406 réponses à ce sujet

[Hackulator]

TamiBx wrote...

I would rather die, thank you.

Thats really easy to say when you're not actually confronted with death. Such comments are ridiculous, believe me, thousands of years of evolution say that if it came down to brass tacs, you'd do whatever it took to survive.

[roryw2203]

Hackulator wrote...

If you knew you could save someone's life with a medical procedure that would have no downsides, but they were afraid of it and would not let you, would you force it upon them? Is it really the morally superior decision to allow someone's fear and ignorance to lead to their downfall? As a politician, if you had a chance to enact laws which would ensure freedom and equality for all people, who you choose against it because of all the ignorant, hate filled people?

 You don't know that there aren't any downsides though.  I mean you would have the strengths of both organic and synthetic life, but you would also have the weaknesses.  Like I said before, how do we know some guy can't just upload a virus and control or destroy every living thing in the universe?  How do we know that we can't be weakened by EMPs?  There is no way of telling because the Starkid tells you bugger all useful information.  

I would be stood there as the universe burned around me wringing every scrap of knowledge from the Starkid that I could before I could make an informed decision.  Based on what we were told then I would probably pick destroy because there aren't any weird effects that I wouldn't be able to predict. 

[Wydi]

Hackulator wrote...

If you knew you could save someone's life with a medical procedure that would have no downsides, but they were afraid of it and would not let you, would you force it upon them? Is it really the morally superior decision to allow someone's fear and ignorance to lead to their downfall?

 
Yes, it is!
As long as said person is fully aware of him- or herself and conscious, then nobody has the right to force him to do anything. That's the definition of free will. It's easy to say that everyone is free, when there is no need for force or rulership on specific matters. In situations like these, however, you truely see how free you really are.
Freedoms ends when it touches someone else's freedom, of course, but in this case, it's very clear.

Hackulator wrote...

As a politician, if you had a chance to enact laws which would ensure freedom and equality for all people, who you choose against it because of all the ignorant, hate filled people?

I'm not sure if I understood you correctly (missing some words here, I guess), but freedom and legal and economical equality for everyone is the ultimate goal and condition. In the end, every other status would not make for an equal and balanced democracy. 

Modifié par Wydi, 29 juin 2012 - 09:56 .

[Hackulator]

roryw2203 wrote...

Hackulator wrote...

If you knew you could save someone's life with a medical procedure that would have no downsides, but they were afraid of it and would not let you, would you force it upon them? Is it really the morally superior decision to allow someone's fear and ignorance to lead to their downfall? As a politician, if you had a chance to enact laws which would ensure freedom and equality for all people, who you choose against it because of all the ignorant, hate filled people?

 You don't know that there aren't any downsides though.  I mean you would have the strengths of both organic and synthetic life, but you would also have the weaknesses.  Like I said before, how do we know some guy can't just upload a virus and control or destroy every living thing in the universe?  How do we know that we can't be weakened by EMPs?  There is no way of telling because the Starkid tells you bugger all useful information.  

I would be stood there as the universe burned around me wringing every scrap of knowledge from the Starkid that I could before I could make an informed decision.  Based on what we were told then I would probably pick destroy because there aren't any weird effects that I wouldn't be able to predict. 

Pretty much all these issues already exist. People CAN already be taken control of by a "virus", its called Indoctrination.  There are already an infinite number of  weapons of mass destruction, so even if an EMP weapon suddenly CAN hurt you, does it really matter? A bomb could ALREADY hurt you.

[Hackulator]

Wydi wrote...

Hackulator wrote...

If you knew you could save someone's life with a medical procedure that would have no downsides, but they were afraid of it and would not let you, would you force it upon them? Is it really the morally superior decision to allow someone's fear and ignorance to lead to their downfall?

 
Yes, it is!
As long as said person is fully aware of him- or herself and conscious, then nobody has the right to force him to do anything. That's the definition of free will. It's easy to say that everyone is free, when there is no need for force or rulership on specific matters. In situations like these, however, you truely see how free you really are.
Freedoms ends when it touches someone else's freedom, of course, but in this case, it's very clear.

Hackulator wrote...

As a politician, if you had a chance to enact laws which would ensure freedom and equality for all people, who you choose against it because of all the ignorant, hate filled people?

