463 réponses à ce sujet

[Rasofe]

Boneyaards wrote...

But literally speaking, the fire is not at war with you and it is not seeking conflict. It is simply being used as a tool to instigate conflict. A fire has no conscience and cannot dictate who or what it destroys. But, as organic beings who possess advanced thought-process, we are able to harness fire and use it for OUR war and strife. Fire has an unpredictable and destructive nature. 

When you see a human who is a serial killer, there is a chance that you can stop his homicidal nature. Whether that be through torture, punishment, or psychological alterations. You cannot simply tell a fire just to stop destroying things. It does not listen, because it has no mind. It simply destroys because that is exactly what it was created to do. (Fortunately for us humans, we have harnessed the power of fire to a point where it actually can help us.) If we want a fire to stop obliterating anything in it's path, we have to destroy it. 

So regarding your examples in a more general sense, bombs that are dropped on innocent civilians do not seek war, or conflict. The bomb does not have a though-process before it is dropped that says "HEY! I am a bomb, and I want to incinerate all these civilians in the hopes that an all-out-war breaks loose." It is simply created to destroy, and has no other purpose. It is us, the humans, that seek war and use bombs, fire, weapons, etc.. as tools to help us carry out our thirst for blood.

Good god, have you actually seen the Extended Cut endings?

[jakal66]

I believe he says this when refering to the reapers not the catalyst(himself) they just do what they were programmed to, they can't resolve this in a different way.The analogy refers to the idea that fire itself has not motive to kill or burn it just does, sometimes by the hand of another.As in If humans can use fire as a weapon, is fire responsible? I think that's what it is talking about. That nuclear screen shot is just stupid, it's not fire's fault it's human nature who is at fault.

So I beleive he says they are his sloution and they must obey him, they were created for that purpose, they don't want to fight them, they are forced to because they must reap organics and those who resist will have to be reaped too by any means possible.They have no personal stake here.Theyt are just following commands.I believe the analogy is not that far off.

Modifié par jakal66, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:23 .

[warlock22]

Olaf_de_IJsbeer wrote...

The Catalyst is so blatantly bat**** insane that, in my opinion, there are no other options but to Destroy his ass or to pick Refusal.

This^

[NM_Che56]

When bacon burns, I cry. U ruined the bacon.

As for what the ME writers intended all along (individuals or avatars of the catalyst), we can only speculate, but I'll conceede that it's possible that the catalyst was created for ME3 and the writers fortunately avoided painting themselves into a corner on the matter.

[sth128]

Raging Nug wrote...

sth128 wrote...

Rasofe wrote...

When War Burns, is It on Fire?

When bacon burns, it is on fire... And the cycle of om nom nom must continue.

Bacon is not a thing you can comprehend.

[NM_Che56]

The catalyst: he's a f'd up AI with some flawed logic. Problem is that his creators made him too powerful so he's able to impose his nonsense on us. He doesnt have to be right to be deadly.

[NM_Che56]

Bacon wrapped turkey?!

It's...glorious

[Uncle Jo]

That was the highlight of the EC. I lol'd hard. Either the Catalyst is completely stupid or lying...

[sth128]

To continue the cycle of thread destruction...

[Forbry]

Most of it is philosophy... you can always keep debating about that.
In the end, there are no definite answers. In the end, you will always know nóthing.
Based on facts in the game, people can only try to find out which view Bioware's wanted to portray and if you like that view or don't or if you agree with that view or don't.

[Tirranek]

When fire burns, pineapple?

[incinerator950]

Actually, the court of Fire decreed eons ago that we will not be at war with the lesser races for another fifteen thousand years.

[Uncle Jo]

Master Che wrote...

When bacon burns, I cry. U ruined the bacon.

As for what the ME writers intended all along (individuals or avatars of the catalyst), we can only speculate, but I'll conceede that it's possible that the catalyst was created for ME3 and the writers fortunately avoided painting themselves into a corner on the matter.

Sovereign and Harbinger say Hi.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 02 juillet 2012 - 10:05 .

[Heeden]

sth128 wrote...

Or is it simply doing what it was created to do?

So if I set fire to your house, it's not war, it's not conflict. It is simply doing what it was created to do.

When bombs exploded over London in WW2, it was not war, it was not conflict. The bombs were simply doing what they were created to do.



^ Not war (from Catalyst's view).

Natural fire has no mind. Natural fire does not select to burn some but not others. Natural fire does not choose to come back at specific times. Likening the Reapers to fire is a depravity that distorts the very fabric of ethical meaning.

What is the difference between the cultural and ethnic genocide wiping out the entire galaxy and the cultural and ethnic genocide going on in parts of the world? Can we also justify away those killings as "cleansing fire restoring the balance"?

