364 réponses à ce sujet

[thisisme8]

The Revolut wrote...

Erixxxx wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

I'm a little late, so go easy on me, but how can that be unsound logic when history (at least up to the point where he came to that conclusion) proved him right.  Look at when Shepard says the "Geth are better than this," and Legion responds with something along the lines of "empirical evidence says we are not."

Thank you. Finally someone who understands.

Umm, because the Star Child spoke in absolutes, that's why.

If there is one occurrence to the contrary, the absolute is immediately nullified. It is no longer absolute. What part of that are you people not getting?

The part where there is never an occurence to the contrary because it is prevented by the cycle.

EDIT:  Oh, or the part where the one occurence to the contrary occurs and the Catalyst decides to end the cycle, like in ME3.

Modifié par thisisme8, 25 juin 2012 - 12:15 .

[The Revolut]

thisisme8 wrote...

The part where there is never an occurence to the contrary because it is prevented by the cycle.

You do realize that a) The Cycle is of Reaper Creation, ergo it is through their meddling these occurrences, well, occur, and there was an occurrence to the contrary this cycle, right?

[The Revolut]

thisisme8 wrote...

Oh, or the part where the one occurence to the contrary occurs and the Catalyst decides to end the cycle, like in ME3.

The very notion of the Reaper-induced cycle is predicated on the assumption that there will always be an organic genocide.

[thisisme8]

The Revolut wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

The part where there is never an occurence to the contrary because it is prevented by the cycle.

You do realize that a) The Cycle is of Reaper Creation, ergo it is through their meddling these occurrences, well, occur, and there was an occurrence to the contrary this cycle, right?

My edit ninja'd your B.

Doesn't deny that they would occur.  Thing is, it's all irrelevent to the reapers since they always initiate the cycle.

[The Angry One]

thisisme8 wrote...

The Revolut wrote...

Erixxxx wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

I'm a little late, so go easy on me, but how can that be unsound logic when history (at least up to the point where he came to that conclusion) proved him right.  Look at when Shepard says the "Geth are better than this," and Legion responds with something along the lines of "empirical evidence says we are not."

Thank you. Finally someone who understands.

Umm, because the Star Child spoke in absolutes, that's why.

If there is one occurrence to the contrary, the absolute is immediately nullified. It is no longer absolute. What part of that are you people not getting?

The part where there is never an occurence to the contrary because it is prevented by the cycle.

EDIT:  Oh, or the part where the one occurence to the contrary occurs and the Catalyst decides to end the cycle, like in ME3.

Wait. The Geth screwing up and acting, for want of a better word, "human" is proof of WHAT exactly?
That entire conversation exists only because Legion, acting out of fear and uncertainly, attempts to mislead Shepard on a couple of things.

All this scene shows is that:

a) The Geth are terrible liars
 The Geth can make mistakes
c) The Geth recognise their own flaws
d) They're PEOPLE. Not automatons.

[thisisme8]

The Revolut wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

Oh, or the part where the one occurence to the contrary occurs and the Catalyst decides to end the cycle, like in ME3.

The very notion of the Reaper-induced cycle is predicated on the assumption that there will always be an organic genocide.

Right.  So whether or not it occurs is irrelevent since the cycle culls it.

So....  based off of historical evidence to the point where the cycle was created - then through all the cycles, the Catalyst's logic is actually flawless.

[The Revolut]

thisisme8 wrote...

My edit ninja'd your B.

Doesn't deny that they would occur.  Thing is, it's all irrelevent to the reapers since they always initiate the cycle.

Doesn't matter. You're still incorrect, as shown.

[The Revolut]

thisisme8 wrote...

Right.  So whether or not it occurs is irrelevent since the cycle culls it.

So....  based off of historical evidence to the point where the cycle was created - then through all the cycles, the Catalyst's logic is actually flawless.

You can't be serious. There is no logic--the Catalyst presents a logical fallacy, one presuming that a probable outcome is absolute.

We've just had this debate. You couldn't have missed all of it.