I'm not sure if I understood you correctly (missing some words here, I guess), but freedom and legal and economical equality for everyone is the ultimate goal and condition. In the end, every other status would not make for an equal and balanced democracy. 

Children, though aware, can still be forced to do things for their own good. Sometimes you have to drag people kicking and screaming into the light.

As for the second part, the word "who" should have been "would", sorry about that. However, if the majority does not want equality for everyone, is it a true democracy if you force equality?

[roryw2203]

Hackulator wrote...

roryw2203 wrote...

Hackulator wrote...

If you knew you could save someone's life with a medical procedure that would have no downsides, but they were afraid of it and would not let you, would you force it upon them? Is it really the morally superior decision to allow someone's fear and ignorance to lead to their downfall? As a politician, if you had a chance to enact laws which would ensure freedom and equality for all people, who you choose against it because of all the ignorant, hate filled people?

 You don't know that there aren't any downsides though.  I mean you would have the strengths of both organic and synthetic life, but you would also have the weaknesses.  Like I said before, how do we know some guy can't just upload a virus and control or destroy every living thing in the universe?  How do we know that we can't be weakened by EMPs?  There is no way of telling because the Starkid tells you bugger all useful information.  

I would be stood there as the universe burned around me wringing every scrap of knowledge from the Starkid that I could before I could make an informed decision.  Based on what we were told then I would probably pick destroy because there aren't any weird effects that I wouldn't be able to predict. 

Pretty much all these issues already exist. People CAN already be taken control of by a "virus", its called Indoctrination.  There are already an infinite number of  weapons of mass destruction, so even if an EMP weapon suddenly CAN hurt you, does it really matter? A bomb could ALREADY hurt you.

With Indoctrination of organics people have to be in direct contact of Reaper tech in order for it to happen.  WIth Synthetics (i.e. the Geth)  if the Reapers have one they can pretty much have them all because of their hive mind.  So it didn't really exist for organics on such a large scale before, and because every organic in the universe shares this same genetic trait then it would be much easier to create something that would affect every being than it was before.  And that doesn't really make sense: "We can already get hurt by bombs so what's another life threatening weakness?"

 Imagine you wake up tomorrow and everything that can go wrong with your computer can now potentially go wrong in you, ontop of what can go wrong with you already.

[Hackulator]

You are now making things up. It is never stated that everyone is now part of a hive mind, or that all DNA is "the same". All DNA is changed, enhanced, that does not mean it is the same. If it was the same, you would not see Krogan babies.

Edit: Also, doesn't it seem more likely that our dual nature would make it MORE difficult to create a weapon that could fully affect us, since our forms are now that much more complex and robust?

Modifié par Hackulator, 29 juin 2012 - 10:09 .

[Wydi]

Hackulator wrote...

Children, though aware, can still be forced to do things for their own good. Sometimes you have to drag people kicking and screaming into the light.

As for the second part, the word "who" should have been "would", sorry about that. However, if the majority does not want equality for everyone, is it a true democracy if you force equality?

1:
Children, however, aren't fully aware of themselves. They don't have the possibility to fully understand the consequences of their doings, I'm talking about grown up people. And here, under the given conditions, without exceptions.

2:
This is a highly philosophical question (and luckily a completely theoretical one) and I'm not sure if I can answer that question.
But I guess, the answer is: Yes. Because..equality (n.b.: equality in law) is needed for democracy to work. 
If in medieval times a liege lord asked his subjects if they want to be rich and free to go, probably everyone said "No", because..you know..the dungeon wasn't too far away. 

Modifié par Wydi, 29 juin 2012 - 10:11 .

[Hackulator]

Wydi wrote...

Hackulator wrote...

Children, though aware, can still be forced to do things for their own good. Sometimes you have to drag people kicking and screaming into the light.

As for the second part, the word "who" should have been "would", sorry about that. However, if the majority does not want equality for everyone, is it a true democracy if you force equality?

1:
Children, however, aren't fully aware of themselves. They don't have the possibility to fully understand the consequences of their doings, I'm talking about grown up people. And here, under the given conditions, without exceptions.

2:
This is a highly philosophical question (and luckily a completely theoretical one) and I'm not sure if I can answer that question.
But I guess, the answer is: Yes. Because..equality (n.b.: equality in law) is needed for democracy to work. 
If in medieval times a liege lord asked his subjects if they want to be rich and free to go, probably everyone said "No", because..you know..the dungeon wasn't to far away. 

