390 réponses à ce sujet

[sAxMoNkI]

Razerath wrote...

sAxMoNkI wrote...

Razerath wrote...

sAxMoNkI wrote...

My scenario is the geth will always continue the pattern I have just stated. My scenario is based off of observed data, yours is based on possibilities and assumptions. Mine is therefore more logical, end of.

OK lol yours is more logical. I'll just concede to you because it's obvious that this argument with you is about you proving that you're right. That is not in line with the original topic ideas. I could simply argue that I am gathering my "data" based on things like... the Reapers existence. The rogue AI in ME1, the fact that Geth will fight back. Both of us are basing our opinions off assumptions. I see the Reapers say that in the past Synthetics will try and wipe out organics. You see that the Geth haven't, yet.

Doesn't matter. You win. I concede.

This argument is about trying to show you how just because something *could* happen does not justify you act as if it *will* happen.

What I just did was show you how ridiculous it is to say "well this one thing exists therefore it must be true" as you are doing by saying the reapers existing is proof that synthetics will always wipe out organics. The inherent problem then is that they are solving a problem that only exists because they do. They engineer the problem in which they are the twisted solution.

If a nuke exsists, as an example, it's logical to conclude that it will be used sometime. The Reapers exists, it's logical to conclude that at some point ( not the Reapers ) something quite like them will destroy all organic life, forever. It's not that big of a leap especially if you think, like me, that the Catalyst is telling the complete truth.

Except with nukes it isn't their effect that is important, it's that your enemy KNOWS its effects and thus are deterred from attacking. Reapers exist solely to protect organics from being killed by synthetics. Their existence and machinations CAUSES organics to be killed by them, the synthetics. The reapers are a self propagating problem and solution. If they did not exist the current problem would not.

[estebanus]

Razerath wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Razerath wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Razerath wrote...



The Krogan were dispositioned to defend themselves when one attacked. They all weren't headbutting maniacs with Nukes at that point in their civilization. And I doubt they are the only ones who almost killed themselves as a species. There is probably a long list of species who had done that already and succeeded and also a long list of those who barely survived.

You still fail to justify how you can compare two entirely different species with entirely different ways of thinking, one even being fictional, to each other.

Well they both have Nukes and both have used them. That's a major similarity.

Derp.

The krogan destroyed their own planet the moment they learned how to split the atom. Humanity didn't.

That similarity isn't even small. It's microscopic.

Krogan grew up in a different environment than humans did. They were hunters, while we were farmers. They mostly had to hunt and kill their own pray, constantly being in fear of being eaten, while we sowed crops.

Krogan are naturally more violent than humans, so it makes sense they would care less about the idea of MAD, than rather experiencing the short-term goal.

Again, I ask you this: Did we nuke the world into oblivion right after we split the atom? Huh? Did we?

No we didn't. I'm done replying to you though, you're really snide and taking this waaay to seriously for a discussion about the endings and IT.

Why are you so mad? You can't prove I am wrong or stupid without saying I am wrong or stupd. No one here can, none of you have yet.

Most of you are arguing semantics and ways to see opinions.

This is all my opinion based off Mass Effect and about Mass Effect. Get on board or get out, please.

So I guess this argument is over and you've conceded you point then?

Fine, goodbye.

[Razerath]

estebanus wrote...

Razerath wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Razerath wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Razerath wrote...



The Krogan were dispositioned to defend themselves when one attacked. They all weren't headbutting maniacs with Nukes at that point in their civilization. And I doubt they are the only ones who almost killed themselves as a species. There is probably a long list of species who had done that already and succeeded and also a long list of those who barely survived.

You still fail to justify how you can compare two entirely different species with entirely different ways of thinking, one even being fictional, to each other.

Well they both have Nukes and both have used them. That's a major similarity.

Derp.

The krogan destroyed their own planet the moment they learned how to split the atom. Humanity didn't.

That similarity isn't even small. It's microscopic.

Krogan grew up in a different environment than humans did. They were hunters, while we were farmers. They mostly had to hunt and kill their own pray, constantly being in fear of being eaten, while we sowed crops.

Krogan are naturally more violent than humans, so it makes sense they would care less about the idea of MAD, than rather experiencing the short-term goal.

Again, I ask you this: Did we nuke the world into oblivion right after we split the atom? Huh? Did we?

No we didn't. I'm done replying to you though, you're really snide and taking this waaay to seriously for a discussion about the endings and IT.

Why are you so mad? You can't prove I am wrong or stupid without saying I am wrong or stupd. No one here can, none of you have yet.

Most of you are arguing semantics and ways to see opinions.

This is all my opinion based off Mass Effect and about Mass Effect. Get on board or get out, please.

So I guess this argument is over and you've conceded you point then?

Fine, goodbye.

Anything to stop arguing with you. Yes, I concede completely to your awesome knowledge and opinions on how I am completely wrong. I hope you enjoy your hollow victory.

