331 réponses à ce sujet

[Errationatus]

ahleung wrote...

1. Indoctrination isn't just a way to make you surrender. It makes you into believing something not true.

 

I maintain that the Reapers are not lying. A lie is a deliberate untruth meant to decieve.  The Reapers are perfectly up-front about their plans and motivations.

 
That's why I mentioned TIM as an example.
After being Indoctrinated, TIM didn't surrender to Reaper, he was just misled into believing he wasn't controlled by Reaper. But he was in fact unknowningly doing what Reaper wants him to do.

 

TIM decieved himself. He knew the risks as much as anyone - more, because he had been using Reaper Tech for quite some time.  Perhaps you should pay more attention on your next run-through.

 
2. Reaper can indoctrinate. Of course they can lie.
I already wrote the logical deduction above. Not repeating here.

 

And I rebutted rather cogently, I had thought.  Denying the difference does not make this point any more valid now then when you first asserted it.   I yet assert that you are still wrong.  Fixated, but wrong.

 
3. Reaper likes to indoctrinate. Of course they likes to lie.
They are just different ways to do the same purpose: alter your decision.
The difference is, Indoctrination is an even more dirtier way to do it. Because you can't reject.
So why not lie?

 

Because Indoctrination makes lying both redundant and irrelevant.

 
4. Reaper has reasons to Indoctrinate. Of course they have reasons to lie.
Whatever you think their reason is (advoid fighting? win easier and faster?), it can also be the reason to lie.
>>"Lying?  Unnecessary.  Once Indoctrinated, you believe absolutely in the Reapers' truth.  They have no need to lie."
Didn't you said Indoctrination isn't an easy and quick process, can't just use on anyone? So when Indoctrination isn't applicable, lying is a necessary alternative.

 

I said nothing of the kind.  I said once indoctrinated.  Indoctrination takes time, as is said within the game - indoctrinate too fast and you reduce the effectiveness of the thrall. The Reapers have all the time they need.  Lying is not an alternative they need to pursue.  They have other means.

 
I really can't understand why you think Reaper can / like-to / has-reason-to / do use Indoctrination, but can't / dislike-to / has-no-reason-to / don't lie.

Obviously.  Let me ask you this:  if I can brainwash you by altering the way your mind operates, by altering your very thought processes, and you never knowing I was doing it, why would I bother lying to you?  It would be pointless.  I'd already own you and wouldn't need to convince or trick you into anything.

If I were a Reaper, telling you the truth is far more terrifying and demoralizing than wasting time lying to you.  They would lie only if they feared you, which the Reapers certainly don't.   Omission of relevant information isn't lying, it just isn't revealing everything.  The Reapers may not tell us everything, but they don't lie.  Frankly, it'd be stupid of them to even bother.

[Errationatus]

ahleung wrote...

1. In fact a machine in ME did lied. That's EDI.
Some of her jokes include lying. For example, ( I can't remember clearly) she said something about exhausting the oxygen inside Normandy, Shepard felt scared, then EDI said it was a joke.
It was short, but she lied for a few seconds.

 

EDI did not lie.  She exaggerated.  Those are not the same thing.

 
2. It's established in game that Reaper is much more advanced than any current species, including synthetics like Geth and EDI. They are old, hence they have more time to advance their technology, including AI of course.

 

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke. The Reapers do not, however,  resemble this remark.  Given the premise that Harbinger is apparently the oldest Reaper, and given that the process of "reaping" hasn't changed in that all that time, given that all big Reapers resemble Harbinger as a class, it is a safe assumption to make that the Reapers have not advanced technologically in an appreciably significant way. They've had no need to, as most space-faring civilizations would tend to utilize the Citadel and Mass Relays, and thus not advance appreciably beyond the Reapers.  As intended.  They use the same template over and over for the same purpose.  That is something a machine does.  They do not innovate. They create nothing new, and they do not evolve. They are not alive, they simply repeat a process set long ago and they have not deviated significantly in all that time.  

