1027 réponses à ce sujet

[MegaSovereign]

LiarasShield wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Actually it is vice versa so what you become a Ai with incredible power you don't know if one day that power may corrupt you or turn into a similar abomination of the catalyst

You're giving human emotions to artificial entities.

The Catalyst didn't become corrupt because he had too much power, he got corrupt because he was programmed to solve an unsolvable task. He's clearly stuck in a logic loop and has no real interest in power.

The new Shepard-based Catalyst, has a very simple purpose. Stop the cycle of destruction that has been going on for millions of years. No matter what controversial thing Shepard does with the Reapers, he's not going to start harvesting because that would render his sacrifice completely pointless.

If absolute power corrupts absolutely then over time wether shepard is a ai or not because he or she is pretty much a god now overtime his or her power would begin to warp his or her ideals turning him or her into the very thing that he or she swore to stop

Greed is a human emotion.

Besides that, absolute power does not corrupt. If you have infinite power, you no longer have the desire to seek more of it. If you have a lot of power, but not infinite amounts of it, then that will make you desire more power.

[Eire Icon]

LiarasShield wrote...

If I die then I die knowing I did everything I could to stop you and I will die free I believe in freedom of choice and not submitting to the catalyst so I chose Reject

Lets look at this statement for second

"If I die then I die knowing I did everything I could to stop you" 

No you didn't if you picked Control, Destroy. or Synthesis you would have stopped them - you may not like the consequences but you would have stopped them.

By all means choose reject, but don't kid yourself along the way. You didn't do everything, you in fact did nothing, you in fact refused to do everything !

LiarasShield wrote...
And I also believe the next generation with our data of the reapers could've found another solution besides the crucible and stoped the reapers without the crucible  where we could not so yes giving the next generation a better chance to beat the reapers without the crucible is fine way to me

So you believe the correct decision to make, on behalf of billions of people who do not have a voice, is to doom them to death ?

Why does it matter how the Reapers are stopped once they are stopped ?

What qualifies you to make that decision? You are an alliance officer and you have been given an order by your superior to activate the crucible. On what moral grounds are you refusing to do so ?

[LiarasShield]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Shepard does ask the Catalyst why he's helping him. So trusting the Catalyst isn't completely based on faith and or meta-gaming.

"You have altered the variables"

"The Crucible changed me, created new possibilities.."

"If there is a new solution you must act"

I'm also gonna go head and re-post this:

The Catalyst underestimated the organics, realizing that his solution might not be as flawless as he thinks it is. Even if he does trick Shepard and wins this cycle, organics are very savvy at containing and storing information for future cycles. Eventually a cycle will build a new and improved Crucible, one that might not even need the Catalyst's help to be deployed. With that said, the Catalyst, knowing that the cycle will inevitably end, takes his chances and gives the ball to Shepard. If he helps Shepard, there is a better chance that he could use the Crucible to replace his solution with synthesis. "If there is a new solution, you must act." Why doesn't he force synthesis? Same reason Legion asked Shepard to decide the fate of the geth heretics. He needed a new perspective, an organic---one that wasn't indoctrinated to the Reaper's cause (sorry TIM). This is one way to look it at.

The Catalyst is the problem to his very own solution he says that all the created would rebel against their creators but the quarians attacked the geth first once you break the reaper code the geth would work with their creators to rebuild rannoch


The catalyst forced his creators to become the first reaper he rebeled or forced his creators to become the first reaper or to cause the problem to organics that he is supposedly trying to save

The geth are not the problem but the catalyst is and his reapers since they are synthetic

I'm not going to try to play god as control

I'm not going to force merge zillions of different races against their will to comply with the reapers

I'm not going to kill the geth or the quarians to destroy the reapers because it isn't right you can say what you will but it is better to die fighting for freedom then forcing the whole galaxy to bow to your whim

[Clayless]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

-OP-

You keep on making this same argument, was it yesterday that you made a thread about how it shocked you that the Catalyst probably wasn't a little Canadian boy, therefore why should we trust him?

You're saying the same thing here. All you need to know is:

If you trust the Catalyst and he's telling the truth you stop the Reapers.

If you trust the Catalyst and he's lying everyone dies.

If you do nothing everyone dies.

Really this doesn't need two seperate threads in 48 hours.

[LiarasShield]

MegaSovereign wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Actually it is vice versa so what you become a Ai with incredible power you don't know if one day that power may corrupt you or turn into a similar abomination of the catalyst

You're giving human emotions to artificial entities.

The Catalyst didn't become corrupt because he had too much power, he got corrupt because he was programmed to solve an unsolvable task. He's clearly stuck in a logic loop and has no real interest in power.