[sAxMoNkI]

Razerath wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Razerath wrote...

sAxMoNkI wrote...

Drawn that conclusion from your wealth of experience building and detonating nukes I take it? No? Then ssh, you have no idea how easy or hard it is morally or technically. In actual fact estebanus made excellent points and frankly I think you should look up 'mutually assured destruction' (MAD) before you try calling someone wrong again when it would appear they know a damn sight more about the topic than you do.

If you think that everyone in the future, almost ready to launch, is going to think about what happens to us before they do it you're wrong. Sure it's one helluva deterent for everyone but once that first one flies... the rest will probably follow because if you don't take action, you might not get another chance to do so.

They fire nuke.
We fire nuke hoping that they are destroyed so no more nukes get fired.
Everyone tries to self preserve.

But why would that other side fire that nuke, knowing they'd doom the entire human race? Why?

Who said everyone would be doomed if two or even 8 countries went at it? Humans could survive that easily... just probably not the ones in large major cities.

Errr, nuclear fallout, contamination, the collapse of world economies, massive food, water and utilities shortages...need I go on?

EDIT: Simply put humans are now creatures of comfort, you take the comfort away and the vast majority die off purely because they can't survive in this changed environment.

Modifié par sAxMoNkI, 25 juin 2012 - 01:50 .

[Razerath]

sAxMoNkI wrote...

Razerath wrote...

sAxMoNkI wrote...

Razerath wrote...

sAxMoNkI wrote...

My scenario is the geth will always continue the pattern I have just stated. My scenario is based off of observed data, yours is based on possibilities and assumptions. Mine is therefore more logical, end of.

OK lol yours is more logical. I'll just concede to you because it's obvious that this argument with you is about you proving that you're right. That is not in line with the original topic ideas. I could simply argue that I am gathering my "data" based on things like... the Reapers existence. The rogue AI in ME1, the fact that Geth will fight back. Both of us are basing our opinions off assumptions. I see the Reapers say that in the past Synthetics will try and wipe out organics. You see that the Geth haven't, yet.

Doesn't matter. You win. I concede.

This argument is about trying to show you how just because something *could* happen does not justify you act as if it *will* happen.

What I just did was show you how ridiculous it is to say "well this one thing exists therefore it must be true" as you are doing by saying the reapers existing is proof that synthetics will always wipe out organics. The inherent problem then is that they are solving a problem that only exists because they do. They engineer the problem in which they are the twisted solution.

If a nuke exsists, as an example, it's logical to conclude that it will be used sometime. The Reapers exists, it's logical to conclude that at some point ( not the Reapers ) something quite like them will destroy all organic life, forever. It's not that big of a leap especially if you think, like me, that the Catalyst is telling the complete truth.

Except with nukes it isn't their effect that is important, it's that your enemy KNOWS its effects and thus are deterred from attacking. Reapers exist solely to protect organics from being killed by synthetics. Their existence and machinations CAUSES organics to be killed by them, the synthetics. The reapers are a self propagating problem and solution. If they did not exist the current problem would not.

And like the Reapers say, if they do not exist neither would organics. It's either they Reap or we all die at the hands of Synthetics at some point. If the Reapers never existed then the galaxy in Mass Effect would be void of life according to Starchild. I completely believe that.

[estebanus]

Razerath wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Razerath wrote...

sAxMoNkI wrote...

Drawn that conclusion from your wealth of experience building and detonating nukes I take it? No? Then ssh, you have no idea how easy or hard it is morally or technically. In actual fact estebanus made excellent points and frankly I think you should look up 'mutually assured destruction' (MAD) before you try calling someone wrong again when it would appear they know a damn sight more about the topic than you do.

If you think that everyone in the future, almost ready to launch, is going to think about what happens to us before they do it you're wrong. Sure it's one helluva deterent for everyone but once that first one flies... the rest will probably follow because if you don't take action, you might not get another chance to do so.

They fire nuke.
We fire nuke hoping that they are destroyed so no more nukes get fired.
Everyone tries to self preserve.

But why would that other side fire that nuke, knowing they'd doom the entire human race? Why?

Who said everyone would be doomed if two or even 8 countries went at it? Humans could survive that easily... just probably not the ones in large major cities.

That's how it starts. Nuclear domino day. One side fires. The other side fires. An allied nation fires. Another allied nation fires. Eventually, the alliances will go up all the way to the two largest world powers, meaning they'll enter the fray with their own huge nuclear arsenals, subsequently destroying the world.

If you launch one nuke, it won't end until each and every single one in the world has been fired.

[Razerath]

sAxMoNkI wrote...

Errr, nuclear fallout, contamination, the collapse of world economies, massive food, water and utilities shortages...need I go on?

EDIT: Simply put humans are now creatures of comfort, you take the comfort away and the vast majority die off purely because they can't survive in this changed environment.

Some will survive. And probably go back to what we used to be.