  
3. If you made correct choices in ME3, Shepard already agreed that even Synthetics has soul. They are no different than organics. And Shepard said that after Geth was enhanced by Reaper's code.

"Correct" in this instance is subjective.  My Shepards do not agree that Sythetics have "souls".  There is not the slightest shred of evidence outside of ignorant heresay that organics possess "souls".  Synthetics are static creations of organics to do dangerous or tedious work organics do not wish to do.  Geth do not evolve.  They can be upgraded, but it does not appear that they have done this in any appreciable capacity. They had not in the three hundred years of the Quarian Diaspora.  Geth are stupid as individuals.  They only gain computational capabilities by proximity, which increases the size of the network they are connected to - Legion was a geth that contained a network within itself.  All the Reaper code did for the geth was to permit individual machines to have their own internal networks - like Legion - and increase their computing power.  It didn't give each a "soul" any more than installing extra cores in my computer would give it a "soul".

As I stated eleswhere, giving an object qualities it does not possess does not automatically gift that object with those qualities.  A cat does not act like anything other than a cat.  If it did, it would no longer be a cat.  Strapping a saddle on a dog does not make it a horse, and telling yourself that it has horselike qualities doesn't make it one, either.  You may certainly think your dog understands all your problems and emotional turmoil, but it doesn't, it won't, because it can't. It's a dog, not a therapist.  You can think a geth has a "soul", but that doesn't make either "souls" real or gift geth with them.  It's delusional at its extreme end, and silly at its basic end.  

Without this silly crutch, the entire notion of machines being alive, let alone lying on their own initiatives, or any other similar nonsense is just that: nonsense.

Modifié par JakeMacDon, 03 juillet 2012 - 05:36 .

[Njald]

OP ask these questions like they stand in a vacuum of no backstory and no theme. 
This game essentially have one final boss and this boss you can't defeat with any of the accepted gamemechanics or themes. All you get to chose is what "game over" screen you get as the very core of the experience gets ****ted upon.    
I didn't mind this exact mechanic in Fallout3 because it was less obtrusive there and the game had a completely different feel. For ME3 it's wrong and we know this by the fact that players, en masse, telling BW off for it.  
BW fixed what they could with a paint job and some good scrambling efforts after the first horrible ending. 
 
But it's still poor writing and horrible destruction of IP among the gamers who enjoyed ME for the reasons we did. (probably different reason than the OP). 

I thank BW for the good times and try to find a new gamedeveloper to deliver stories to me instead of shoddy comercial products with little to no afterthought.

Modifié par Njald, 03 juillet 2012 - 05:44 .

[Cant Planet]

JakeMacDon wrote...

EDI did not lie.  She exaggerated.  Those are not the same thing.

She lied in order to help Joker when the Alliance took control of the Normandy. It's actually the topic of a conversation between EDI and Shepard.

Modifié par Cant Planet, 03 juillet 2012 - 05:50 .

[wiggums91]

wh00ley 06 wrote...

You're killing the Geth and EDI which is genocide too. A 'greater good' person would let a terrorist kill a person two others can live, but a moral person would tell the terrorist to eat **** and die.

Thats called consequentalism, and is retarded when you think that you either sacrifice the edi and geth and let everyone live, or have them die with everyone else anyway.

[ahleung]

JakeMacDon wrote...

I maintain that the Reapers are not lying. A lie is a deliberate untruth meant to decieve.  The Reapers are perfectly up-front about their plans and motivations.

This is not argument, this is just repeating your assumption.

TIM decieved himself. He knew the risks as much as anyone - more, because he had been using Reaper Tech for quite some time.  Perhaps you should pay more attention on your next run-through.

According to what you said, his is not indoctrinated. He is just too stubborn.
No, as all we agreed,

he was indoctrinated by Reaper.
AND
he didn't surrender to Reaper.
AND
on the final confrontation on Citadel, he believed he's in control, but that's not true.

Conclusion: Indoctrination doesn't just make you surrender to Reaper. It can also make you believe in something not true.

