1300 réponses à ce sujet

[Siansonea]

translationninja wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

If that is what you truly believe, then my previous assessment stands. THERE IS SOMETHING SERIOUSLY WRONG WITH YOU. By that reasoning, you can justify ANYTHING, as long as you 'like' the end result. Again, do not pursue a career in government or science.

Not quite. Only the best means are justified, but I see no other means to accomplish this. I could, theoretically, accept the possibility of choosing Control now and bringing about Synthesis later after having more time to assess the situation; that's not unreasonable, and if you're uncomfortable with the speed of it all, I could accept your view of that being a better means.

The "speed" of the process is not, and never has been the issue, and if you think THAT is the point I've been trying to make this whole time, well, I think you have a problem understanding "words".

Speed is a rather important factor, because it was preventing people from being able to give consent. With added time, if consent is important to you, you could go around looking for that.

Well, if you are successful at convincing humanity to give up their humanity to become whatever Synthesized humans are, then humanity deserves the sugarcoated extinction of Synthesis. Still doesn't making Synthesis as presented in the game any less abhorrent.

Synthesized humans are.......................humanity..............just.......synthesized.....

That's like saying a strawberry smoothie is still strawberries. Something has been added, something has been lost, and it's not precisely what it once was. And if it's not precisely what it once was, that which it once was is GONE FOREVER.

[Forbry]

Siansonea II wrote...

Forbry wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

everyone is equal in Synthesis

Umm, based on what? I thought that part of the argument is that everyone keeps their identity... Perfect equlity is a fantasy and I'm not sure where you got the idea that synthesis even presented here, gives equlaity. The only thing synthesis really assures is that organics and synthetics cant go to war, since everything now technically is a organic/artificial mix. Other then that, we have no idea what variables change.

Equality doesn´t exclude individuality.

It kind of does. Because, well, math.

And yeah, "everyone's equal now". Oh yeah, THAT'S not an ominous result of Synthesis itself... 

It kind of does not. Because, well, math.

[Siansonea]

Xilizhra wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

If that is what you truly believe, then my previous assessment stands. THERE IS SOMETHING SERIOUSLY WRONG WITH YOU. By that reasoning, you can justify ANYTHING, as long as you 'like' the end result. Again, do not pursue a career in government or science.

Not quite. Only the best means are justified, but I see no other means to accomplish this. I could, theoretically, accept the possibility of choosing Control now and bringing about Synthesis later after having more time to assess the situation; that's not unreasonable, and if you're uncomfortable with the speed of it all, I could accept your view of that being a better means.

The "speed" of the process is not, and never has been the issue, and if you think THAT is the point I've been trying to make this whole time, well, I think you have a problem understanding "words".

Speed is a rather important factor, because it was preventing people from being able to give consent. With added time, if consent is important to you, you could go around looking for that.

Well, if you are successful at convincing humanity to give up their humanity to become whatever Synthesized humans are, then humanity deserves the sugarcoated extinction of Synthesis. Still doesn't making Synthesis as presented in the game any less abhorrent.

To you. But if you're lucky, IT is reality and you can wake up.

You think I support Patrick-Duffy-In-The-Shower as good storytelling, or a desirable alternate to what we have now? Geez, if I hadn't unfriended you already, I certainly would have after that remark. <_<

[wantedman dan]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Right, I'm totally cherry picking... what exactly?

And no, it's not different. After the Germans were conquered they faced the same consequences. They were either locked up, or assigned to communal services, or they got the electric chair.

After being tried in a court of law.

Something you notoriously ignore.

Edit: Sorry, forgot. You're cherrypicking my chastising you for your inane play of the victim card out of the quote.

Modifié par wantedman dan, 03 juillet 2012 - 09:38 .