So if your house was set on fire, you would blame the fire not the person who set it on fire?

If your city is bombed, do you blame the bomb?

It makes more sense to blame the person who dropped the bombs but would you rather continue the cycle of violence or try to adress the situation that caused them to believe bomb dropping was necessary?

[kyban]

I support your post sir. +1

[kyban]

Heeden wrote...

sth128 wrote...

Or is it simply doing what it was created to do?

So if I set fire to your house, it's not war, it's not conflict. It is simply doing what it was created to do.

When bombs exploded over London in WW2, it was not war, it was not conflict. The bombs were simply doing what they were created to do.



^ Not war (from Catalyst's view).

Natural fire has no mind. Natural fire does not select to burn some but not others. Natural fire does not choose to come back at specific times. Likening the Reapers to fire is a depravity that distorts the very fabric of ethical meaning.

What is the difference between the cultural and ethnic genocide wiping out the entire galaxy and the cultural and ethnic genocide going on in parts of the world? Can we also justify away those killings as "cleansing fire restoring the balance"?

So if your house was set on fire, you would blame the fire not the person who set it on fire?

If your city is bombed, do you blame the bomb?

It makes more sense to blame the person who dropped the bombs but would you rather continue the cycle of violence or try to adress the situation that caused them to believe bomb dropping was necessary?

I think that's more or less what the OP is getting at. Should we then be mad at the catalyst? From this perspective he certainly seems like the villain.
As for the reapers "being the fire that was told where to burn" I don't buy that line, because according to Sovereign "You will end because WE demand it." He sure didn't sound like a worker bee incapable if independant thought.

[mauro2222]

Tirranek wrote...

Has anyone every had war declared on them BY fire itself?

It's raping my brother and killing my dog in this very moment.

[incinerator950]

mauro2222 wrote...

Tirranek wrote...

Has anyone every had war declared on them BY fire itself?

It's raping my brother and killing my dog in this very moment.

No it isn't.

[Raging Nug]

Rasofe wrote...
The Catalyst itself fails to accomplish its task by continuing the Reaper Invasion despite the obvious fact that doing so will cost whole cycles of life. If it was so calculating that it is willing to sacrifice one cycle, why doesn't it retreat, wait untill those synthetics do rise up against their masters,  then return back and clean up the mess again while the two sides are at war with each other, divided and conquerable?

Sacrifice the cycle? I don't think that's how it works. Just because they're resisting doesn't mean the entire cycle would need to die. The protheans fought too, but they were still harvested. Similarly, even if the cycle resists, it's military is eventually conquered and then the civilian population is modified.

[Asharad Hett]

spiriticon wrote...

Has no one heard the saying, "It's not guns that kill, it's people."?

  And reapers

[Xilizhra]

What is the difference between the cultural and ethnic genocide wiping out the entire galaxy and the cultural and ethnic genocide going on in parts of the world? Can we also justify away those killings as "cleansing fire restoring the balance"?

If you're talking about Synthesis, I think it's because Synthesis does not, in fact, kill or deport anyone. Those are kind of required for "genocide" to exist.

[Asharad Hett]

Xilizhra wrote...

What is the difference between the cultural and ethnic genocide wiping out the entire galaxy and the cultural and ethnic genocide going on in parts of the world? Can we also justify away those killings as "cleansing fire restoring the balance"?

If you're talking about Synthesis, I think it's because Synthesis does not, in fact, kill or deport anyone. Those are kind of required for "genocide" to exist.

I think he was talking about Starkid and Reapers.

[The Smitchens]

Anyone else feel like this is something that can be solved by just reading things? I mean... it was an analogy. It made sense. By now I just get the feeling people are still bitter and just nitpicking every last little thing.

[sth128]

Is it just me or are we seeing a new cycle of the same arguments? It's the same quotes over and over.

Didn't I declare a while back that this thread is now about sexual euphemisms and bacon?

I am the Catalyst! You will obey! Now say something about sexy bacon!

[Dusen]

sth128 wrote...

Is it just me or are we seeing a new cycle of the same arguments? It's the same quotes over and over.

Didn't I declare a while back that this thread is now about sexual euphemisms and bacon?

I am the Catalyst! You will obey! Now say something about sexy bacon!

You aren't the Catalyst. . . your arguments make too much sense.

That being said it seems like the Catalyst in-game side-stepped Shepard's question in order to argue semantics. It really doesn't matter whether the Reapers were at "war" or whether they thought they were just gardening, no, the real question is why the Catalyst thought it would be better to kill organics to save them from being killed by their own created synthetics vs just fighting the created synthetics.