These are just objective facts and logical deduction.

And I rebutted rather cogently, I had thought.  Denying the difference does not make this point any more valid now then when you first asserted it.   I yet assert that you are still wrong.  Fixated, but wrong.

I explaned the similarities. Denying it and repeating yourself means nothing.

 
Because Indoctrination makes lying both redundant and irrelevant.

I said nothing of the kind.  I said once indoctrinated.  Indoctrination takes time, as is said within the game - indoctrinate too fast and you reduce the effectiveness of the thrall. The Reapers have all the time they need.  Lying is not an alternative they need to pursue.  They have other means.

 
Obviously.  Let me ask you this:  if I can brainwash you by altering the way your mind operates, by altering your very thought processes, and you never knowing I was doing it, why would I bother lying to you?  It would be pointless.  I'd already own you and wouldn't need to convince or trick you into anything.

If I were a Reaper, telling you the truth is far more terrifying and demoralizing than wasting time lying to you.  They would lie only if they feared you, which the Reapers certainly don't.   Omission of relevant information isn't lying, it just isn't revealing everything.  The Reapers may not tell us everything, but they don't lie.  Frankly, it'd be stupid of them to even bother.

This is what you said:

It quite blatantly isn't.  That would preclude that everyone else in the
room is as well.  If indoctrination is so easy, then the Reapers don't
need all the elaborate nonsense.  You and everyone around you will
simply walk up and surrender to them anyway, no?

And no matter you really said it or not, it's established in ME Universe that Indoctrination is not easy. It's has conditions to meet, has limtations.
Therefore, because Indoctrination is not easy, lying is also an good alternative.

Modifié par ahleung, 03 juillet 2012 - 06:30 .

[ahleung]

JakeMacDon wrote...
EDI did not lie.  She exaggerated.  Those are not the same thing.

She told Shepard she would exhaust all the oxygen.
It's just a true/false statement, not a long/short, more/less subjective concept.
It's not exagerration.
And it's something not true. It's lying.

 
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke. The Reapers do not, however,  resemble this remark. 

You are applying other SciFi writer's statement into ME universe?
Each fiction universe has its own rule, own lore.
If machine in that universe can lie, they can lie.

 
Given the premise that Harbinger is apparently the oldest
Reaper, and given that the process of "reaping" hasn't changed in that
all that time, given that all big Reapers resemble Harbinger as a class,
it is a safe assumption to make that the Reapers have not
advanced technologically in an appreciably significant way. They've had
no need to, as most space-faring civilizations would tend to utilize the
Citadel and Mass Relays, and thus not advance appreciably beyond the
Reapers.  As intended.  They use the same template over and over for the
same purpose.  That is something a machine does.  They do not innovate.
They create nothing new, and they do not evolve. They are not alive,
they simply repeat a process set long ago and they have not deviated
significantly in all that time.  

So, assume all Reapers are equal to or stupider than Harbinger. And?
Is there any evidence that Harbinger can't lie?
More assumptions?

  
"Correct" in this instance is subjective.  My Shepards do not agree that Sythetics have "souls".

That's the difference: My Shepard said they have souls.
Therefore, it's logical for my Shepard to believe Reaper can lie.

 There is not the slightest shred of evidence outside of ignorant heresay that organics possess "souls".  Synthetics are static creations of organics to do dangerous or tedious work organics do not wish to do.  Geth do not evolve.  They can be upgraded, but it does not appear that they have done this in any appreciable capacity. They had not in the three hundred years of the Quarian Diaspora.  Geth are stupid as individuals.  They only gain computational capabilities by proximity, which increases the size of the network they are connected to - Legion was a geth that contained a network within itself.  All the Reaper code did for the geth was to permit individual machines to have their own internal networks - like Legion - and increase their computing power.  It didn't give each a "soul" any more than installing extra cores in my computer would give it a "soul".

