1300 réponses à ce sujet

[Ridwan]

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

M25105 wrote...

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

Does anyone even bother reading what I post?

M25105:

The line of reasoning I'm seeing from you is that Reapers can't be forgiven because they're machines who are designed to perform monstrous acts. This may be a valid point. However, what do you believe is the "forgiveness threshold?" Does Shepard's actions during Arrival pass that threshold?

What I'm seeing on BSN is a whole lot of sweeping generalizations, false analogies, binary logic, and association fallacies/Godwin's law. This is coming from people in all camps, and it's getting rather irritating. Admittedly, even I'm guilty of these fallacies, but the extent of the hostilities on this forum is rather mindbloggling. I've only been here for 4 days, and the environment is just so hostile.

I have 0 zero clue about Arrival as I never played the DLC. From my understanding Shepard had to blow up a relay to prevent the Reapers from coming in much earlier, is that right?

Also if you can fill me on the basics (short and basic) about the arrival DLC and if there was any options then I'll try to answer to the best of my abilities.

A relay was blown up that would've slaughtered 300,000 batarians, but it also delayed the arrival of the reapers by a few months. As a renegade, you can use the comm channel to radio the Normandy immediately. As a paragon, you will attempt to warn the batarians about what's going to happen, but that did work.

I'd say that after the Reaper threat has ended he should be tried by the Batarians. They should decide what will happen to him.

That's how I see it.

Edit: Removed the pointless stuff where I just repeat myself.

Modifié par M25105, 03 juillet 2012 - 08:41 .

[wantedman dan]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Or you live to redeem yourself in the future when you see the chance to pay for what you did during the war, which is exactly what the person I knew did.

With the thought always sticking in the back of your mind... "What if..."

Nothing like a good ol' asterisk in the personal history books.

[Xilizhra]

I'd say that after the Reaper threat has ended he should be tried by the Batarians. They should decide what will happen to him. And while I'm sure many of them want Shepard dead for being responsible for their death. Yeah it sucks, you save the galaxy and then you gotta stand on trial.

Um, there's nothing to put her on trial with. The Batarian Hegemony has been obliterated.

[Siansonea]

Xilizhra wrote...

No it isn't. Your children won't be human. You're not human anymore. Humanity is extinct. That's not a problem? THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU.

There are many things wrong with me, but I think this is just me being logical. No individuals are dying, and humanity's nature can change into something better. Humans are grossly suboptimal, as are all other forms of sapient life in ME.
(Also, my Shepard was never going to have human children anyway.)

Ah yes, "logic". I guess the "logic" that you've eradicated humanity and replaced it with an "upgraded" version sounds really good to you. I hope you aren't a scientist. I don't like your logic. I don't want your "logic" dictating MY future and my choices. You imposing your "logic" on all life in the galaxy just shows how much you think of yourself, and how little you think of the rights of others.

[Welsh Inferno]

ghost9191 wrote...

rewriting their dna changes what they were, the species like say asari is no more. they may look it but they are changed, that is destroying a ethnic or racial group which is genocide.   turning everyone into the same thing by altering their dna means they are no longer what they use to be

Oh dear. Do you realise how many times over the course of our billions of years existance we have changed completely? I mean really. Humanity is so afraid of change it is unreal.

[v TricKy v]

Welsh Inferno wrote...

M25105 wrote...

The only reason why they even did that was cause the Quarians blew up their little sphere were they were all uploaded. Basically them joining the Geth, was their retard moment, since the Quarians made them dumb.

Right. And the only reason they would blow Shepard's head off would be because he would be about to kill them all. Survival takes preference for them. End of.

That comes from Legion after destroying the Collector Base

"An interesting choice Shepard, you were given the chance at having everything the geth aspire to; unity, transcendence. You rejected it, you even rejected using the old machines gifts to aquire a future on your own terms. You are more like geth than we thought."

[RadicalDisconnect]

M25105 wrote...

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

M25105 wrote...

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

Does anyone even bother reading what I post?