[Welsh Inferno]

Meltemph wrote...

everyone is equal in Synthesis

Umm, based on what? I thought that part of the argument is that everyone keeps their identity... Perfect equlity is a fantasy and I'm not sure where you got the idea that synthesis even presented here, gives equlaity. The only thing synthesis really assures is that organics and synthetics cant go to war, since everything now technically is a organic/artificial mix. Other then that, we have no idea what variables change.

Everyone is equal in the sense that: We are all are given access to unlimeted knowledge. Everyone can choose what they do with their newfound intelligence. Perhaps an example is better. Nowadays, does a baby born in Africa stand the same chance at life as one born into a rich american family? Why shouldn't that child in Africa be given an equal chance at a good life? Why must proximity be the greatest deciding factor in a person's success. 

Thats one example. Feeling tired so it might not be the best but whatever.

[Forbry]

Siansonea II wrote...

translationninja wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

If that is what you truly believe, then my previous assessment stands. THERE IS SOMETHING SERIOUSLY WRONG WITH YOU. By that reasoning, you can justify ANYTHING, as long as you 'like' the end result. Again, do not pursue a career in government or science.

Not quite. Only the best means are justified, but I see no other means to accomplish this. I could, theoretically, accept the possibility of choosing Control now and bringing about Synthesis later after having more time to assess the situation; that's not unreasonable, and if you're uncomfortable with the speed of it all, I could accept your view of that being a better means.

The "speed" of the process is not, and never has been the issue, and if you think THAT is the point I've been trying to make this whole time, well, I think you have a problem understanding "words".

Speed is a rather important factor, because it was preventing people from being able to give consent. With added time, if consent is important to you, you could go around looking for that.

Well, if you are successful at convincing humanity to give up their humanity to become whatever Synthesized humans are, then humanity deserves the sugarcoated extinction of Synthesis. Still doesn't making Synthesis as presented in the game any less abhorrent.

Synthesized humans are.......................humanity..............just.......synthesized.....

That's like saying a strawberry smoothie is still strawberries. Something has been added, something has been lost, and it's not precisely what it once was. And if it's not precisely what it once was, that which it once was is GONE FOREVER.

No, it´s more like a genetic modified tomato (example given by translationninja if I recall correctl). It still is a tomato.

[Meltemph]

It doesn't solve the problem of organics vs synthetics

It actaully does, technically, since even tree's are parly synthetic. The nature of inorganic material has been changed to include organic material, whatever the **** that means, but ya it happens in this ending. I guess synthetic, could still exist, but its meaning would be something different, I would have to guess.

[Siansonea]

Welsh Inferno wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

everyone is equal in Synthesis

Umm, based on what? I thought that part of the argument is that everyone keeps their identity... Perfect equlity is a fantasy and I'm not sure where you got the idea that synthesis even presented here, gives equlaity. The only thing synthesis really assures is that organics and synthetics cant go to war, since everything now technically is a organic/artificial mix. Other then that, we have no idea what variables change.

Everyone is equal in the sense that: We are all are given access to unlimeted knowledge. Everyone can choose what they do with their newfound intelligence. Perhaps an example is better. Nowadays, does a baby born in Africa stand the same chance at life as one born into a rich american family? Why shouldn't that child in Africa be given an equal chance at a good life? Why must proximity be the greatest deciding factor in a person's success. 

Thats one example. Feeling tired so it might not be the best but whatever.

Why is the answer to "inequality" Synthesis? Why is fundamentally altering the genetic code of African babies and wealthy Americans without their knowledge and consent the answer?

[translationninja]

Siansonea II wrote...

translationninja wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

If that is what you truly believe, then my previous assessment stands. THERE IS SOMETHING SERIOUSLY WRONG WITH YOU. By that reasoning, you can justify ANYTHING, as long as you 'like' the end result. Again, do not pursue a career in government or science.

Not quite. Only the best means are justified, but I see no other means to accomplish this. I could, theoretically, accept the possibility of choosing Control now and bringing about Synthesis later after having more time to assess the situation; that's not unreasonable, and if you're uncomfortable with the speed of it all, I could accept your view of that being a better means.