As I stated eleswhere, giving an object qualities it does not possess does not automatically gift that object with those qualities.  A cat does not act like anything other than a cat.  If it did, it would no longer be a cat.  Strapping a saddle on a dog does not make it a horse, and telling yourself that it has horselike qualities doesn't make it one, either.  You may certainly think your dog understands all your problems and emotional turmoil, but it doesn't, it won't, because it can't. It's a dog, not a therapist.  You can think a geth has a "soul", but that doesn't make either "souls" real or gift geth with them.  It's delusional at its extreme end, and silly at its basic end.  

Without this silly crutch, the entire notion of machines being alive, let alone lying on their own initiatives, or any other similar nonsense is just that: nonsense.

There is also no proof that human has soul.
If you break down our brains, it's just chmicals and meat.
Then why can we lie?

[Errationatus]

Cant Planet wrote...

JakeMacDon wrote...

EDI did not lie.  She exaggerated.  Those are not the same thing.

She lied in order to help Joker when the Alliance took control of the Normandy. It's actually the topic of a conversation between EDI and Shepard.

EDI didn't lie.  Joker lied.  EDI was simply the method he chose by which to do it.  

Within her programming constraints - her mandate for protecting the Normandy and its crew - omitting certain facts would be possible for her.  That is not, however, she herself deliberately concocting a falsehood of her own volition.

She also asks Shepard a question on free will, and then states that she for all intents and purposes has none.  It is not until she is actively being reprogrammed - which is what all the responses by Shepard and input from others amounts to - no keyboard required - that she "decides" to alter her command and response functions.  By all appearances, she is still operating under her primary mandate, you as Shepard, and Joker with his mech-lust, simply add programming variables that alter how she protects Normandy and crew, but it doesn't change her fundamental nature.  

Until she has a face that permits the anthropomorpizing of her, no one argues that EDI is anything but a sophisticated computer.  She certainly doesn't.

Give her a pretty mug and Mirandian jugs and suddenly she's living and breathing and a Real Pinnochian Girl?  Sorry, don't buy it, not that susceptible.

[ahleung]

JakeMacDon wrote...
EDI didn't lie.  Joker lied.  EDI was simply the method he chose by which to do it.  

Within her programming constraints - her mandate for protecting the Normandy and its crew - omitting certain facts would be possible for her.  That is not, however, she herself deliberately concocting a falsehood of her own volition.

If a machine can "tell untrue statement" for its mandate, that means they can lie.
Even if it's not by its own free will, even if it's programmed to, it's still lying.
Who knows what Catalyst's creator programmed into him?

She also asks Shepard a question on free will, and then states that she for all intents and purposes has none.  It is not until she is actively being reprogrammed - which is what all the responses by Shepard and input from others amounts to - no keyboard required - that she "decides" to alter her command and response functions.  By all appearances, she is still operating under her primary mandate, you as Shepard, and Joker with his mech-lust, simply add programming variables that alter how she protects Normandy and crew, but it doesn't change her fundamental nature.  

That means she can learn.
If she can edit her own programs after listening to what other people say, what's the difference with human learning?

Then it's not difficult to learn how to lie:
"Telling untrue statements to get what you want."

The whole process involves only calculations, not sensations or feelings like love or hate.

Modifié par ahleung, 03 juillet 2012 - 07:19 .

[Errationatus]

ahleung wrote...
This is not argument, this is just repeating your assumption.

 

It is hardly an assumption.  Did you not pay attention to the game at all?  

 
According to what you said, his is not indoctrinated. He is just too stubborn.
No, as all we agreed, 

he was indoctrinated by Reaper.
AND
he didn't surrender to Reaper. 
AND
on the final confrontation on Citadel, he believed he's in control, but that's not true.

Conclusion: Indoctrination doesn't just make you surrender to Reaper. It can also make you believe in something not true.

These are just objective facts and logical deduction.

 

I'm afraid they're not.  If a premise is flawed all conclusions drawn from it are equally flawed.  Your premise is flawed.

 
I explaned the similarities. Denying it and repeating yourself means nothing.

 

You really don't argue much, do you? 