M25105:

The line of reasoning I'm seeing from you is that Reapers can't be forgiven because they're machines who are designed to perform monstrous acts. This may be a valid point. However, what do you believe is the "forgiveness threshold?" Does Shepard's actions during Arrival pass that threshold?

What I'm seeing on BSN is a whole lot of sweeping generalizations, false analogies, binary logic, and association fallacies/Godwin's law. This is coming from people in all camps, and it's getting rather irritating. Admittedly, even I'm guilty of these fallacies, but the extent of the hostilities on this forum is rather mindbloggling. I've only been here for 4 days, and the environment is just so hostile.

I have 0 zero clue about Arrival as I never played the DLC. From my understanding Shepard had to blow up a relay to prevent the Reapers from coming in much earlier, is that right?

Also if you can fill me on the basics (short and basic) about the arrival DLC and if there was any options then I'll try to answer to the best of my abilities.

A relay was blown up that would've slaughtered 300,000 batarians, but it also delayed the arrival of the reapers by a few months. As a renegade, you can use the comm channel to radio the Normandy immediately. As a paragon, you will attempt to warn the batarians about what's going to happen, but that did work.

Alright, I'll make it short. Shepard did the right thing, but his action also caused the death of those who couldn't decide whether to flee or not (children), so while looking at the big picture Shepard's action was the right thing to do, he still has to answer for those that died because of his choice.

I'd say that after the Reaper threat has ended he should be tried by the Batarians. They should decide what will happen to him. And while I'm sure many of them want Shepard dead for being responsible for their death. Yeah it sucks, you save the galaxy and then you gotta stand on trial.

That's how I see it.

Slight correction, I meant that the paragon warning did not work.

[Siansonea]

Welsh Inferno wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

I love how doggedly people refuse to see the ethical problems with Synthesis, just because "it turned out so nice for everyone!" All life is irreversibly engineered to become something else entirely, and that's okay, because look how HAPPY everyone is! Reapers and krogan, dancing on the beach, collecting seashells, braiding each others' hair. GAG.

Seriously, it's absurd, and you should all take a good long look at yourselves. The end really does justify the means for you, I guess. PLEASE never pursue a position of any kind of leadership in society. Thanks.

I'm willing to accept Control as a viable alternative, though it's a hell of a burden to place on yourself, ensuring that you never get out of hand in the same way the previous Catalyst did.

If destroy is genocide of one "species" then Synthesis is a mass
genocide of the entire galaxy. It's killing who we are and changing us
to something we're not.

This change isn't death.

It IS death, of our genetic code. What we were has been co-opted and used as raw material for something else, something Synthesized. What we are after Synthesis isn't ****** sapiens, it's ****** sapiens synthesiensis. ****** sapiens is now extinct. 

Worthy of note, but no individuals are dead. Altered, but not dead. There's a continuance of cognitive function, and that's what matters.

No it isn't. Your children won't be human. You're not human anymore. Humanity is extinct. That's not a problem? THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU.

In a billion years humanity won't exist anyway. Our entire galaxy is but a spec of dust in comparison to the entire universe. Who else would give a damn. I'd rather make the most of what we can, as soon as we can.

Besides that point, we are still human. Humans enhanced by synthetic tech. Woopdy doo.

Humanity's extinction, if it comes about naturally, is one thing. Humanity's extinction at the hands of a single individual is quite another. If "we're all going to go extinct anyway" is your gambit, well, you can use that to excuse ANYTHING. Why not blow up that group of people over there who have what we want? We're all going to go extinct anyway. Ugh. Freakin' psycopaths on the Internet...

[ghost9191]

Welsh Inferno wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

rewriting their dna changes what they were, the species like say asari is no more. they may look it but they are changed, that is destroying a ethnic or racial group which is genocide.   turning everyone into the same thing by altering their dna means they are no longer what they use to be

Oh dear. Do you realise how many times over the course of our billions of years existance we have changed completely? I mean really. Humanity is so afraid of change it is unreal.

that is natural, what you do with synthesis is not, and all at once.   say what you will yokel;)    my argument makes more sense then synthesis at least

thats like saying he was dyiing anyways so i killed him.    they were going to evolve so i forced a change on that that turned them into something completely different.    adapting is one thing , but you completley rewrite the dna in sythesis

Modifié par ghost9191, 03 juillet 2012 - 08:45 .