[estebanus]

Razerath wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Razerath wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Razerath wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Razerath wrote...



The Krogan were dispositioned to defend themselves when one attacked. They all weren't headbutting maniacs with Nukes at that point in their civilization. And I doubt they are the only ones who almost killed themselves as a species. There is probably a long list of species who had done that already and succeeded and also a long list of those who barely survived.

You still fail to justify how you can compare two entirely different species with entirely different ways of thinking, one even being fictional, to each other.

Well they both have Nukes and both have used them. That's a major similarity.

Derp.

The krogan destroyed their own planet the moment they learned how to split the atom. Humanity didn't.

That similarity isn't even small. It's microscopic.

Krogan grew up in a different environment than humans did. They were hunters, while we were farmers. They mostly had to hunt and kill their own pray, constantly being in fear of being eaten, while we sowed crops.

Krogan are naturally more violent than humans, so it makes sense they would care less about the idea of MAD, than rather experiencing the short-term goal.

Again, I ask you this: Did we nuke the world into oblivion right after we split the atom? Huh? Did we?

No we didn't. I'm done replying to you though, you're really snide and taking this waaay to seriously for a discussion about the endings and IT.

Why are you so mad? You can't prove I am wrong or stupid without saying I am wrong or stupd. No one here can, none of you have yet.

Most of you are arguing semantics and ways to see opinions.

This is all my opinion based off Mass Effect and about Mass Effect. Get on board or get out, please.

So I guess this argument is over and you've conceded you point then?

Fine, goodbye.

Anything to stop arguing with you. Yes, I concede completely to your awesome knowledge and opinions on how I am completely wrong. I hope you enjoy your hollow victory.

Baby, don't hate just because you can't debate! jk;)

[Iconoclaste]

So uplifting to read this thread...

[Razerath]

estebanus wrote...

Baby, don't hate just because you can't debate! jk;)

I can't debate with you when you say things like when one nuke goes they all will. How do you even know? That is so far in the the speculation realm and away from this fantasy topic it's wrong.

Just either stop or stop acting like you're trying to e-dominate me. It's pathetic. This whole time you haven't changed my opinion once about the end and how I feel about it. Instead you've made me understand that you're just seriously raging at anyone who actually liked BioWares ending.

[estebanus]

Razerath wrote...

sAxMoNkI wrote...

Errr, nuclear fallout, contamination, the collapse of world economies, massive food, water and utilities shortages...need I go on?

EDIT: Simply put humans are now creatures of comfort, you take the comfort away and the vast majority die off purely because they can't survive in this changed environment.

Some will survive. And probably go back to what we used to be.

*Ahem*



Because it's that easy going back to what you once were after having a few hundreds of those getting fropped on your head, right? right?

Oh wait. No it won't. Because of the fallout and contamination of water supplies, not to mention the complete destruction of the industrial centers.

[sAxMoNkI]

Razerath wrote...

sAxMoNkI wrote...

Except with nukes it isn't their effect that is important, it's that your enemy KNOWS its effects and thus are deterred from attacking. Reapers exist solely to protect organics from being killed by synthetics. Their existence and machinations CAUSES organics to be killed by them, the synthetics. The reapers are a self propagating problem and solution. If they did not exist the current problem would not.

And like the Reapers say, if they do not exist neither would organics. It's either they Reap or we all die at the hands of Synthetics at some point. If the Reapers never existed then the galaxy in Mass Effect would be void of life according to Starchild. I completely believe that.

Except the whole 'AI's will wipe out organics' is a *possibility* not an absolute, at this point what *is* absolute is that reapers kill organics by the billions. Their justification for mass murder is a presumption and that is unacceptable. The point is the future is unknowable, you deal with the present as it unfolds in front of you. If like the reapers say 'synthetic life will wipe out organic life' then they must have seen it happen. For it to have happened organic life must have been eradicated. Clearly it has not been. Thus the reapers are basing their 50,000 year genocides on nothing more than conjecture and presumptions.

[estebanus]

Razerath wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Baby, don't hate just because you can't debate! jk;)

I can't debate with you when you say things like when one nuke goes they all will. How do you even know? That is so far in the the speculation realm and away from this fantasy topic it's wrong.

Just either stop or stop acting like you're trying to e-dominate me. It's pathetic. This whole time you haven't changed my opinion once about the end and how I feel about it. Instead you've made me understand that you're just seriously raging at anyone who actually liked BioWares ending.

Uhhh... How does talking about nukes have anything to do about the end?

Read up on nuclear domino day. That's how it works. That's how the entire 1st world war started, just that it wasn't nukes.

[RaenImrahl]

The bickering and quote pyramids have reached critical mass. Locking.

[Iconoclaste]

Estebanus is an IT fervent defender, and as such he seems to rely heavily on speculation. Nothing wrong with that, but just try not to become too involved in an argument with people like that, since the linearity of their reasoning will lead you nowhere interesting.