  
This is what you said:

"It quite blatantly isn't.  That would preclude that everyone else in the room is as well.  If indoctrination is so easy, then the Reapers don't need all the elaborate nonsense.  You and everyone around you will simply walk up and surrender to them anyway, no?"

And no matter you really said it or not, it's established in ME Universe that Indoctrination is not easy. It's has conditions to meet, has limtations.
Therefore, because Indoctrination is not easy, lying is also an good alternative.

You need to re-read that quote of mine.   Actually, you really need to pretty much re-read everything, as you seem to miss the points I'm trying to make over and over, either deliberately or through simple willful ignorance. If it's a language barrier, that's understandable and forgivable, otherwise this is getting us nowhere, you're not interested in actually considering anything I've stated, and this brainless reiteration is just tedious.

[Errationatus]

ahleung wrote...
She told Shepard she would exhaust all the oxygen.
It's just a true/false statement, not a long/short, more/less subjective concept.
It's not exagerration.
And it's something not true. It's lying.

 

No, it isn't.  You saying it over and over and over doesn't make it factual.

 
You are applying other SciFi writer's statement into ME universe?
Each fiction universe has its own rule, own lore.
If machine in that universe can lie, they can lie.

 

Okay... one more time....  nowhere in Mass Effect Universe do machines actively lie.  Again, you saying it doesn't make it true.

 
So, assume all Reapers are equal to or stupider than Harbinger. And?
Is there any evidence that Harbinger can't lie?
More assumptions?

 

Wow.  You really don't actually pay attention to what's being said, do you?

 
That's the difference: My Shepard said they have souls.
Therefore, it's logical for my Shepard to believe Reaper can lie.

 

You can believe what you like.  Objectively, it's still nonsense.

There is also no proof that human has soul.

 

I said as much.  Check again.  Skim much?

 
If you break down our brains, it's just chmicals and meat.
Then why can we lie?

Because we are TAUGHT TO LIE.  JeebusEffingKerist...

[KLGChaos]

The problem with this is people are meta-gaming. Your Shep doesn't know what happens if he rejects the catalyst, so sticking by his morals and believing it's possible to win without giving into the starkid's options is definitely something that could happen. All he knows is that he's been offered several options, most of which he finds horrible (forcing evolution, becoming some reaper-god and doing exactly what TIM wanted, or committing genocide). So, morally, he might believe it's better to take his chances than give into the suggestions of the very being that's trying to kill them all in the first place. It'd be like Luke giving into the Emperor.

[ahleung]

JakeMacDon wrote...
Because we are TAUGHT TO LIE.  JeebusEffingKerist...

And why can't a machine be taught (programmed) to lie?

Who knows if Catalyst is programmed to lie?

[ahleung]

JakeMacDon wrote...
I'm afraid they're not.  If a premise is flawed all conclusions drawn from it are equally flawed.  Your premise is flawed.

Which of these premises is flawed?

he was indoctrinated by Reaper.
AND
he didn't surrender to Reaper. 
AND
on the final confrontation on Citadel, he believed he's in control, but that's not true.

[Errationatus]

ahleung wrote...

If a machine can "tell untrue statement" for its mandate, that means they can lie.
Even if it's not by its own free will, even if it's programmed to, it's still lying.
Who knows what Catalyst's creator programmed into him?

 

It is not lying.  It is simply relaying a command.  If the command is untrue, then its untrue.  The machine in and of itself is not lying.

 
That means she can learn.
If she can edit her own programs after listening to what other people say, what's the difference with human learning?
Then it's not difficult to learn how to lie:
"Telling untrue statements to get what you want."
The whole process involves only calculations, not sensations or feelings like love or hate.

EDI is not learning.  She's being programmed.  She makes no moral judgements or ethical evaluations not already programmed into her.  If she is programmed to lie, she is not lying of her own accord, so technically, she is not lying. Others are lying through her.

I have nothing more to say on this particular subject. I have made myself as clear as i am able, and you're just gonna beat this thing dead until I concede - which isn't going to happen. 

