Aller au contenu

Photo

How Would People Live After Synthesis?


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
219 réponses à ce sujet

#151
Vigilant111

Vigilant111
  • Members
  • 2 491 messages

Saans Shadow wrote...

Through understanding you gain insight into how and why they are.  You can see from their viewpoint and they can see through yours.  True understanding is in my opinion the only way to achieve true peace.  If you see their views from their perspective you gain understanding, knowledge, and tolerence.  If you truely know someone chances are less inclined to harm them and more inclined to show them empathy and trust.

I don't know about you but from personal experience I've come to trust no one and show very few people empathy because people take advantage of both these days and it's not looking like its going to be getting better anytime soon.  Our world is far from perfect and the values of days past are almost dead.  I believe knowledge and understanding are the keys to peace but thats another discussion for another forum lol


You meant more inclined to harm them due to jealousy and greed?

Oh, can't you see the problem? pre-synthesis you trust no one, post synthesis you trust everyone, u lost the ability to judge for yourself, if you understand fully, then u also see the evil side of people, something is better left unknown

Modifié par Vigilant111, 01 juillet 2012 - 04:13 .


#152
The Angry One

The Angry One
  • Members
  • 22 246 messages
[quote]Bone3ater wrote...

Interesting. Link to a vid or post from a dev where something along those lines is stated please? If you don't have one, I'll just file this statement in my "BS"-Folder.[/quote]

Oh for god's sake. It's what the Bratalyst says.

[quote]Indeed. And I wasn't only talking about an overlord, so again, read carefully.[/quote]

And yet again, this is irrelevant. Want to keep going?

[quote]Yes, you did, in a snide and condescending manner you told me to "look up the definiton of  collective mind".[/quote]

You call that an insult? Are you new to internet debating?

[quote]Quote where I was yelling and forcing you to swallow my oh so great synthesis. Didn't find that, and I don't recollect ever writing something like that. I was mereley defending synthesis against seemingly biased conspiracy theories with little to no supporting evidence. And of course against your strawmans. For example:[/quote]

And yet you ranting about conspiracy theories and bias over and over is not at all hostile, I take it?

[quote]Now tell me if that isn't a "distorted or simplified caricature of your opponent's argument", i.e. Strawman?[/quote]

That was an exagerration of a point I was making, not an argument.

[quote]Wow. Way to contribute to the discussion, you didn't even try to argue with my point that Synthesis is perceived as generally a good thing, as far as we know, considering the little evidence we have fromo the epilouge. You're cherry picking "evidence" that supports your idea while ignoring contracting evidence. That's confirmation bias.[/quote]

Because IT WOULD NOT BE. If you deny this, then you refuse to understand human nature.
The public at large would NOT be all flowers and happiness after having this imposed on them and having the killing machines that murdered and mutilated their loved ones just prancing around with nary a care.

[quote]You're claiming that something is true based on "human nature"? That is in no way a valid argument, even you have to see that. I could as well argue that "human nature" backs me up, and then what? This get's us nowhere.[/quote]

Being obtuse will get us nowhere.

[quote]Again, human nature, it applies to me as well doesn't it? That's no evidence nor does it give you credibility. Or, maybe I'm not a human because I don't share your beliefs? See where I'm going here?
And again, that's your  biased view on the ending, sappy, happy, wholesome sinister. You put no evidence on the table this time as well.
When do I stop seeing your personal hate and repulsion for the Synthesis in particular and start seeing proof, reference material ect. to support your claim that the ending is "evil" and should be acknowleged as such by everybody even the developers?[/quote]

I am tired of you yelling at me for proof while providing none of your own. Kindly do so, or stop acting so hostile and hurt because I'm poking holes in something you like.

If you're saying that you'd be totally okay with being altered without your consent. Well, how nice for you. However, the majority of people, including me, would not be.

[quote]How would you know what Javik would and would not do after he was altered by Synthesis? And where else would he be? In the jungle, building a Reaper because he's indoctrinated of course? I don't know where these wild claims come from tbh.[/quote]

Are you going to tell me with a straight face that he'd be okay with this?