[Ridwan]

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

M25105 wrote...

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

M25105 wrote...

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

Does anyone even bother reading what I post?

M25105:

The line of reasoning I'm seeing from you is that Reapers can't be forgiven because they're machines who are designed to perform monstrous acts. This may be a valid point. However, what do you believe is the "forgiveness threshold?" Does Shepard's actions during Arrival pass that threshold?

What I'm seeing on BSN is a whole lot of sweeping generalizations, false analogies, binary logic, and association fallacies/Godwin's law. This is coming from people in all camps, and it's getting rather irritating. Admittedly, even I'm guilty of these fallacies, but the extent of the hostilities on this forum is rather mindbloggling. I've only been here for 4 days, and the environment is just so hostile.

I have 0 zero clue about Arrival as I never played the DLC. From my understanding Shepard had to blow up a relay to prevent the Reapers from coming in much earlier, is that right?

Also if you can fill me on the basics (short and basic) about the arrival DLC and if there was any options then I'll try to answer to the best of my abilities.

A relay was blown up that would've slaughtered 300,000 batarians, but it also delayed the arrival of the reapers by a few months. As a renegade, you can use the comm channel to radio the Normandy immediately. As a paragon, you will attempt to warn the batarians about what's going to happen, but that did work.

Alright, I'll make it short. Shepard did the right thing, but his action also caused the death of those who couldn't decide whether to flee or not (children), so while looking at the big picture Shepard's action was the right thing to do, he still has to answer for those that died because of his choice.

I'd say that after the Reaper threat has ended he should be tried by the Batarians. They should decide what will happen to him. And while I'm sure many of them want Shepard dead for being responsible for their death. Yeah it sucks, you save the galaxy and then you gotta stand on trial.

That's how I see it.

Slight correction, I meant that the paragon warning did not work.

He should still stand trial. He can handle himself and the Batarians would do themselves no favour politically. But in the end, they should decide his fate.

Modifié par M25105, 03 juillet 2012 - 08:45 .

[The Heretic of Time]

wantedman dan wrote...

This is not an apples/oranges comparison you're making... Are you seriously equating the supposed petty crimes you're attempting to tell us this German SS soldier is only guilty of with genocide on a galactic scale over the course of a billion years?

Equating? No. But there is a parralel.

I'm a forgiving person. I believe everyone deserves redemption, even the reapers.

Besides, why kill the Reapers when they can be so much more useful alive (in both control and synthesis)? I'd say instead of killing the reapers, use them for labor and acces to advanced and ancient knowledge. Let them redeem themselves by working for us for the next 50.000 years. I think that would be a good start.

[MrDavid]

While Control definitely appeals to me (very few negatives), let me explain why I picked Synthesis.
I don't see Synthesis as rewriting both organics and synthetics into one universal form of life. The way I see it, all it does is advance organics and synthetics towards goals that they were working towards anyways. Organics seek perfection. Synthetics seek understanding. With Synthesis, Organics are "improved"; I assume they are able to share thoughts and information (something we already do, only with words and body language). Synthetics are granted a larger perspective, something all synthetics appear to work towards. I don't see why Synthetics wouldn't want this so the debate for me is whether or not organics can take the next step (according to the Catalyst. We are ready). I consider how the Mass Relays drastically changed how organics live, and how almost all of these things are positive. I think Synthesis is a logical choice but that's just me. I don't expect you to agree with me.

[Xilizhra]

Siansonea II wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

No it isn't. Your children won't be human. You're not human anymore. Humanity is extinct. That's not a problem? THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU.

There are many things wrong with me, but I think this is just me being logical. No individuals are dying, and humanity's nature can change into something better. Humans are grossly suboptimal, as are all other forms of sapient life in ME.
(Also, my Shepard was never going to have human children anyway.)

