390 réponses à ce sujet

[Razerath]

Grimwick wrote...

Razerath wrote...
At any point those countless lives could create hundreds of seperate Reaper kinds of antagonists. Any number of those could end organic life for GOOD.

Finally we get to the root of the argument:

AN APPEAL TO PROBABILITY.

You are making a logical fallacy by justifying a solution (genocide of all things) on this possibility.

It's just wrong. There isn't a yes or no or an opinion to be had. It is uncategorically wrong.

There's no point in trying to defend this, there really isn't.

The Reapers exist as an example of what can happen. Seemingly different rogue AI's like the Reapers don't exists because a long long time ago the Reapers probably killed them off to start the preservation of organic life int hese cycles.

[iAFKinMassEffect3]

He is having stupid dreams and cares about a stupid kid.

He is very much weak minded.

[Bigdoser]

Nyoka wrote...

The three choices should have been explained to you by the people who built the Crucible, not by your enemy.

Well unfortuantly the plot hammered us in the face by saying the people who built the crucible does not even know what it does. 

[The Angry One]

Razerath wrote...

The Reapers exist as an example of what can happen. Seemingly different rogue AI's like the Reapers don't exists because a long long time ago the Reapers probably killed them off to start the preservation of organic life int hese cycles.

You're contradicting yourself.
The Reapers state they are not the cause. They are the solution.
Your entire argument hinges on believing the Reapers and yet... YOU ARE CALLING THE REAPERS LIARS.

[Grimwick]

Razerath wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Razerath wrote...
At any point those countless lives could create hundreds of seperate Reaper kinds of antagonists. Any number of those could end organic life for GOOD.

Finally we get to the root of the argument:

AN APPEAL TO PROBABILITY.

You are making a logical fallacy by justifying a solution (genocide of all things) on this possibility.

It's just wrong. There isn't a yes or no or an opinion to be had. It is uncategorically wrong.

There's no point in trying to defend this, there really isn't.

The Reapers exist as an example of what can happen. Seemingly different rogue AI's like the Reapers don't exists because a long long time ago the Reapers probably killed them off to start the preservation of organic life int hese cycles.

Highlighted the most important word there.

It's an appeal to probability, you cannot argue against that.

[Ticonderoga117]

Bigdoser wrote...

Nyoka wrote...

The three choices should have been explained to you by the people who built the Crucible, not by your enemy.

Well unfortuantly the plot hammered us in the face by saying the people who built the crucible does not even know what it does. 

And this is why you get your engineers and scientists from accreditted schools folks.

[Razerath]

The Angry One wrote...

Razerath wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Razerath wrote...

At any point those countless lives could create hundreds of seperate Reaper kinds of antagonists. Any number of those could end organic life for GOOD.

"At any point, any couple alive today could conceive the next Hitler. So let's kill everybody. It's the only way to be sure."

This is essentially your argument.

No, it's not because not one human can wipe out ALL organic life forever. I'm talking about a bigger threat.

Dude seriously, if you can't keep up with what I am saying, get out.

How about you keep up with what we're saying, sparky?

Alright, you want it spelled out for you?

At any point any couple alive today could conceive a person who goes on to build a bomb that can wipe out all life in the universe. This person holds the world to ransom, does not get what they demand and activates the bomb. All life in the universe is destroyed. All because we selfishly didn't kill everybody now.

This is what you are saying. Keep up.

No, a person or organic being cannot create a bomb to destroy the universe. Are you joking?

[The Angry One]

Razerath wrote...

No, a person or organic being cannot create a bomb to destroy the universe. Are you joking?

I'm making an appeal to probability. You can't prove it won't happen at some point in the future.

[jpraelster93]

Razerath wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Razerath wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Razerath wrote...

At any point those countless lives could create hundreds of seperate Reaper kinds of antagonists. Any number of those could end organic life for GOOD.

"At any point, any couple alive today could conceive the next Hitler. So let's kill everybody. It's the only way to be sure."

This is essentially your argument.

