381 réponses à ce sujet

[Tealjaker94]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

iAFKinMassEffect3 wrote...
So you can't ethically choose to destroy the most terrible enemy to ever exist, but you can ethically chose to agree with them and alter all organics into abominations.

It isn't hypocritical at all.

Don't worry, your newly synthesized penis is WAY cool.

That's the thing, there are ethical issues associated with both sides, if you disagree then you're wrong because it's just plain fact. The only thing that makes one more tempting than the other for most people is that they can have a metal penis. Although being a female I really don't see the plus side of that, boys are horny enough without having to be 'hard' permanently.

This made me laugh. Well done.

[MisterJB]

Tealjaker94 wrote...
Then let us do that ourselves. There's no reason to cause a change to our DNA. That takes the choice out of it entirely.

No. Any transhumanism undertaken by organics will always be limited by resources and finances. Eventually, there will be people left behind. The Crucible, does no such thing.
Not to mention, the chances of an AI achieving singularity and causing our extinction is much higher.

[Taboo]

MisterJB wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...
Then let us do that ourselves. There's no reason to cause a change to our DNA. That takes the choice out of it entirely.

No. Any transhumanism undertaken by organics will always be limited by resources and finances. Eventually, there will be people left behind. The Crucible, does no such thing.
Not to mention, the chances of an AI achieving singularity and causing our extinction is much higher.

Not within our lifetime.

That isn't your responsibility.

[The Night Mammoth]

MisterJB wrote...

Not to mention, the chances of an AI achieving singularity and causing our extinction is much higher.

PROVE IT. 

[HellishFiend]

Wait, now we're applying Starbinger's logic to real life?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

MisterJB wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
Uh, how can you say that killing the reapers was never our goal? What was your mission?

Admiral Hackett: "Dead Reapers is how we end this."
Admiral Anderson: "Dead Reapers is how we end this."

These are your superior officers. You are an Alliance officer. You report apparently directly to Admiral Hackett. This is your mission: Find a way to kill the reapers. You are a Spectre which gives you access to other resources.

This might be an alien concept to you, but some Shepards have a mind of their own.

And I can guess where some of those minds are stuck up. (said an Alliance officer Shepard to ... well at least I know where MY loyalties lie.)

But that doesn't matter if you chose Synthesis because you cannot be held accountable. Ain't that beautiful? All the authority with no responsibility.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 16 juin 2012 - 09:17 .

[Taboo]

HellishFiend wrote...

Wait, now we're applying Starbinger's logic to real life?

That's what art is. You bring life to interpret it.

[covertdrizzt]

DarkBladeX98 wrote...

I told people for three games I'd destroy the Reapers. I'm a man of my word.

I couldn't agree more.  I didn't plan on making friends with them . I didn't plan on meeting their leader and believing its justification for killing everyone.  I set out to destroy the evil basterds and end their threat forever.

[Tealjaker94]

MisterJB wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...
Then let us do that ourselves. There's no reason to cause a change to our DNA. That takes the choice out of it entirely.

No. Any transhumanism undertaken by organics will always be limited by resources and finances. Eventually, there will be people left behind. The Crucible, does no such thing.

And the same will happen after synthesis. The poorer people will not be able to afford the same upgrades and be left behind. Synthesis does not solve anything.

[HellishFiend]

Taboo-XX wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Wait, now we're applying Starbinger's logic to real life?

That's what art is. You bring life to interpret it.

Makes sense. Willful ignorance does allow for that sort of thing. Ignore all symbolism and thematic continuity unless it's convenient for one's argument. 

[guacamayus]

how is killing an entire species better than modifying everyone to evolve in a similar way?

[Kaidan Fan]

Mordin would like to talk to you and so would Javik.

[Taboo]

HellishFiend wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Wait, now we're applying Starbinger's logic to real life?

That's what art is. You bring life to interpret it.

Makes sense. Willful ignorance does allow for that sort of thing. Ignore all symbolism and thematic continuity unless it's convenient for one's argument. 

Yes, that's exactely what the confirmation bias has done to you. Thanks for playing.

[MisterJB]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Not to mention, the chances of an AI achieving singularity and causing our extinction is much higher.

PROVE IT. 

Have you seen the geth? In their childhood, they drove their creators from their worlds. Their dreadnoughts are already larger and better equipped than ours only 300 years after their birth. They expansion is limitated only by available resources.
They advance at a much faster rate than us and more advanced species don't take into account the well being of less advanced species when planning their expansion. Just look at how humans treat the fauna on our planet.