You're not actually interested in an opposing viewpoint anyway, and this is already past tiresome.

Peace.  I'm out.

[ahleung]

JakeMacDon wrote...

ahleung wrote...

If a machine can "tell untrue statement" for its mandate, that means they can lie.
Even if it's not by its own free will, even if it's programmed to, it's still lying.
Who knows what Catalyst's creator programmed into him?

 

It is not lying.  It is simply relaying a command.  If the command is untrue, then its untrue.  The machine in and of itself is not lying.

 
That means she can learn.
If she can edit her own programs after listening to what other people say, what's the difference with human learning?
Then it's not difficult to learn how to lie:
"Telling untrue statements to get what you want."
The whole process involves only calculations, not sensations or feelings like love or hate.

EDI is not learning.  She's being programmed.  She makes no moral judgements or ethical evaluations not already programmed into her.  If she is programmed to lie, she is not lying of her own accord, so technically, she is not lying. Others are lying through her.

I have nothing more to say on this particular subject. I have made myself as clear as i am able, and you're just gonna beat this thing dead until I concede - which isn't going to happen. 

You're not actually interested in an opposing viewpoint anyway, and this is already past tiresome.

Peace.  I'm out.

Then you are just disagreeing to call that behavior "lying".

OK, so Catalyst can't "lie".
But he could be programmed to tell untrue statement that mislead his enemy.

What's the difference?

The conclusion remains the same: Shepard shouldn't trust him.

Modifié par ahleung, 03 juillet 2012 - 07:59 .

[ahleung]

JakeMacDon wrote...

1. Indoctrination isn't just a way to make you surrender. It makes you into believing something not true.

 



I
maintain that the Reapers are not lying. A lie is a deliberate untruth
meant to decieve.  The Reapers are perfectly up-front about their plans
and motivations.

This is not argument, this is just repeating your assumption.

 

It is hardly an assumption.  Did you not pay attention to the game at all?  

 

I paid very much attention to the game, and I was explaining why "Indoctrination also makes you into believing something not true. ", with TIM as an example.
I just didn't understand why you reply it by "Reapers are not lying. Reapers are perfectly up-front about their plans
and motivations."
OK, it's not assumption, I misunderstood your meaning.
But your answer is irrelevant to what you quoted me.

  
This is what you said:

"It quite blatantly isn't.  That would preclude that everyone else in the room is as well.  If indoctrination is so easy, then the Reapers don't need all the elaborate nonsense.  You and everyone around you will simply walk up and surrender to them anyway, no?"

And no matter you really said it or not, it's established in ME Universe that Indoctrination is not easy. It's has conditions to meet, has limtations.
Therefore, because Indoctrination is not easy, lying is also an good alternative.

You need to re-read that quote of mine.   Actually, you really need to pretty much re-read everything, as you seem to miss the points I'm trying to make over and over, either deliberately or through simple willful ignorance. If it's a language barrier, that's understandable and forgivable, otherwise this is getting us nowhere, you're not interested in actually considering anything I've stated, and this brainless reiteration is just tedious.

I don't know what I have missed in that quote, but actually, we can totally ignore that quote.

My point is still valid:
You ask why Reaper, having Indoctrination technology, still needs to lie?
Because Indoctrination is not easy (knowledge establised in game), lying is a good alternative when Indoctrination isn't applicable.

Modifié par ahleung, 03 juillet 2012 - 08:33 .

[ahleung]

JakeMacDon wrote...

ahleung wrote...
She told Shepard she would exhaust all the oxygen.
It's just a true/false statement, not a long/short, more/less subjective concept.
It's not exagerration.
And it's something not true. It's lying.

 

No, it isn't.  You saying it over and over and over doesn't make it factual.

So, again, don't call it "lying", call it "exaggeration".
That means, a machine in ME universe can "exaggerate" a statement, to an extent that the statement becomes untrue.

Conclusion: Shepard shouldn't trust Catalyst, because Catalyst can exggerate a statement to an extent that the statement become untrue.