1. Nobody ever really grows up.

2. This is not a theoretical question AT ALL. If you look at the history of civil rights advances, you will find that if they had put the a public referendum in their time many if not most of them would have FAILED. These advances were made because intelligent people got into power and saw that things needed to change, and they dragged the rest of the world with them. Since such changes will alter the way people think and feel about the world as they grow up, why is it so different from Synthesis?

[roryw2203]

Hackulator wrote...

You are now making things up. It is never stated that everyone is now part of a hive mind, or that all DNA is "the same". All DNA is changed, enhanced, that does not mean it is the same. If it was the same, you would not see Krogan babies.

Edit: Also, doesn't it seem more likely that our dual nature would make it MORE difficult to create a weapon that could fully affect us, since our forms are now that much more complex and robust?

I never said anything about the organics having a hive mind actually, I said that the Geth did.  And I didn't say all DNA is the same, I said the same thing would be incorporated into every being in the universe.  The starkid tells us that because Shepard is organic and dependant on synthetic enhancements, him jumping into the beam would incorporate synthetic aspects into all living things.  It is therefore not a massive stretch of logic to assume that because the source is the same, the synthetic aspect of all beings would be the same.  I have no idea how having the same synthetic code would affect Krogan having kids since the Genophage was cured way before the Synthesis stuff happened.  

And I already said we would have the strengths of both Synthetic and Organic, but we would also have the weaknesses.  What are the strengths of being part synthetic?  It isn't even mentioned.  Everyone is just apparantly at peace because we glow green.  I can't remember a single thing being mentioned by either the catalyst or EDI as to why it is good being part synthetic apart from the fact that apparantly we will get on a whole lot more.

[roryw2203]

Hackulator wrote...

Wydi wrote...

Hackulator wrote...

Children, though aware, can still be forced to do things for their own good. Sometimes you have to drag people kicking and screaming into the light.

As for the second part, the word "who" should have been "would", sorry about that. However, if the majority does not want equality for everyone, is it a true democracy if you force equality?

1:
Children, however, aren't fully aware of themselves. They don't have the possibility to fully understand the consequences of their doings, I'm talking about grown up people. And here, under the given conditions, without exceptions.

2:
This is a highly philosophical question (and luckily a completely theoretical one) and I'm not sure if I can answer that question.
But I guess, the answer is: Yes. Because..equality (n.b.: equality in law) is needed for democracy to work. 
If in medieval times a liege lord asked his subjects if they want to be rich and free to go, probably everyone said "No", because..you know..the dungeon wasn't to far away. 

1. Nobody ever really grows up.

2. This is not a theoretical question AT ALL. If you look at the history of civil rights advances, you will find that if they had put the a public referendum in their time many if not most of them would have FAILED. These advances were made because intelligent people got into power and saw that things needed to change, and they dragged the rest of the world with them. Since such changes will alter the way people think and feel about the world as they grow up, why is it so different from Synthesis?

Nobody grows up?  How is that a good argument?  I stuck a stone up my nose when I was a kid, I don't think I would do the same thing now, even if I hadn't done it then.  

[Nerevar-as]

roryw2203 wrote...

Hackulator wrote...

You are now making things up. It is never stated that everyone is now part of a hive mind, or that all DNA is "the same". All DNA is changed, enhanced, that does not mean it is the same. If it was the same, you would not see Krogan babies.

Edit: Also, doesn't it seem more likely that our dual nature would make it MORE difficult to create a weapon that could fully affect us, since our forms are now that much more complex and robust?

I never said anything about the organics having a hive mind actually, I said that the Geth did.  And I didn't say all DNA is the same, I said the same thing would be incorporated into every being in the universe.  The starkid tells us that because Shepard is organic and dependant on synthetic enhancements, him jumping into the beam would incorporate synthetic aspects into all living things.  It is therefore not a massive stretch of logic to assume that because the source is the same, the synthetic aspect of all beings would be the same.  I have no idea how having the same synthetic code would affect Krogan having kids since the Genophage was cured way before the Synthesis stuff happened.  