[HellishFiend]

guacamayus wrote...

how is killing an entire species better than modifying everyone to evolve in a similar way?

Justice? The fact that everyone who ever thought that Control or Synthesis was a good idea turned out to be indoctrinated? Take your pick. Theyre both valid reasons for picking Destroy. 

[guacamayus]

are you saying that synthesis has anything to do with what the reapers did to the collectors? because that's incredibly absurd, the collectors were husks, nothing more.

[MisterJB]

Tealjaker94 wrote...
And the same will happen after synthesis. The poorer people will not be able to afford the same upgrades and be left behind. Synthesis does not solve anything.

It doesn't solve social ills but the upgrades it offers, it offers to everyone equally.

[guacamayus]

HellishFiend wrote...

guacamayus wrote...

how is killing an entire species better than modifying everyone to evolve in a similar way?

Justice? The fact that everyone who ever thought that Control or Synthesis was a good idea turned out to be indoctrinated? Take your pick. Theyre both valid reasons for picking Destroy. 

where did you see that anyone supporting synthesis ended up indoctrinated?

[HellishFiend]

Taboo-XX wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Wait, now we're applying Starbinger's logic to real life?

That's what art is. You bring life to interpret it.

Makes sense. Willful ignorance does allow for that sort of thing. Ignore all symbolism and thematic continuity unless it's convenient for one's argument. 

Yes, that's exactely what the confirmation bias has done to you. Thanks for playing.

Says the one who doesnt even have the guts to troll in real life, so he has to do it anonymously in a forum. Grow up.

[o Ventus]

MisterJB wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Not to mention, the chances of an AI achieving singularity and causing our extinction is much higher.

PROVE IT. 

Have you seen the geth? In their childhood, they drove their creators from their worlds. Their dreadnoughts are already larger and better equipped than ours only 300 years after their birth. They expansion is limitated only by available resources.
They advance at a much faster rate than us and more advanced species don't take into account the well being of less advanced species when planning their expansion. Just look at how humans treat the fauna on our planet.

...

And none of this ever implies that the geth are interested in fighting anyone.

Unless the enormous dyson-like construct is a Nullifier like in the Fantastic Four, I don't think we have to worry about the geth. They aren't imperialistic or militaristic, they're isolationists and docile. They feel no need to expand and conquer, nor are they inherently violent.

[MisterJB]

Kaidan Fan wrote...

Mordin would like to talk to you and so would Javik.

So, you basically believe because something can be used for evil, it can't be used for good?
That's nonsensical.

[Taboo]

MisterJB wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Not to mention, the chances of an AI achieving singularity and causing our extinction is much higher.

PROVE IT. 

Have you seen the geth? In their childhood, they drove their creators from their worlds. Their dreadnoughts are already larger and better equipped than ours only 300 years after their birth. They expansion is limitated only by available resources.
They advance at a much faster rate than us and more advanced species don't take into account the well being of less advanced species when planning their expansion. Just look at how humans treat the fauna on our planet.

They were forced to.

Pay attention. A singularity does not necessarily equal violence either.

[Taboo]

HellishFiend wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Wait, now we're applying Starbinger's logic to real life?

That's what art is. You bring life to interpret it.

Makes sense. Willful ignorance does allow for that sort of thing. Ignore all symbolism and thematic continuity unless it's convenient for one's argument. 

Yes, that's exactely what the confirmation bias has done to you. Thanks for playing.

Says the one who doesnt even have the guts to troll in real life, so he has to do it anonymously in a forum. Grow up.

Believe me, I troll in real life ALL the time. But I'll look to liking if looking liking do.

Perspicacity has never been the ITs strong point, and neither has verisimilitude.

[HellishFiend]

guacamayus wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

guacamayus wrote...

how is killing an entire species better than modifying everyone to evolve in a similar way?

Justice? The fact that everyone who ever thought that Control or Synthesis was a good idea turned out to be indoctrinated? Take your pick. Theyre both valid reasons for picking Destroy. 

where did you see that anyone supporting synthesis ended up indoctrinated?

Saren? Paul Grayson? Kai Leng? The Geth? The Collectors? If you cant see the thematic resonation across the trilogy, you must have taken a bathroom break during half the cutscenes in the trilogy. 

[Ieldra]

Tealjaker94 wrote...

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.

Except that nothing elsewhere in the game ever says the effects of Synthesis will be bad, as opposed to the geth and EDI, where it's at least heavily suggested that they'll die.