[quote]But maybe he's paying his respects to Shepard? It is, after all, still a memorial and Javik was always pretty hard to judge regarding his emotions, one could argue that he was "unmoved" a lot of the time, or so it seemed.[/quote]

Why would he pay his respects to the person most likely responsible for violating his body?

[quote]And no, I don't like what you have to say. But that's beside the point here.
It's about you and others trying to enforce your claims with biased speculation that Synthesis is "bad and "evil" whereas you yourself have no arguments whatsoever, only your resentment and hate against Synthesis and everybody who trys to defend it, so it seems. Which makes seem you completely biased.

And I didn't start insulting, don't try to push that on to me.

[/quote]

Synthesis is a violation of all beings in the galaxy. This part is fact. Their reactions and the general tone of it is unsettling. It is the primary vision of the Reapers. Their ultimate agenda, and their biggest victory.
It is an act of pure evil, and I will say so. Your hostility proves that you have nothing to defend it with other than indignation.

#153
Lazengan

Lazengan
  • Members
  • 755 messages

Forbry wrote...

LOL, it sounds like you people just don't want peace, because well... "peace is bad",


True peace would extort the Futility of Living

temporary peace is achieved until the next conflict arises, which overall leads to advancement and progress afterwards, the never ending evolutionary drive that gives us reason to keep on existing

Modifié par Lazengan, 01 juillet 2012 - 04:08 .


#154
memorysquid

memorysquid
  • Members
  • 681 messages

Nerevar-as wrote...

It changes the way people think. It doesn´t ask for their opinion nor even allow them to be angry about it. I can´t think of few worst things to do to someone.


I can think of two very easily.  Killing them outright and goopifying them to make them a new Reaper.

#155
The Angry One

The Angry One
  • Members
  • 22 246 messages

memorysquid wrote...


So you don't have any proof.  The Catalyst has magic quantum bluebox thought; who knows?  I think the writers simply intended for that premise to be a true one in ME.  It doesn't matter if they contradicted themselves, either through earlier writers, inconsistent codex entries, scenes that entail opposite conclusions, whatever.  I think the scene remains literally true.  I can tell you outright that the writers don't understand actual logic, so why are you insisting they must have been internally consistent here?


If all you can bring to the table when I have provided numerous examples that contradict the Catalyst is author intent, then you've already lost the argument.

Plus your first sentence is false.  I have never dropped a glass, one that hasn't even been made yet for added not happeningness, from the Empire State Building.  If I do make it and then drop it, it is *inevitable* that it will break.


It is not inevitable however, that you will drop it.

Next.

#156
Forbry

Forbry
  • Members
  • 446 messages

Bone3ater wrote...

Baronesa wrote...

Forbry wrote...

LOL, it sounds like you people just don't want peace, because well... "peace is bad",


One thing is peace, and another is forced peace by changing everyone into thinking/being similar/the same etc.

There is also the big problem that evolution is not guided, has no end goal so the premise that synthesis is the inevitable pinnacle of evolution is already wrong. Then you force it on every single living organism, not only on the technologically advanced races (Still would be bad, mind you)

"Disrupts socio-technological balance. All scientific advancement due to intellegence overcoming, compensating, for limitations. Can't carry a  load, so invent wheel. Can't catch food, so invent spear. Limitations.  No limitations, no advancement. No advancement, culture stagnates. Works other way too. Advancement before culture is ready. Disastrous." - Mordin


It's nowhere stated or hinted at that Synthesis changes everyone into thinking and being the same. I honestly can't stress that enough, I don't know where you guys get that from. Based on the memorial scene (again...) it is clearly shown that everybody retains his own free will and mind.

It's also nowhere stated that a synthetic-organic hybrid has no evolution. Maybe they have? Nobody knows...


I think synthesis is just to difficult to grasp for some people and yes, I do agree it is the most complex option. Destroy is probably the most easy to understand. But when people keep repeating the same bs, which is founded on NOTHING, it becomes pulling a dead horse.