The "speed" of the process is not, and never has been the issue, and if you think THAT is the point I've been trying to make this whole time, well, I think you have a problem understanding "words".

Speed is a rather important factor, because it was preventing people from being able to give consent. With added time, if consent is important to you, you could go around looking for that.

Well, if you are successful at convincing humanity to give up their humanity to become whatever Synthesized humans are, then humanity deserves the sugarcoated extinction of Synthesis. Still doesn't making Synthesis as presented in the game any less abhorrent.

Synthesized humans are.......................humanity..............just.......synthesized.....

That's like saying a strawberry smoothie is still strawberries. Something has been added, something has been lost, and it's not precisely what it once was. And if it's not precisely what it once was, that which it once was is GONE FOREVER.

That is the very nature of the universe, things come into existence, they exist for a while, and then they are gone forever, the same principle applies from the smallest particle to a galactic scale.

Frankly, it is  the zeal to preserve that contradicts nature, and not the willingness to go with the change.

[Meltemph]

Everyone is equal in the sense that: We are all are given access to unlimeted knowledge. Everyone can choose what they do with their newfound intelligence. Perhaps an example is better. Nowadays, does a baby born in Africa stand the same chance at life as one born into a rich american family? Why shouldn't that child in Africa be given an equal chance at a good life? Why must proximity be the greatest deciding factor in a person's success.

uhh...Why would that change? There is still going to be different cultures and seperate communites, which means they will all progressi n their own way, which will lead to differences in ones progression, which will obviously change the variables of each area. Specializations will still exist, unless the new synthetic components have a forced program that each "person" must follow.

[vallore]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...



Besides, does your crew look different in the synthesis ending, except for that green stuff on their face? Do they behave different? Do they act like zombies? No, they don't. They look the same and they behave the same as in all the other endings. They're still sad over Shepard's death and they still show emotions and friendship towards each other. That's not really zombie-like, is it?

That begs the question: what was changed then that guarantees that the war the catalyst was trying to avoid will not happen? Cosmetic changes and a bit more knowledge won’t cut it. You need some form of qualitative change beyond direct access to extra computing power and an upgraded memory.

[mauro2222]

Meltemph wrote...

It doesn't solve the problem of organics vs synthetics

It actaully does, technically, since even tree's are parly synthetic. The nature of inorganic material has been changed to include organic material, whatever the **** that means, but ya it happens in this ending. I guess synthetic, could still exist, but its meaning would be something different, I would have to guess.

It does not, you still have organics with tech in their bodies, and synthetics with understanding, nothing more. Evolution is going to find this "upgrades" irrelevant and exclude them of future generations, and people is going to create more synthetics. I don't care if that happens, the technological singularity is in the head of the Catalyst, this cycle is proof enough of what the real problem is.

[Welsh Inferno]

Siansonea II wrote...

Why is the answer to "inequality" Synthesis? Why is fundamentally altering the genetic code of African babies and wealthy Americans without their knowledge and consent the answer?

Why do people keep putting words into my mouth? I did not say it was the only answer to inequality... I was simply trying to explain one of the benefits of Synthesis as I was asked.

[Forbry]

Siansonea II wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

If that is what you truly believe, then my previous assessment stands. THERE IS SOMETHING SERIOUSLY WRONG WITH YOU. By that reasoning, you can justify ANYTHING, as long as you 'like' the end result. Again, do not pursue a career in government or science.

Not quite. Only the best means are justified, but I see no other means to accomplish this. I could, theoretically, accept the possibility of choosing Control now and bringing about Synthesis later after having more time to assess the situation; that's not unreasonable, and if you're uncomfortable with the speed of it all, I could accept your view of that being a better means.

The "speed" of the process is not, and never has been the issue, and if you think THAT is the point I've been trying to make this whole time, well, I think you have a problem understanding "words".

Speed is a rather important factor, because it was preventing people from being able to give consent. With added time, if consent is important to you, you could go around looking for that.