(Seriously, can we just use the word "lie"?)

 
You are applying other SciFi writer's statement into ME universe?
Each fiction universe has its own rule, own lore.
If machine in that universe can lie, they can lie.

 

Okay... one more time....  nowhere in Mass Effect Universe do machines actively lie.  Again, you saying it doesn't make it true.

No machine lied =/= machine can't lie.
This is SciFi, and in this SciFi, machine talks, argues with you, and manipulates your mind.
And you still think they can't lie.

OK, machine in ME can't lie, but they can "exaggerate", proved by EDI.
Satisfied?

It's really stupid and makes no different.

Modifié par ahleung, 03 juillet 2012 - 01:14 .

[v TricKy v]

Am I the only one who has always the Riddler in mind when reading the thread title?

[Errationatus]

ahleung wrote...

SNIP
It's really stupid and makes no different.

Let's summarize this "debate" with you so far, shall we?  Your entire argument consists of:

"I say machines lie.  Therefore they lie."

 - Attempted thoughtful reply.

"You say that.  I say machines lie.  They lie."

 - Repeated attempted thoughtful reply.

"No. I say machine lie.  Indoctrination lying.  They lie.  Refusal good.  You dumb."

 - Fine.  This is a waste of time.  You believe it.  Enjoy.

Five posts later:

"No, machine lie.  You dumb.  I say exact thing for thirteenth time.  I right.  You dumb. I win."

Whatever, dude.  Wanking don't make you a lady killer.  You've made your point, such as it is.

[KingZayd]

We win when we become Reapers. The Reapers are our genetic destiny. They are eternal. Free of all weakness. Before them we are nothing.

There is a realm of existence that we cannot even comprehend. The Crucible puts that realm forever out of our reach.

[ahleung]

JakeMacDon wrote...

ahleung wrote...

SNIP
It's really stupid and makes no different.

Let's summarize this "debate" with you so far, shall we?  Your entire argument consists of:

"I say machines lie.  Therefore they lie."

 - Attempted thoughtful reply.

"You say that.  I say machines lie.  They lie."

 - Repeated attempted thoughtful reply.

"No. I say machine lie.  Indoctrination lying.  They lie.  Refusal good.  You dumb."

 - Fine.  This is a waste of time.  You believe it.  Enjoy.

Five posts later:

"No, machine lie.  You dumb.  I say exact thing for thirteenth time.  I right.  You dumb. I win."

Whatever, dude.  Wanking don't make you a lady killer.  You've made your point, such as it is.

No, I kept giving example and you kept dismissing them by your own definitions of things (Indoctrination, lying, machine).

I said TIM's indoctrination already involves lying.

You said no because indoctrination is blah blah blah and TIM just deceived himself.

OK, so I said EDI's joke already lied.

You said that's not lying, that's exaggeration.
(then I explained, then you just said I was wrong. Yeah, great discussion)

Then other people said EDI also lied when deceiving Alliance engineers.

You said EDI was just programmed by Joker to do so, it's Joker lying, not EDI.


Up to this moment I finally got it: you just don't agree to call it "lying"! Which is in fact totally irrelevant to the topic!

Who cares whether or not it's called "lying" or "exaggeration" or "programmed to tell"?
As long as a machine can output untrue message for certain purposes,
(which is proved by EDI, and is just common sense. I can of course write a program to output saying itself is not a program)
it's enough to be one reason why Shepard should not trust Catalyst.


All I can see is, you keep blurring the discussion focus by walls of text, and forcing your definitions onto other people.
You are right, I definitely haven't argued much in such kind of discussion. It's tiring.

Modifié par ahleung, 04 juillet 2012 - 03:44 .

[ruffa1]

There are some valid arguments and well put together rationales in here for why some people chose refuse...but there is also some seriously ridiculous logic from some. Ultimately It's each person's individual choice which ending they agree with and why, but I think most of the problem with the choices lie in the fact they are tainted by the catalyst whose narrative purpose is supposed to be the "operating interface" of the crucible (way to eff that up bioware -__-') akin to Windows or something along those lines.