Ah yes, "logic". I guess the "logic" that you've eradicated humanity and replaced it with an "upgraded" version sounds really good to you. I hope you aren't a scientist. I don't like your logic. I don't want your "logic" dictating MY future and my choices. You imposing your "logic" on all life in the galaxy just shows how much you think of yourself, and how little you think of the rights of others.

So what you're saying is that you wouldn't be willing to have your DNA realigned to save billions of lives?

[translationninja]

ghost9191 wrote...

translationninja wrote...

Welsh Inferno wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

translationninja wrote...

I have come to the conclusion that people who want to hate synthesis will simply shut their mind to the realization that genocide is more unacceptable than forced change.

No rational argument in the world will make a change there.

What me changed against my will? Nuh uh!!! Go kill a trillion other sentient beings instead!!!!

 a billion. and google genocide,    synthesis destroy what the races once was in order to make a new one. that right there is genocide

I love what this thread has turned into.

mmmmkay, I guess for ghost having a different skin color and more knowledge in your head equals being dead... can't even argue with that it's so out there...

rewriting their dna changes what they were, the species like say asari is no more. they may look it but they are changed, that is destroying a ethnic or racial group which is genocide.   turning everyone into the same thing by altering their dna means they are no longer what they use to be

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you but you are really wrong. Take GMOs for example, a genetically modified tomato is still a tomato. It doesn't stop being a tomato because it now has a peanut gene fused into its genome. Of course you can call it peanato because you choose to believe it's not a tomato anymore, however, for all intents and purposes it is still a tomato.

[Welsh Inferno]

v TricKy v wrote...

That comes from Legion after destroying the Collector Base

"An interesting choice Shepard, you were given the chance at having everything the geth aspire to; unity, transcendence. You rejected it, you even rejected using the old machines gifts to aquire a future on your own terms. You are more like geth than we thought."

And? 

You are bat s*** crazy if you really think the Geth would pick Refuse or Destroy.

[wantedman dan]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Equating? No. But there is a parralel.

I'm a forgiving person. I believe everyone deserves redemption, even the reapers.

Besides, why kill the Reapers when they can be so much more useful alive (in both control and synthesis)? I'd say instead of killing the reapers, use them for labor and acces to advanced and ancient knowledge. Let them redeem themselves by working for us for the next 50.000 years. I think that would be a good start.

...So you answer genocide with slavery.

Exchanging one war crime for another does not an argument make.

[ghost9191]

MrDavid wrote...

While Control definitely appeals to me (very few negatives), let me explain why I picked Synthesis.
I don't see Synthesis as rewriting both organics and synthetics into one universal form of life. The way I see it, all it does is advance organics and synthetics towards goals that they were working towards anyways. Organics seek perfection. Synthetics seek understanding. With Synthesis, Organics are "improved"; I assume they are able to share thoughts and information (something we already do, only with words and body language). Synthetics are granted a larger perspective, something all synthetics appear to work towards. I don't see why Synthetics wouldn't want this so the debate for me is whether or not organics can take the next step (according to the Catalyst. We are ready). I consider how the Mass Relays drastically changed how organics live, and how almost all of these things are positive. I think Synthesis is a logical choice but that's just me. I don't expect you to agree with me.

that is undestandable, but that is why i like destroy, and gives the races the chance to find their own path to that end rather then have it given to them

[Codename_Code]

Melting your flesh and bones into galactic goo to make a reaper is Synthesis. The Synthesis portrayed in the ending, product of a beam of light that magically gives implants, is incoherent with the mass effect themes.

Unless you don't care about some space magic in the narrative coherence of your space opera.

[The Heretic of Time]

wantedman dan wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Or you live to redeem yourself in the future when you see the chance to pay for what you did during the war, which is exactly what the person I knew did.

With the thought always sticking in the back of your mind... "What if..."

Nothing like a good ol' asterisk in the personal history books.

Well yeah, he did eventually become depressed and ended up in a mental hospital where he spend a couple of months of his life. Eventually he went back home, but he kept visiting his therapist on a regular basis. On advice of the therapist, he wrote a book about his life and his service in the German SS army. After that he became a painter and sold his paintings to make a living.

[Irish286]

Because its nonsense. I can see how Destroy or control would work but not synthesis.