#157
Shadowvalker

Shadowvalker
  • Members
  • 203 messages
I wonder why I offen thinks of Monty Pythons lovely song:

Always Look On The Bright Side of Life.....

#158
The Angry One

The Angry One
  • Members
  • 22 246 messages

Forbry wrote...

Bone3ater wrote...

Baronesa wrote...

Forbry wrote...

LOL, it sounds like you people just don't want peace, because well... "peace is bad",


One thing is peace, and another is forced peace by changing everyone into thinking/being similar/the same etc.

There is also the big problem that evolution is not guided, has no end goal so the premise that synthesis is the inevitable pinnacle of evolution is already wrong. Then you force it on every single living organism, not only on the technologically advanced races (Still would be bad, mind you)

"Disrupts socio-technological balance. All scientific advancement due to intellegence overcoming, compensating, for limitations. Can't carry a  load, so invent wheel. Can't catch food, so invent spear. Limitations.  No limitations, no advancement. No advancement, culture stagnates. Works other way too. Advancement before culture is ready. Disastrous." - Mordin


It's nowhere stated or hinted at that Synthesis changes everyone into thinking and being the same. I honestly can't stress that enough, I don't know where you guys get that from. Based on the memorial scene (again...) it is clearly shown that everybody retains his own free will and mind.

It's also nowhere stated that a synthetic-organic hybrid has no evolution. Maybe they have? Nobody knows...


I think synthesis is just to difficult to grasp for some people and yes, I do agree it is the most complex option. Destroy is probably the most easy to understand. But when people keep repeating the same bs, which is founded on NOTHING, it becomes pulling a dead horse.


Ah yes, when all else fails, fall back on the Seival method. "You don't understand!".
Sorry. We do understand. You're not smarter than us. This is not a complex and deeply thought ending. Stop pretending that it is.

#159
Lazengan

Lazengan
  • Members
  • 755 messages

Forbry wrote...

Bone3ater wrote...

Baronesa wrote...

Forbry wrote...

LOL, it sounds like you people just don't want peace, because well... "peace is bad",


One thing is peace, and another is forced peace by changing everyone into thinking/being similar/the same etc.

There is also the big problem that evolution is not guided, has no end goal so the premise that synthesis is the inevitable pinnacle of evolution is already wrong. Then you force it on every single living organism, not only on the technologically advanced races (Still would be bad, mind you)

"Disrupts socio-technological balance. All scientific advancement due to intellegence overcoming, compensating, for limitations. Can't carry a  load, so invent wheel. Can't catch food, so invent spear. Limitations.  No limitations, no advancement. No advancement, culture stagnates. Works other way too. Advancement before culture is ready. Disastrous." - Mordin


It's nowhere stated or hinted at that Synthesis changes everyone into thinking and being the same. I honestly can't stress that enough, I don't know where you guys get that from. Based on the memorial scene (again...) it is clearly shown that everybody retains his own free will and mind.

It's also nowhere stated that a synthetic-organic hybrid has no evolution. Maybe they have? Nobody knows...


I think synthesis is just to difficult to grasp for some people and yes, I do agree it is the most complex option. Destroy is probably the most easy to understand. But when people keep repeating the same bs, which is founded on NOTHING, it becomes pulling a dead horse.


Natural biological evolution is halted. Only Artificial advancements are made, but with no real biological drive for such changes, there really isn't a point anymore

sociocultural evolution still continues

Control ending...... Shepard becomes a god, possibly a tyrant.

#160
Bone3ater

Bone3ater
  • Members
  • 176 messages

Nerevar-as wrote...

Bone3ater wrote...
True. He's forcing it. But the choice is circumstantial, Shepard does it to save the galaxy and to effectively break the cycle of organic harvesting by the reapers. It is not born out of evil will or the goal to submit everyone.

And yeah, the statement from the Catalyst is a little bit contradicting. Though I guess what he meant was that he tried it with violence? I dunno for sure. But then again, it doesn't seem to destroy the individual, it just gives all life forms "understanding" and perhaps tolerance? Doesn't seem so bad to me even if it's :wizard:

It changes the way people think. It doesn´t ask for their opinion nor even allow them to be angry about it. I can´t think of few worst things to do to someone.