The new Shepard-based Catalyst, has a very simple purpose. Stop the cycle of destruction that has been going on for millions of years. No matter what controversial thing Shepard does with the Reapers, he's not going to start harvesting because that would render his sacrifice completely pointless.

If absolute power corrupts absolutely then over time wether shepard is a ai or not because he or she is pretty much a god now overtime his or her power would begin to warp his or her ideals turning him or her into the very thing that he or she swore to stop

Greed is a human emotion.

Besides that, absolute power does not corrupt. If you have infinite power, you no longer have the desire to seek more of it. If you have a lot of power, but not infinite amounts of it, then that will make you desire more power.

Last time I checked shepard was human and if the ai has shepards thoughts and feelings still is mostly human besides being synthetic but he or she has all that power and their is still more then enough potential for that power to corrupt the ai

[MegaSovereign]

Off-topic...But I noticed something

The same people who are saying a conventional victory against the Reapers should be possible are also saying seizing Control of the Reapers is like playing God. So you can't be God, but you can defeat him?

The double-standards have to stop if you guys want me to take your arguments seriously.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 02 juillet 2012 - 03:42 .

[Eire Icon]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

]The galaxy agreed to fight the reapers or die trying, no one agreed to be sacrificed, to control the reapers, or to co-exist with them.

So your logic is - "If one of us has to die, all of us have to die"

Modifié par Eire Icon, 02 juillet 2012 - 03:45 .

[Clayless]

What always confuses me is that some people don't want to choose "Kill Geth and EDI and stop the Reapers" but will gladly choose "Kill Geth and EDI and every other being in galactic society to let the Reapers win".

The logic behind that confuses me.

[LiarasShield]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Off-topic...But I noticed something

The same people who are saying a conventional victory against the Reapers should be possible are also saying seizing Control of the Reapers is like playing God. So you can't be God, but you can defeat him?

The double-standards have to stop if you guys want me to take your arguments seriously.

Actually yeah if we spent more time making canies and thanix cannons instead making a unknown potentially reaper device that we have no true idea of what it would do at the time but we know it failed before to try to use against the reapers yeah I do think we could beat them and it has nothing to do with double standards


And It seems you forget that shepard was human and that the new ai explicity explains how shepards thoughts and feelings have been set free or awakened within it their is still a chance of corruption from all that power


Merging life together against their will is wrong


Killing your own forces to kill the reapers is wrong and yes despite what you think refuse is still the best moral choice out of all these options because we go down fighting for freedom not altering people not messing with power beyond our comprehension not personally killing my own forces to kill the reapers

[Reorte]

Reject only makes sense if you think the allied forces stand a hope in hell of anything other than being wiped out and that the Crucible could possibly make things even worse (hard to imagine how that's possible but there's always Synthesis for that).

[MegaSovereign]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

What always confuses me is that some people don't want to choose "Kill Geth and EDI and stop the Reapers" but will gladly choose "Kill Geth and EDI and every other being in galactic society to let the Reapers win".

The logic behind that confuses me.

Not only that.

Being killed by the Crucible is quick and painless compared to being harvested.

[jsadalia]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

The galaxy agreed to fight the reapers or die trying, no one agreed to be sacrificed, to control the reapers, or to co-exist with them. So were not submitting to anything, by refusing we continue to fight the reapers. 

The peoples of the galaxy fought the reapers so they would have a chance at survival. Sacrificing that chance at survival for nothing more than the chance to continue to fight (and lose) against the reapers doesn't make a lot of sense. It's really just an exceptionally vast murder-suicide.

[The Angry One]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

What always confuses me is that some people don't want to choose "Kill Geth and EDI and stop the Reapers" but will gladly choose "Kill Geth and EDI and every other being in galactic society to let the Reapers win".

The logic behind that confuses me.

There you go meta-gaming.

But to answer your point, *we're* not killing anyone. The Catalyst is. You know, the genocidal monster we're fighting.

[NoUserNameHere]

I'd say destroy is a viable option, Starchild or no. You already know that's what the Crucible is supposed to do -- it's just fumbilingly inaccurate.

[humes spork]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

What always confuses me is that some people don't want to choose "Kill Geth and EDI and stop the Reapers" but will gladly choose "Kill Geth and EDI and every other being in galactic society to let the Reapers win".

The logic behind that confuses me.

Artistic ethical integrity. Because space magic comes and takes away culpability in an instance in which inaction leads to extinction, and makes everyone happy they're dying for artistry morality instead of just being eaten by Reapers and pooped into a new, immortal, giant robot form.

Modifié par humes spork, 02 juillet 2012 - 03:48 .

[Reorte]

The Angry One wrote...

But to answer your point, *we're* not killing anyone. The Catalyst is. You know, the genocidal monster we're fighting.