[Erixxxx]

The Revolut wrote...

Umm, because the Star Child spoke in absolutes, that's why.

If there is one occurrence to the contrary, the absolute is immediately nullified. It is no longer absolute. What part of that are you people not getting?

Seeing as the Catalyst states that the created will always overtake their creators, it stands to reason that has been no other occurences at the time the Catalyst's logic is established.

[The Revolut]

Erixxxx wrote...

The Revolut wrote...

Umm, because the Star Child spoke in absolutes, that's why.

If there is one occurrence to the contrary, the absolute is immediately nullified. It is no longer absolute. What part of that are you people not getting?

Seeing as the Catalyst states that the created will always overtake their creators, it stands to reason that has been no other occurences at the time the Catalyst's logic is established.

Since the Cycle, a Reaper creation--his creation, stops life before it can advance that far to make their own decisions.

[The Angry One]

Erixxxx wrote...

The Revolut wrote...

Umm, because the Star Child spoke in absolutes, that's why.

If there is one occurrence to the contrary, the absolute is immediately nullified. It is no longer absolute. What part of that are you people not getting?

Seeing as the Catalyst states that the created will always overtake their creators, it stands to reason that has been no other occurences at the time the Catalyst's logic is established.

In the grand scheme of things, without Reaper interference, the Quarians would've exterminated the Geth and reclaimed Rannoch by themselves.

*flush*

Yeah, that's the sound of where  that particular argument went.

Modifié par The Angry One, 25 juin 2012 - 12:25 .

[The Revolut]

The Angry One wrote...

Yeah, that's the sound of where  that particular argument went.

This whole thread is a monument on how not to argue logically.

Modifié par The Revolut, 25 juin 2012 - 12:27 .

[thisisme8]

The Revolut wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

My edit ninja'd your B.

Doesn't deny that they would occur.  Thing is, it's all irrelevent to the reapers since they always initiate the cycle.

Doesn't matter. You're still incorrect, as shown.

Not at all.  The logic of the cycle is based around historical evidence to the point where the cycle was enacted.  All cycles after that are irrelevent because of the cycle itself.

[Erixxxx]

The Revolut wrote...

Erixxxx wrote...

The Revolut wrote...

Umm, because the Star Child spoke in absolutes, that's why.

If there is one occurrence to the contrary, the absolute is immediately nullified. It is no longer absolute. What part of that are you people not getting?

Seeing as the Catalyst states that the created will always overtake their creators, it stands to reason that has been no other occurences at the time the Catalyst's logic is established.

Since the Cycle, a Reaper creation--his creation, stops life before it can advance that far to make their own decisions.

You cannot possibly know what came before the cycle, and helped shape the Catalyst's logic. None of us can. However some of us do try to provide plausible scenarios. Such as the Catalyst never having witnessed organics and synthetics getting along for an extended period of time. And if that is indeed the case, then the Catalyst's logic is true for him. He acts on the knowledge he has.

[The Revolut]

thisisme8 wrote...

Not at all.  The logic of the cycle is based around historical evidence to the point where the cycle was enacted.  All cycles after that are irrelevent because of the cycle itself.

So, a self-fulfilling prophecy logical fallacy.

[The Angry One]

thisisme8 wrote...

Not at all.  The logic of the cycle is based around historical evidence to the point where the cycle was enacted.  All cycles after that are irrelevent because of the cycle itself.

Non-existent historical evidence.
You're just assuming. Even if something did happen. That something happened ONCE does not mean it will always happen.
Also you know what's never happened? The destruction of all organic life. Because, you know, we're still here.

[thisisme8]

The Revolut wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

Right.  So whether or not it occurs is irrelevent since the cycle culls it.

So....  based off of historical evidence to the point where the cycle was created - then through all the cycles, the Catalyst's logic is actually flawless.

You can't be serious. There is no logic--the Catalyst presents a logical fallacy, one presuming that a probable outcome is absolute.

We've just had this debate. You couldn't have missed all of it.