What? How would you know that it doesn't allow them to be angry about it? Or that it changes the way people think entirely (which you suggest)? Synthetic-Organic Hybrid, they're not mindless machines without any free will or thought. Where does that idea even come from? Seriously.

And well, I can think of a lot worse things to do to people, like processing them into organic paste and creating giant spaceships out of it.

#161
memorysquid

memorysquid
  • Members
  • 681 messages

The Angry One wrote...

Synthesis is a violation of all beings in the galaxy. This part is fact.


So you can't separate fact from opinion?  "Violation" is question begging.  A person must decide for themselves whether or not a given act "violates" them.  There are further questions that could be asked like "Would you prefer to be violated or dead?" but the main point is you keep offering your opinion of an outcome and demanding it be accepted as fact.

#162
Lazengan

Lazengan
  • Members
  • 755 messages

Shadowvalker wrote...

I wonder why I offen thinks of Monty Pythons lovely song:

Always Look On The Bright Side of Life.....


the Bright side

everything you do, everything you will ever do, and everything you will become contributes to the advancement of all life everywhere, not just humans, this planet, or even this galaxy.

....

I've been reading way too much Lovecraft

#163
Shadowvalker

Shadowvalker
  • Members
  • 203 messages

Lazengan wrote...

Shadowvalker wrote...

I wonder why I offen thinks of Monty Pythons lovely song:

Always Look On The Bright Side of Life.....


the Bright side

everything you do, everything you will ever do, and everything you will become contributes to the advancement of all life everywhere, not just humans, this planet, or even this galaxy.

....

I've been reading way too much Lovecraft


I was thinking more along - don't forget the last laugh is on you....!

#164
Nerevar-as

Nerevar-as
  • Members
  • 5 375 messages

memorysquid wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

It changes the way people think. It doesn´t ask for their opinion nor even allow them to be angry about it. I can´t think of few worst things to do to someone.


I can think of two very easily.  Killing them outright and goopifying them to make them a new Reaper.


Refuse ending? Undecided about that one.

#165
The Angry One

The Angry One
  • Members
  • 22 246 messages

memorysquid wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Synthesis is a violation of all beings in the galaxy. This part is fact.


So you can't separate fact from opinion?  "Violation" is question begging.  A person must decide for themselves whether or not a given act "violates" them.  There are further questions that could be asked like "Would you prefer to be violated or dead?" but the main point is you keep offering your opinion of an outcome and demanding it be accepted as fact.


Altering beings without their knowledge or consent down to the genetic level is a violation by any definition of the word. Period.
Stop wasting time by trying to debate obvious facts.

#166
Welsh Inferno

Welsh Inferno
  • Members
  • 3 295 messages
The only real provable negative of Synthesis is the morality of forcing everyone unto it, which yes is obviously a really bad thing. Anything else people come up with seems to be all philosophical speculation.

#167
BeastSaver

BeastSaver
  • Members
  • 513 messages
Sorry, new to the Forum so don't know how to quote in boxes yet.

I said:

The things I find most abhorent in Synthesis (and Control) are the husks waking up from being controlled by the Reapers. How horrible would it be to have to live out your life as an abomination? Banshees, Brutes, Praetorians, Scions, etc...bad enough when your form is sort of what it used to be. Worse when you are two species mushed together. I, personally, would prefer death.

Xilizra said:

I'm sure you wouldn't want to be transformed into a naked mole rat, but the rats are fine with it. I doubt the husks will retain memories of their previous lives, being synthetics themselves. They'll only know existence as what they are.

So, you are assuming they would not remember who they were...I'm assuming they would.

#168
memorysquid

memorysquid
  • Members
  • 681 messages

The Angry One wrote...

memorysquid wrote...


So you don't have any proof.  The Catalyst has magic quantum bluebox thought; who knows?  I think the writers simply intended for that premise to be a true one in ME.  It doesn't matter if they contradicted themselves, either through earlier writers, inconsistent codex entries, scenes that entail opposite conclusions, whatever.  I think the scene remains literally true.  I can tell you outright that the writers don't understand actual logic, so why are you insisting they must have been internally consistent here?