And I already said we would have the strengths of both Synthetic and Organic, but we would also have the weaknesses.  What are the strengths of being part synthetic?  It isn't even mentioned.  Everyone is just apparantly at peace because we glow green.  I can't remember a single thing being mentioned by either the catalyst or EDI as to why it is good being part synthetic apart from the fact that apparantly we will get on a whole lot more.

The idea that just because we are partly synthetic we´ll be more peaceful is absurd, unless it also altered the way we thought. So in a way we´ve brainwashed the whole galaxy.

[Wydi]

Hackulator wrote...

1. Nobody ever really grows up.

2. This is not a theoretical question AT ALL. If you look at the history of civil rights advances, you will find that if they had put the a public referendum in their time many if not most of them would have FAILED. These advances were made because intelligent people got into power and saw that things needed to change, and they dragged the rest of the world with them. Since such changes will alter the way people think and feel about the world as they grow up, why is it so different from Synthesis?

1. Now that's a classical straw man argument. Yes, people never really grow up. But they still become able to make decisions on their own.

2. Is that so? They would have failed in their given environment, yes, because aristocrats and the likes didn't want to share their power. But if you asked a peasant secretly whether or not he wanted to be free, fed and a little more influential, you end up with about 99% the same result. Yes, there are other examples where democracy failed. If you asked US Americans about going to war against Iraq and Afghanistan right after 9/11, you'd clearly get a really big YES. Public health care? We'll see...There are some basic rules that have to be established and that mark the boundaries in which democracy can act. Constitutions. Human rights. Equality.
Synthesis, however, doesn't make people more equal in rights. It just kills a great amount of individuality.

Modifié par Wydi, 29 juin 2012 - 10:55 .

[roryw2203]

Nerevar-as wrote...

roryw2203 wrote...

Hackulator wrote...

You are now making things up. It is never stated that everyone is now part of a hive mind, or that all DNA is "the same". All DNA is changed, enhanced, that does not mean it is the same. If it was the same, you would not see Krogan babies.

Edit: Also, doesn't it seem more likely that our dual nature would make it MORE difficult to create a weapon that could fully affect us, since our forms are now that much more complex and robust?

I never said anything about the organics having a hive mind actually, I said that the Geth did.  And I didn't say all DNA is the same, I said the same thing would be incorporated into every being in the universe.  The starkid tells us that because Shepard is organic and dependant on synthetic enhancements, him jumping into the beam would incorporate synthetic aspects into all living things.  It is therefore not a massive stretch of logic to assume that because the source is the same, the synthetic aspect of all beings would be the same.  I have no idea how having the same synthetic code would affect Krogan having kids since the Genophage was cured way before the Synthesis stuff happened.  

And I already said we would have the strengths of both Synthetic and Organic, but we would also have the weaknesses.  What are the strengths of being part synthetic?  It isn't even mentioned.  Everyone is just apparantly at peace because we glow green.  I can't remember a single thing being mentioned by either the catalyst or EDI as to why it is good being part synthetic apart from the fact that apparantly we will get on a whole lot more.

The idea that just because we are partly synthetic we´ll be more peaceful is absurd, unless it also altered the way we thought. So in a way we´ve brainwashed the whole galaxy.

I agree.  I mean you could argue that because every one banded together to fight the reapers then it created some great group camaraderie, but that would happen with every ending.  And after seeing every one walking around alongside the reapers like they haven't been wiping out trillions of people every 50,000 years screams to me that something isn't right.

[Hackulator]

Obviously my "Nobody ever grows up" comment was an attempt to inject a little whimsy into the discussion, but guess I'll avoid that. However, nobody ever FINISHES growing up, ie, there is always more to learn and discover, and sometimes your fear and ignorance can prevent you from doing so. Everyone needs someone to kick them forward every once in a while.

As to my comment about civil rights advancements and the public, what I mean is this. When advancements in Civil Rights have been put to a public referendum under modern democracy, they almost always lose. When citizens vote on gay marriage instead of the legislature just passing laws, gay marriage fails, and the same has been true with various other issues. This is a pattern that has been common throughout history. The majority tends to want to maintain the status quo, EVEN WHEN IT IS BAD FOR THEM.

[TaradosGon]

If I was aware of Shepard's alternatives, I would definitely consent to synthesis.

[Asharad Hett]

No

[wh00ley 06]

No.

[Xamufam]

Hackulator wrote...