But that's just the point.  Without the other outcome ever occuring, the chances of the original outcome repeating is great enough.  The whole issue organics have with the cycle is that the cycle itself prevents the other outcome entirely by making it irrelevent.  This irrelevence is what makes it logical.

[The Revolut]

Erixxxx wrote...

You cannot possibly know what came before the cycle, and helped shape the Catalyst's logic. None of us can. However some of us do try to provide plausible scenarios. Such as the Catalyst never having witnessed organics and synthetics getting along for an extended period of time. And if that is indeed the case, then the Catalyst's logic is true for him. He acts on the knowledge he has.

I can possibly fathom that, since all cycles progress along inherently similar ways, the cycle could have ended long beforehand since it has been proven that Synthetics AND Organics can, and will, coexist.

Again, ignorance is no excuse for unsound, or incorrect, logic. Just because your logic works for you doesn't mean that it is good logic.

[Erixxxx]

The Angry One wrote...

In the grand scheme of things, without Reaper interference, the Quarians would've exterminated the Geth and reclaimed Rannoch by themselves.

*flush*

Yeah, that's the sound of where  that particular argument went.

And what happens the next time someone creates synthetics that get out of control?

[darthoptimus003]

firstly the starbrat is wrong on so many levels
the geth DID NOT start the war and depending on how you played the geth ended the war
and the whole "i created synthetic to kill organics so organic would not be killed by synthetic" is as stupid as you can get
and who in the hell gave him the right to do this NO ONE
tht sob reminds me of a group bak in the 30s and 40s who did the same damn thing

[The Revolut]

thisisme8 wrote...

But that's just the point.  Without the other outcome ever occuring, the chances of the original outcome repeating is great enough.  The whole issue organics have with the cycle is that the cycle itself prevents the other outcome entirely by making it irrelevent.  This irrelevence is what makes it logical.

Which is nullified by the fact that you predicated GENOCIDE OF TRILLIONS on an ASSUMPTION, which is a LOGICAL FALLACY.

Since you haven't cared to read thus far and have either been ignoring me or simply skimming, I've given you the simple option, a TL;DR of sorts, of reading the caps-locked text.

[The Revolut]

Erixxxx wrote...

And what happens the next time someone creates synthetics that get out of control?

We find out, then. Or are you content with killing billions per cycle for an assumption?

[The Angry One]

Erixxxx wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

In the grand scheme of things, without Reaper interference, the Quarians would've exterminated the Geth and reclaimed Rannoch by themselves.

*flush*

Yeah, that's the sound of where  that particular argument went.

And what happens the next time someone creates synthetics that get out of control?

Yes kids it's that time again.

THE APPEAL TO PROBABILITY!

Now you too can base arguments on what might happen some day possibly, and act unilaterally based on that!

[darthoptimus003]

Erixxxx wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

In the grand scheme of things, without Reaper interference, the Quarians would've exterminated the Geth and reclaimed Rannoch by themselves.

*flush*

Yeah, that's the sound of where  that particular argument went.

And what happens the next time someone creates synthetics that get out of control?

listen to the game AI reashech was out lawed granted cerbrus did it but had watch dog programs out the wazzu to prevent edi from getting out of control

[Erixxxx]

The Revolut wrote...

I can possibly fathom that, since all cycles progress along inherently similar ways, the cycle could have ended long beforehand since it has been proven that Synthetics AND Organics can, and will, coexist.

The Catalyst has been around for more than a billion years. The Geth have been around for 300. I'd say the Catalyst has more knowledge on the development of organic-synthetic relationships than any other being in the galaxy.

Again, ignorance is no excuse for unsound, or incorrect, logic. Just because your logic works for you doesn't mean that it is good logic.

Of course it might not be good logic. But that logic is still true for the person having it. The Catalyst geniunely believes he does the right thing. If you had seen the same pattern emerge again and again and again for hundreds of millions of years, you'd assume the next cycle's synthetics would turn hostile too.