[ghost9191]

translationninja wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

translationninja wrote...

Welsh Inferno wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

translationninja wrote...

I have come to the conclusion that people who want to hate synthesis will simply shut their mind to the realization that genocide is more unacceptable than forced change.

No rational argument in the world will make a change there.

What me changed against my will? Nuh uh!!! Go kill a trillion other sentient beings instead!!!!

 a billion. and google genocide,    synthesis destroy what the races once was in order to make a new one. that right there is genocide

I love what this thread has turned into.

mmmmkay, I guess for ghost having a different skin color and more knowledge in your head equals being dead... can't even argue with that it's so out there...

rewriting their dna changes what they were, the species like say asari is no more. they may look it but they are changed, that is destroying a ethnic or racial group which is genocide.   turning everyone into the same thing by altering their dna means they are no longer what they use to be

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you but you are really wrong. Take GMOs for example, a genetically modified tomato is still a tomato. It doesn't stop being a tomato because it now has a peanut gene fused into its genome. Of course you can call it peanato because you choose to believe it's not a tomato anymore, however, for all intents and purposes it is still a tomato.

u don't just add to it,  you rewrite it, change everyones dna to make them the same. i am just saying what the catalyst pretty much said, you do destroy that racial and ethnic group and in doing so genocide.

and as i said my argument makes as much sense as synthesis. except mine is a little bit true

Modifié par ghost9191, 03 juillet 2012 - 08:49 .

[Welsh Inferno]

Siansonea II wrote...

Humanity's extinction, if it comes about naturally, is one thing. Humanity's extinction at the hands of a single individual is quite another. If "we're all going to go extinct anyway" is your gambit, well, you can use that to excuse ANYTHING. Why not blow up that group of people over there who have what we want? We're all going to go extinct anyway. Ugh. Freakin' psycopaths on the Internet...

No. My gambit being I'd rather we make the most of ourselves while we can & as quick as we can. Not that you cannot do that in other endings, but hey, things will move a lot faster towards... well... things we cannot hope to comprehend really. 

[The Heretic of Time]

wantedman dan wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Equating? No. But there is a parralel.

I'm a forgiving person. I believe everyone deserves redemption, even the reapers.

Besides, why kill the Reapers when they can be so much more useful alive (in both control and synthesis)? I'd say instead of killing the reapers, use them for labor and acces to advanced and ancient knowledge. Let them redeem themselves by working for us for the next 50.000 years. I think that would be a good start.

...So you answer genocide with slavery.

Exchanging one war crime for another does not an argument make.

*sigh* Do you deliberatly misrepresent my argument (e.g. a strawman argument) just to bully me? Just because you don't like me? Or what?

I didn't say anything about slavery.


PS: Presenting strawmen is also a logical fallacy, something you probably already knew. Just saying.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 03 juillet 2012 - 08:50 .

[nwntask]

Paradox6006 wrote...

 Title

because...
1. Deprives every living soul's the right to choose their transformation.
2. By not destroying the reapers you justify their existence and the means of their creation in the first place.
3. The implination that for everyone to co exist ,we must all be of one race or species is the easy way out. The real ethical challenge is to do so, regardless our genetic diferrences.

[vallore]

Xilizhra wrote...
What sort of person wouldn't be willing to accept a few bodily modifications to save a whole race?

Sorry to barge in, but I would like to point that is very much dependent of the nature of the modification. It is one thing to incorporate a mild cosmetic modification, (the one we actually know of), and another a modification with more deep impact on, say, the personality of the modified person. We don’t know how synthesis works, exactly, to stop the supposed war.

Your inability to accept the potential of the Reapers being redeemed saddens me.

But are they truly redeemed?

I wonder what the reapers would do if a group of organics decided that they don’t want to participate into this new reality produced by synthesis. Now let’s assume that this group discovered a way of reverting synthesis, so that anyone that doesn’t like it could revert to their original state. Would they allow it, or would they destroy them?

Personally, I don’t think synthesis redeemed them; I bet they remain at their core the same old evil. They simply don’t have their old reason to perform their monstrous acts: they won.