Obviously my "Nobody ever grows up" comment was an attempt to inject a little whimsy into the discussion, but guess I'll avoid that. However, nobody ever FINISHES growing up, ie, there is always more to learn and discover, and sometimes your fear and ignorance can prevent you from doing so. Everyone needs someone to kick them forward every once in a while.

As to my comment about civil rights advancements and the public, what I mean is this. When advancements in Civil Rights have been put to a public referendum under modern democracy, they almost always lose. When citizens vote on gay marriage instead of the legislature just passing laws, gay marriage fails, and the same has been true with various other issues. This is a pattern that has been common throughout history. The majority tends to want to maintain the status quo, EVEN WHEN IT IS BAD FOR THEM.

It's not the same. something that is forced on the DNA have always repercussions.
It's safer to let evolution do the job, maybe there is something greater than synthesis

edit: & changing the DNA instantly would kill nearly all organics

Modifié par Troxa, 29 juin 2012 - 11:36 .

[Wydi]

Hackulator wrote...

Obviously my "Nobody ever grows up" comment was an attempt to inject a little whimsy into the discussion, but guess I'll avoid that. However, nobody ever FINISHES growing up, ie, there is always more to learn and discover, and sometimes your fear and ignorance can prevent you from doing so. Everyone needs someone to kick them forward every once in a while.

 
..or make it more obvious. 
However: Yes, everyone needs that once in a while, but the decision about becoming partly synthetic with scary green eyes, brainwashed and bff with the reapers is too big to enforce on anyone. That's not a kick, that's a nuke.
To be honest, this decision is even too big to let democracy decide. This has to be done individually, which is, of course, impossible due to how the crucible seems to work.

Hackulator wrote...

As to my comment about civil rights advancements and the public, what I mean is this. When advancements in Civil Rights have been put to a public referendum under modern democracy, they almost always lose. When citizens vote on gay marriage instead of the legislature just passing laws, gay marriage fails, and the same has been true with various other issues. This is a pattern that has been common throughout history. The majority tends to want to maintain the status quo, EVEN WHEN IT IS BAD FOR THEM.

But: Not everyone is equal, since gay people simply don't have the same rights as straight ones do. And like I said earlier: That's a necessary condition. So, by philosophic means, the gay marriage controversy leaves no room for a referendum at all. It also touches the freedom of others.
There are still some very stupid public referendi out there, unfortunately, that is..the reasons are mostly a lack of freedom and equality or just unsufficient education, but either way: If people decide to build a massive suicide center for everyone who wants: Go ahead, here's some public funds, we have to deal with it. If someone wants to do it on his own: No money here, but go ahead. But if equal people decide to build a massive "suicide center" to kill all [insert any minority here], it's not democracy but tyranny.

[s8383783]

Are you kidding me?! Of course I didn't want to FORCE such a change on people that would better them for the future! I of course didn't want to do this with out consulting the people, even though said change would result in peace and understanding. Can you imagine bettering someone without their consent?! Can you imagine achieving peace and understanding without everyones CONSENT? I cannot sir.....

I'd rather blow up a whole bunch of sentient machines, and commit genocide...much more moral.

[Wydi]

s8383783 wrote...

Are you kidding me?! Of course I didn't want to FORCE such a change on people that would better them for the future! I of course didn't want to do this with out consulting the people, even though said change would result in peace and understanding. Can you imagine bettering someone without their consent?! Can you imagine achieving peace and understanding without everyones CONSENT? I cannot sir.....

I'd rather blow up a whole bunch of sentient machines, and commit genocide...much more moral.

You totally forgot the SarcMark™.

Also, feel free to bring yourself into the ongoing discussions. 

Modifié par Wydi, 29 juin 2012 - 11:55 .

[saracen16]

akana-may wrote...

Yes.

P.S. You can guess what was my choice in original Deus Ex ;-)

Yes. My choice in Deus Ex Invisible War was the JC Denton ending. It brought unity and enlightenment to all. The same goes for the original Deus Ex and Mass Effect 3. I would gladly give permission to Shepard to connect all life to each other.

[Mckay91]

Hmmm... Access to infinite knowledge spanning the entire course of Galactic History, borderline immortality and a free life. Or a violent death, most likely being turned into a Husk.

I can see why people are struggling with the choice.