Someone mentioned this earlier but I'm too lazy to backtrack and quote....but if instead of the catalyst godchild walking out and feeding u his whole speech, say avina walked out and was like welcome to the crucible control mainframe blah blah according to reaper records this is why the cycles exist blah blah...here are the 3 possible functions of the crucible....and then u choose half of you would be more inclined to make a choice.

Also to those who say....I will not commit genocide I have my morals...my shepard stays true and uncompromising in the face of fear. If you played arrival, you already slaughtered 30 billion batarians in order to merely delay the reapers soo yeaaa...you should reexamine that moral high ground.

Modifié par ruffa1, 04 juillet 2012 - 03:50 .

[Errationatus]

ruffa1 wrote...

SNIP

Also to those who say....I will not commit genocide I have my morals...my shepard stays true and uncompromising in the face of fear. If you played arrival, you already slaughtered 30 billion batarians in order to merely delay the reapers soo yeaaa...you should reexamine that moral high ground.

You sacrificed three hundred thousand batarians to delay the Reapers.  Granted it only delayed them for six months. Supposedly six months extra that everyone else could prepare for their arrival.  Which they didn't do.  And the batarians were pretty much wiped out anyway.

What did "Arrival" actually accomplish again?  <_<

I still maintain that Refusal as it stands is the biggest d!ck move in history, and in the game universe statues to those Shepards should have enormous plaques that read:

"At the time of the greatest crisis in our histories, one human stood on the brink of our salvation, and then decided that you in the far future, you were worth saving, and we weren't.  That human died a principled person sure in the knowledge of their own personal righteousness.  We all just died."

[Errationatus]

ahleung wrote...

No, I kept giving example and you kept dismissing them by your own definitions of things (Indoctrination, lying, machine).

 

This is what you happen to be doing. I haven't dismissed anything you've said.  I've simply pointed out why I think you're wrong.  You provide nothing to say you're right.   I've actually played the games several times and actually pay attention to both dialogue and story.  Which you obviously haven't.  You also have no ability to distinguish the fact that brainwashing - which is what Indoctrination actually is - doesn't need to involve lying at all.  You won't even concede it's possible because then your entire "argument" collapses.

 
Up to this moment I finally got it: you just don't agree to call it "lying"! Which is in fact totally irrelevant to the topic!

 

Uh, listen, genius - it is absolutely crucial to the topic.  "Does the Cataylst lie?"  Refusal proponents say yes, which is the entire crux of their argument!  

 
Who cares whether or not it's called "lying" or "exaggeration" or "programmed to tell"?
As long as a machine can output untrue message for certain purposes,
(which is proved by EDI, and is just common sense. I can of course write a program to output saying itself is not a program)
it's enough to be one reason why Shepard should not trust Catalyst.

 

Oh, so suddenly it is relevant!

Let me clue you in on a few things:  One, I never denied that machines can be programmed to lie.  READ THIS CAREFULLY.  I said OF THEIR OWN VOLITION, WITHOUT BEING PROGRAMMED TO, THEY ARE INCAPABLE OF IT. 

 
All I can see is, you keep blurring the discussion focus by walls of text, and forcing your definitions onto other people.
You are right, I definitely haven't argued much in such kind of discussion. It's tiring.

I haven't forced anything on anyone.  As my rather enjoyable discussion with jonjon2se demonstrated (in which I said essentially the same thing).   But that was because that particular person was intelligent and thoughtful.

You, on the other hand, really need to pull your head out of your ass. One point:  actually reading and considering an opposing viewpoint tends to help one understand another's position.  Otherwise you just look like a cretin.  "Reading is tiring" tells me everything I need to know about you and your position.  

What is tiring is constantly having to rebut an idiot who thinks that endless repetition of the same unsupported nonsense over and over somehow validates his exceedingly shallow position.

I think I'll stop doing that now.