If all you can bring to the table when I have provided numerous examples that contradict the Catalyst is author intent, then you've already lost the argument.


I'd like even one example; I didn't have time search the interwebs before replying to you so I don't happen to know every thought you've spilt onto the world.

Plus your first sentence is false.  I have never dropped a glass, one that hasn't even been made yet for added not happeningness, from the Empire State Building.  If I do make it and then drop it, it is *inevitable* that it will break.


It is not inevitable however, that you will drop it.

Next.


You think that means something?  Sure it is.  I am going to do it.  Now it is inevitable.

Next! 

If that's the quality of your ability to reason, well, just stick with being "The Angry One" rather than attempting to be the reasoning one.

#169
Forbry

Forbry
  • Members
  • 446 messages
Bioware clearly considers synthesis the most "kind" ending. If you don't subject yourself to conspiracy-theories and alike, you don't Bioware statement. So If you state "facts" that cleary are in conflict with Bioware's portrait of the end, the proof of burden is on you and without that proof, your "facts" are nothing but wild assumptions, based on nothing...

#170
Bone3ater

Bone3ater
  • Members
  • 176 messages

The Angry One wrote...
Ah yes, when all else fails, fall back on the Seival method. "You don't understand!".
Sorry. We do understand. You're not smarter than us. This is not a complex and deeply thought ending. Stop pretending that it is.


Stop pretending that it is an "evil" and "sinister" ending based purely on your resentment of it. You contradicted yourself btw because you're acting like you're smarter then everybody else as well:

"This is not a complex and deeply thought ending." Tell me, where exactly did you achieve enlightenment? I would die to know.
Apparently I also "don't understand".

Edit:

The Angry One wrote...

Altering beings without their
knowledge or consent down to the genetic level is a violation by any
definition of the word. Period.
Stop wasting time by trying to debate obvious facts.


There, that is what I meant with insults. Not a direct one but pretty snide and condescending don't you think?.

How about you stop wasting time then and bring something comprehensible to the table instead of acting all high and mighty and trying to enforce your speculations as facts?

Modifié par Bone3ater, 01 juillet 2012 - 04:29 .


#171
Nerevar-as

Nerevar-as
  • Members
  • 5 375 messages

Bone3ater wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

Bone3ater wrote...
True. He's forcing it. But the choice is circumstantial, Shepard does it to save the galaxy and to effectively break the cycle of organic harvesting by the reapers. It is not born out of evil will or the goal to submit everyone.

And yeah, the statement from the Catalyst is a little bit contradicting. Though I guess what he meant was that he tried it with violence? I dunno for sure. But then again, it doesn't seem to destroy the individual, it just gives all life forms "understanding" and perhaps tolerance? Doesn't seem so bad to me even if it's :wizard:

It changes the way people think. It doesn´t ask for their opinion nor even allow them to be angry about it. I can´t think of few worst things to do to someone.


What? How would you know that it doesn't allow them to be angry about it? Or that it changes the way people think entirely (which you suggest)? Synthetic-Organic Hybrid, they're not mindless machines without any free will or thought. Where does that idea even come from? Seriously.

And well, I can think of a lot worse things to do to people, like processing them into organic paste and creating giant spaceships out of it.


You really believe that if a green light changed your very being people would be happy about it? Synthesis has to change people´s perception of some things to work.

#172
The Angry One

The Angry One
  • Members
  • 22 246 messages

memorysquid wrote...

I'd like even one example; I didn't have time search the interwebs before replying to you so I don't happen to know every thought you've spilt onto the world.


The Geth.
EDI.
The Zha'til.
The Metacon war.

If you don't know what these things are, I'm not going to bother explaining.

You think that means something?  Sure it is.  I am going to do it.  Now it is inevitable.

Next! 

If that's the quality of your ability to reason, well, just stick with being "The Angry One" rather than attempting to be the reasoning one.


The attitude of pro-synthesis people is nothing if not predictable..

I'll spell it out for you.