No, it's not because not one human can wipe out ALL organic life forever. I'm talking about a bigger threat.

Dude seriously, if you can't keep up with what I am saying, get out.

How about you keep up with what we're saying, sparky?

Alright, you want it spelled out for you?

At any point any couple alive today could conceive a person who goes on to build a bomb that can wipe out all life in the universe. This person holds the world to ransom, does not get what they demand and activates the bomb. All life in the universe is destroyed. All because we selfishly didn't kill everybody now.

This is what you are saying. Keep up.

No, a person or organic being cannot create a bomb to destroy the universe. Are you joking?

how do you know are you all knowing

[AngryFrozenWater]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Razerath wrote...
It's NOT murder.

It's salvation through destruction. If all the people in the world lived for 400 years we would run out of resources on this planet and people would be killed at a tender age of 200 so that more people could ever live. Or should we all just selfishly live our 400 years, screw the planet and screw our children?

Sacrifices must be made for the greater good.

Oh, so those red laser beams were harmless? Those piles of bodies weren't real? The Protheans turned Collectors were still the same people they were 50k years ago instead of mindless machines?

It was never about "Well those poor organics might run out of resources". They killed because other Synthetics might beat them to it.

I rather say that the reapers harvested civilizations to reproduce and to stay on top of the food chain. That makes the hypothetical synthetics threat a rationalization for their cyclical "ascension through destruction" trademark. And what they can't use and perceive as a threat will be exterminated.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 24 juin 2012 - 10:43 .

[DoktorAffentanz]

Razerath wrote...

The proof is in the pudding. The whole situation is the proof that something needs to be done once and FOR ALL.

Well of course something needs to be done, but everything the Holo-Kid says is kind of... wrong. And he is the enemy! Why would anybody trust him? Seriously, thats total BS and the truly dedicated fans know that. The ending dialogue with the Catalyst shows a Shepard we have never seen before. Weak in her/his arguments, questioning nothing the kid tells her/him and totally surrendering to the presented options. And that just feels wrong.

[ZackG312]

And yet Shepard is depressed over the death of a random kid

[Razerath]

Grimwick wrote...

Razerath wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Razerath wrote...
At any point those countless lives could create hundreds of seperate Reaper kinds of antagonists. Any number of those could end organic life for GOOD.

Finally we get to the root of the argument:

AN APPEAL TO PROBABILITY.

You are making a logical fallacy by justifying a solution (genocide of all things) on this possibility.

It's just wrong. There isn't a yes or no or an opinion to be had. It is uncategorically wrong.

There's no point in trying to defend this, there really isn't.

The Reapers exist as an example of what can happen. Seemingly different rogue AI's like the Reapers don't exists because a long long time ago the Reapers probably killed them off to start the preservation of organic life int hese cycles.

Highlighted the most important word there.

It's an appeal to probability, you cannot argue against that.

I'm not arguing with a reductionist any longer. Sorry. You're points are completely off topic and filled with semantics.

[Ticonderoga117]

The Angry One wrote...

Razerath wrote...

No, a person or organic being cannot create a bomb to destroy the universe. Are you joking?

I'm making an appeal to probability. You can't prove it won't happen at some point in the future.

The probability of this happening over the life of the universe is non-zero, thus it must happen!

[Sisterofshane]

Razerath wrote...

No, a person or organic being cannot create a bomb to destroy the universe. Are you joking?

Yet, in Mass Effect, a group of people can create a machine that can fundamentally change the very essence of all life in the known galaxy, without even knowing it can do this...

[The Revolut]

Razerath wrote...

I'm not arguing with a reductionist any longer. Sorry. You're points are completely off topic and filled with semantics.

Do you even know the meaning of semantics?

[Razerath]

jpraelster93 wrote...

Razerath wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Razerath wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Razerath wrote...

At any point those countless lives could create hundreds of seperate Reaper kinds of antagonists. Any number of those could end organic life for GOOD.