Well, if you are successful at convincing humanity to give up their humanity to become whatever Synthesized humans are, then humanity deserves the sugarcoated extinction of Synthesis. Still doesn't making Synthesis as presented in the game any less abhorrent.

To you. But if you're lucky, IT is reality and you can wake up.

You think I support Patrick-Duffy-In-The-Shower as good storytelling, or a desirable alternate to what we have now? Geez, if I hadn't unfriended you already, I certainly would have after that remark. <_<

Is it really necessary to be so offensive in a personal way over and over again?

[Siansonea]

Welsh Inferno wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Why is the answer to "inequality" Synthesis? Why is fundamentally altering the genetic code of African babies and wealthy Americans without their knowledge and consent the answer?

Why do people keep putting words into my mouth? I did not say it was the only answer to inequality... I was simply trying to explain one of the benefits of Synthesis as I was asked.

And who's saying Synthesis doesn't have "benefits"? Genocide has benefits too—you get to take the stuff of the people you kill. "Benefits" is not really the point of the Synthesis question, it's the fact that it is ethically reprehensible, but because it has nice "benefits", people think it's A-OK.

[Siansonea]

Forbry wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

If that is what you truly believe, then my previous assessment stands. THERE IS SOMETHING SERIOUSLY WRONG WITH YOU. By that reasoning, you can justify ANYTHING, as long as you 'like' the end result. Again, do not pursue a career in government or science.

Not quite. Only the best means are justified, but I see no other means to accomplish this. I could, theoretically, accept the possibility of choosing Control now and bringing about Synthesis later after having more time to assess the situation; that's not unreasonable, and if you're uncomfortable with the speed of it all, I could accept your view of that being a better means.

The "speed" of the process is not, and never has been the issue, and if you think THAT is the point I've been trying to make this whole time, well, I think you have a problem understanding "words".

Speed is a rather important factor, because it was preventing people from being able to give consent. With added time, if consent is important to you, you could go around looking for that.

Well, if you are successful at convincing humanity to give up their humanity to become whatever Synthesized humans are, then humanity deserves the sugarcoated extinction of Synthesis. Still doesn't making Synthesis as presented in the game any less abhorrent.

To you. But if you're lucky, IT is reality and you can wake up.

You think I support Patrick-Duffy-In-The-Shower as good storytelling, or a desirable alternate to what we have now? Geez, if I hadn't unfriended you already, I certainly would have after that remark. <_<

Is it really necessary to be so offensive in a personal way over and over again?

Perhaps. What's it to you?

[Forbry]

Siansonea II wrote...

Forbry wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

If that is what you truly believe, then my previous assessment stands. THERE IS SOMETHING SERIOUSLY WRONG WITH YOU. By that reasoning, you can justify ANYTHING, as long as you 'like' the end result. Again, do not pursue a career in government or science.

Not quite. Only the best means are justified, but I see no other means to accomplish this. I could, theoretically, accept the possibility of choosing Control now and bringing about Synthesis later after having more time to assess the situation; that's not unreasonable, and if you're uncomfortable with the speed of it all, I could accept your view of that being a better means.

The "speed" of the process is not, and never has been the issue, and if you think THAT is the point I've been trying to make this whole time, well, I think you have a problem understanding "words".

Speed is a rather important factor, because it was preventing people from being able to give consent. With added time, if consent is important to you, you could go around looking for that.

Well, if you are successful at convincing humanity to give up their humanity to become whatever Synthesized humans are, then humanity deserves the sugarcoated extinction of Synthesis. Still doesn't making Synthesis as presented in the game any less abhorrent.

To you. But if you're lucky, IT is reality and you can wake up.

You think I support Patrick-Duffy-In-The-Shower as good storytelling, or a desirable alternate to what we have now? Geez, if I hadn't unfriended you already, I certainly would have after that remark. <_<

Is it really necessary to be so offensive in a personal way over and over again?