You go up 100 times with a glass in your hand. You may drop it accidentally. You may not.
You could go up 100 times and never drop it, you could go up once and drop it. There is a chance it will happen, but it is not inevitable.

For the purposes of this exercise, actively choosing to drop the glass is irrelevant.

Forbry wrote...

Bioware clearly considers synthesis the
most "kind" ending. If you don't subject yourself to conspiracy-theories
and alike, you don't Bioware statement. So If you state "facts" that
cleary are in conflict with Bioware's portrait of the end, the proof of
burden is on you and without that proof, your "facts" are nothing but
wild assumptions, based on nothing...


Appeal to author intent. Again. This is going nowhere.

Modifié par The Angry One, 01 juillet 2012 - 04:22 .


#173
Baronesa

Baronesa
  • Members
  • 1 934 messages

Forbry wrote...

Bioware clearly considers synthesis the most "kind" ending. If you don't subject yourself to conspiracy-theories and alike, you don't Bioware statement. So If you state "facts" that cleary are in conflict with Bioware's portrait of the end, the proof of burden is on you and without that proof, your "facts" are nothing but wild assumptions, based on nothing...


Ok.

Give me the facts.

Why did the soldiers stopped fighting the reapers when the green light covered them all?

Why people that ouright hate anything synthetic or hybrid like Javik apparently change their mind and are comfortable with the situation? What would make such an abrupt change?



These questions and similars are what lead to some people to infer some sort of mind altering or mind control component involved. I welcome your explanation of this not being so.

#174
Welsh Inferno

Welsh Inferno
  • Members
  • 3 295 messages

Forbry wrote...

Bioware clearly considers synthesis the most "kind" ending. If you don't subject yourself to conspiracy-theories and alike, you don't Bioware statement. So If you state "facts" that cleary are in conflict with Bioware's portrait of the end, the proof of burden is on you and without that proof, your "facts" are nothing but wild assumptions, based on nothing...


I think people here use that against the ending actually. Effectively rebelling against BioWare's "chosen" ending or something. Would of helped if the Catalyst wasn't contradictory & overall badly written. Along with the Crucible for that matter.

#175
Forbry

Forbry
  • Members
  • 446 messages

The Angry One wrote...

Forbry wrote...

Bone3ater wrote...

Baronesa wrote...

Forbry wrote...

LOL, it sounds like you people just don't want peace, because well... "peace is bad",


One thing is peace, and another is forced peace by changing everyone into thinking/being similar/the same etc.

There is also the big problem that evolution is not guided, has no end goal so the premise that synthesis is the inevitable pinnacle of evolution is already wrong. Then you force it on every single living organism, not only on the technologically advanced races (Still would be bad, mind you)

"Disrupts socio-technological balance. All scientific advancement due to intellegence overcoming, compensating, for limitations. Can't carry a  load, so invent wheel. Can't catch food, so invent spear. Limitations.  No limitations, no advancement. No advancement, culture stagnates. Works other way too. Advancement before culture is ready. Disastrous." - Mordin


It's nowhere stated or hinted at that Synthesis changes everyone into thinking and being the same. I honestly can't stress that enough, I don't know where you guys get that from. Based on the memorial scene (again...) it is clearly shown that everybody retains his own free will and mind.

It's also nowhere stated that a synthetic-organic hybrid has no evolution. Maybe they have? Nobody knows...


I think synthesis is just to difficult to grasp for some people and yes, I do agree it is the most complex option. Destroy is probably the most easy to understand. But when people keep repeating the same bs, which is founded on NOTHING, it becomes pulling a dead horse.


Ah yes, when all else fails, fall back on the Seival method. "You don't understand!".
Sorry. We do understand. You're not smarter than us. This is not a complex and deeply thought ending. Stop pretending that it is.


I will never say or think I'm smarter than you or anyone here, but yes, I do think I (and many more "fans" with me) have a greater understanding of what the synthesis as portait by Bioware in this game entails. Not in its deepest details, no not by far, because it really IS that complex, but we get the big lines (is that latter a saying in English? It's not my native language).