrophically sometime in the future (although that probably won't happen in any of our lifetimes), we all ought to just go off ourselves since it's highly likely that life simply won't be worth living in this country for a good period of time afterward.

That would be the Synthesis-like choice.

[KeraWildmane]

 Everyone in the galaxy, organic and synthetic, understand the stakes in this war. EDI and every geth program know, and are at peace with, the fact that their deaths might be required to end the Reaper threat. Better they die to assure the end of the Reapers, than risk their lives on something that allows those things  to live on.

One measly human can't control that many minds, even we have trouble controlling our own, and sythesis is as horrifying as a brain transplant. Much as your body may annoy you at times, it's still yours. Waking up as something else would almost certainly shatter an individual's sanity.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Star Gazer scene takes place ten thousand years in the future.

It isn't going to happen in the near future.

Stop bull****ting me.

Oh please. The tacked-on Stargazer scene is hardly evidence of ANYTHING. We have no information on what's going on.

How about if I use it as evidence that people post-synthesis are functioning completely the same way they would pre-synth, and therefore, proves that it was not a terrible/traumatic change - would you accept it?

[o Ventus]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Come at me.

You were the one who basically said that tyranny and dictatorship was a good thing.

I think you came at yourself already.

Slander! Shame on you, Ventus.

Are you denying this?