"At any point, any couple alive today could conceive the next Hitler. So let's kill everybody. It's the only way to be sure."

This is essentially your argument.

No, it's not because not one human can wipe out ALL organic life forever. I'm talking about a bigger threat.

Dude seriously, if you can't keep up with what I am saying, get out.

How about you keep up with what we're saying, sparky?

Alright, you want it spelled out for you?

At any point any couple alive today could conceive a person who goes on to build a bomb that can wipe out all life in the universe. This person holds the world to ransom, does not get what they demand and activates the bomb. All life in the universe is destroyed. All because we selfishly didn't kill everybody now.

This is what you are saying. Keep up.

No, a person or organic being cannot create a bomb to destroy the universe. Are you joking?

how do you know are you all knowing

You cannot apply physics to something like that. One out of many factors would be gravitational effects on the energy output of the bomb.

Something like the Reapers would happen over and over before the chance of a universe ending bomb.

[Razerath]

The Revolut wrote...

Razerath wrote...

I'm not arguing with a reductionist any longer. Sorry. You're points are completely off topic and filled with semantics.

Do you even know the meaning of semantics?

Yes and all you're doing is picking apart my words to try and prove something that isn't relevant to what I am trying to say. You're constantly arguing about numbers and odds. That's soooo secondary to this argument it's hilarious.

[The Angry One]

Razerath wrote...

You cannot apply physics to something like that. One out of many factors would be gravitational effects on the energy output of the bomb.

Something like the Reapers would happen over and over before the chance of a universe ending bomb.

The bomb works on space magic fields to collapse the fabric of the universe by compromising it's artistic integrity.
You're deliberately evading the very obvious point and you know it.

[DirtySHISN0]

The Angry One wrote...

You can't prove it won't happen.

Just like you cant prove it will.



The grounds for every pointless debate ever.
When will people give up trying to argue sense where there is no sense to be found.

[Grimwick]

Razerath wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Razerath wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Razerath wrote...
At any point those countless lives could create hundreds of seperate Reaper kinds of antagonists. Any number of those could end organic life for GOOD.

Finally we get to the root of the argument:

AN APPEAL TO PROBABILITY.

You are making a logical fallacy by justifying a solution (genocide of all things) on this possibility.

It's just wrong. There isn't a yes or no or an opinion to be had. It is uncategorically wrong.

There's no point in trying to defend this, there really isn't.

The Reapers exist as an example of what can happen. Seemingly different rogue AI's like the Reapers don't exists because a long long time ago the Reapers probably killed them off to start the preservation of organic life int hese cycles.

Highlighted the most important word there.

It's an appeal to probability, you cannot argue against that.

I'm not arguing with a reductionist any longer. Sorry. You're points are completely off topic and filled with semantics.

Wtf.

I highlighted the word 'can' because that's exactly where you make an appeal to probability:

You say something 'can' happen in the future therefore we must stop it!

That's where you are making your mistake, don't try to deflect the argument by whinging about semantics. That's irrelevant. My points on the other hand have been completely on topic and have pointed out that what you are saying is illogical and therefore wrong.

[Ticonderoga117]

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

You can't prove it won't happen.

Just like you cant prove it will.

The grounds for every pointless debate ever.
When will people give up trying to argue sense where there is no sense to be found.

Uh... we still have two days? *shrug*

[Jonathan Shepard]

My God, this has to be the most hilarious/horrifying thread I've ever come across. Razerath, please, just stop. You're losing this so bad that I'm pretty sure your age is under 16. Go take a basic logic class. Please. If you're /not/ a troll, if you /honestly/ think that Shepard didn't surrender, fine. Maybe your Shepard didn't.

But almost everyone else here doesn't agree with you, and you've made so many contradictions and logical fallacies that this is ridiculous. Mass murder/mass enslavement, or mass... "molestation" they say... is not justified. I call it "mass stagnation and conformity/submission" but whatever. The Reapers are villains; unfortunately, their actions were never justified with sound logic. So please, stop trying to justify flawed reasoning.