You're not killing anyone if you see them drowning in a river in front of you but instead of throwing them the life belt that's right next to you you stand there and watch them. Or if you act to stop life-saving drugs from reaching someone.

Modifié par Reorte, 02 juillet 2012 - 03:49 .

[MegaSovereign]

LiarasShield wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Off-topic...But I noticed something

The same people who are saying a conventional victory against the Reapers should be possible are also saying seizing Control of the Reapers is like playing God. So you can't be God, but you can defeat him?

The double-standards have to stop if you guys want me to take your arguments seriously.

Actually yeah if we spent more time making canies and thanix cannons instead making a unknown potentially reaper device that we have no true idea of what it would do at the time but we know it failed before to try to use against the reapers yeah I do think we could beat them and it has nothing to do with double standards


And It seems you forget that shepard was human and that the new ai explicity explains how shepards thoughts and feelings have been set free or awakened within it their is still a chance of corruption from all that power


Merging life together against their will is wrong


Killing your own forces to kill the reapers is wrong and yes despite what you think refuse is still the best moral choice out of all these options because we go down fighting for freedom not altering people not messing with power beyond our comprehension not personally killing my own forces to kill the reapers

The Council didn't even acknowledge the Reaper threat until they were RIGHT AT THEIR DOOR STEPS.

It's simply impossible to upgrade every Alliance/Council/Citadel vessel with Thannix Cannons (nevermind how they're going to produce an infinite amount of them) when the Reapers were literally months away from invading at the end of ME2.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 02 juillet 2012 - 03:49 .

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Eire Icon wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

]The galaxy agreed to fight the reapers or die trying, no one agreed to be sacrificed, to control the reapers, or to co-exist with them.

So your logic is - "If one of us has to die, all of us have to die"

No my logic is that I won't sacrifice my humanity and commit a war crime by sacrificing a whole species of about 1.5 billion who agreed to help me to win the war, If im going to win, its going to be on my terms. And unless you metagame, how would you know that destroy won't kill anybody with synthetic implants, the quarians suits, etc.

[Clayless]

The Angry One wrote...

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

What always confuses me is that some people don't want to choose "Kill Geth and EDI and stop the Reapers" but will gladly choose "Kill Geth and EDI and every other being in galactic society to let the Reapers win".

The logic behind that confuses me.

There you go meta-gaming.

But to answer your point, *we're* not killing anyone. The Catalyst is. You know, the genocidal monster we're fighting.

Knowingly allowing him to continue, when you had a chance to stop him, is almost as bad as being him.

[The Angry One]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

What always confuses me is that some people don't want to choose "Kill Geth and EDI and stop the Reapers" but will gladly choose "Kill Geth and EDI and every other being in galactic society to let the Reapers win".

The logic behind that confuses me.

There you go meta-gaming.

But to answer your point, *we're* not killing anyone. The Catalyst is. You know, the genocidal monster we're fighting.

Knowingly allowing him to continue, when you had a chance to stop him, is almost as bad as being him.

Versus doing it's bidding and trusting that what the enemy is said is factual?

[MegaSovereign]

"I will die knowing I did everything I could to stop you"

Except use the only weapon you've been preparing the entire game.

[LiarasShield]

Better to die for freedom then alter people kill other people or mess with power that we were either never ment to have or power that is beyond our comprehension and yes you can still die pretty quick if you take a direct reaper beam to the body

[Khajiit Jzargo]

jsadalia wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

The galaxy agreed to fight the reapers or die trying, no one agreed to be sacrificed, to control the reapers, or to co-exist with them. So were not submitting to anything, by refusing we continue to fight the reapers. 

The peoples of the galaxy fought the reapers so they would have a chance at survival. Sacrificing that chance at survival for nothing more than the chance to continue to fight (and lose) against the reapers doesn't make a lot of sense. It's really just an exceptionally vast murder-suicide.

So basically you rather submit to the catalyst genocidal options instead of taking you chance and fight, is submission not prefferable to extinction? I see you made your chouce, i rather die fighting.

[Reorte]

LiarasShield wrote...

Better to die for freedom then alter people kill other people or mess with power that we were either never ment to have or power that is beyond our comprehension and yes you can still die pretty quick if you take a direct reaper beam to the body

Best to pick the choice that has the least bad impact on everyone else. Letting everyone get murdered on principle is just sick.

[Eire Icon]

LiarasShield wrote...

Merging life together against their will is wrong

What about killing entire races against their will - is that not wrong also ?

LiarasShield wrote...
Killing your own forces to kill the reapers is wrong and yes despite what you think refuse is still the best moral choice out of all these options because we go down fighting for freedom not altering people not messing with power beyond our comprehension not personally killing my own forces to kill the reapers

Its called collatoral damage. Yes its not a pleasant choice, but you're talking as if not making a choice will somehow save them. It won't.