Perhaps. What's it to you?

It kinda ruins reading the debate for me...

[Captain Kibosh]

This was addressed in other threads, but here's an except from my own response addressing the Synthesis conclusion:

Let's create an analogy in what's possible with 21st century technology.  What if the government had mandated that all its citizens had to undergo genetic modifications to improve our health, rid ourselves of congential defects, etc.? Can you imagine the socio-political fallout of such a unilateral decision, particular on the issues of state rights vs. individual rights and  the unintended consequences of science (socially, environmentally, evolutionarily, etc.)?  The implementation of technology ALWAYS has trade-offs and consequences.

And it's not even a perfect analogy, because the Synthesis option is also a profound cultural imposition.  Imagine in that same situation the government also mandates that everybody should look Eurasian or adopt the same religion.

But ceding that free will in the Synthesis scenario stays largely intact (though I don't know how it could, since the decision to choose one's own genetic or technological destiny has already been taken away), then that still allows for the possibility of conflicts to arise.  Just because I'm American doesn't mean there aren't some Americans out there whose lights I don't want to punch out on any given bad day!  The greater moral achievement is achieving compromise despite cultural differences as was the case in the Paragon outcome of the Quarian-Geth conflict.

Here's the original thread that prompted my on the ethical ramifications of all four endings: social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/12841147

[Siansonea]

Forbry wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Perhaps. What's it to you?

It kinda ruins reading the debate for me...

That's not important to me, so I guess you can either get glad in the same pants you got mad in, or find a more fulfilling debate elsewhere. Not my problem, in any case.  

[Welsh Inferno]

Siansonea II wrote...

And who's saying Synthesis doesn't have "benefits"? Genocide has benefits too—you get to take the stuff of the people you kill. "Benefits" is not really the point of the Synthesis question, it's the fact that it is ethically reprehensible, but because it has nice "benefits", people think it's A-OK.

You'll never see me argue that it is morally wrong.(All the endings are morally wrong by the way) Never have. Its a case for you of Ethical problems>Benefits. I understand, dont get me wrong I do. But I disagree. So sorry, but for me the means do justify what the ends are and several others at that. 

Opinions. Crazy things.

Modifié par Welsh Inferno, 03 juillet 2012 - 09:59 .

[Forbry]

Siansonea II wrote...

Forbry wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Perhaps. What's it to you?

It kinda ruins reading the debate for me...

That's not important to me, so I guess you can either get glad in the same pants you got mad in, or find a more fulfilling debate elsewhere. Not my problem, in any case.  

I was still being friendly, you choose not to be. Well, that´s your choice.   

[Siansonea]

Forbry wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Forbry wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Perhaps. What's it to you?

It kinda ruins reading the debate for me...

That's not important to me, so I guess you can either get glad in the same pants you got mad in, or find a more fulfilling debate elsewhere. Not my problem, in any case.  

I was still being friendly, you choose not to be. Well, that´s your choice.   

Upbraiding me for my "tone" is your idea of "friendly". Whatever.

[Ryzaki]

Sian you know can be a rude ass at times. So can I for that matter.

[Baronesa]

Ryzaki wrote...

Sian you know can be a rude ass at times. So can I for that matter.

all of us can be very rude sometimes.

[Forbry]

Siansonea II wrote...

Forbry wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Forbry wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Perhaps. What's it to you?

It kinda ruins reading the debate for me...

That's not important to me, so I guess you can either get glad in the same pants you got mad in, or find a more fulfilling debate elsewhere. Not my problem, in any case.  

I was still being friendly, you choose not to be. Well, that´s your choice.   

Upbraiding me for my "tone" is your idea of "friendly". Whatever.

Your tone was harsh and you know it. I just asked you  -right in your face and friendly- if you could tone down a little or wherefore you needed that tone in the first place. I do not think that is unfriendly.
But hey, it does not matter anymore, you gave your respons,  I´m gonna find a more fulfilling activity elsewhere, no problem