1300 réponses à ce sujet

[Aylyese]

translationninja wrote...

~snip quotes~

No I don't declare that at all. The only thing I am declaring is that one is just as morally questionable as the other. Ingame and without metagaming Shep is confronted with the fact that ALL presented options could be lies, unreliable, etc., yet you advocate the use of the only option that GUARANTEES the death of an entire sapient species for fear of what MAY BE the result of the other options.

To this effect, from a moral standpoint, destroy is the worst option, because it is the only one that GUARANTEES death of a billion inhabitants of the universe and the extinction of an entire species.

I repeat.

Quote me.

[translationninja]

So what, you want to destroy now or not? What is this ambiguous dancing back and forth?

[Aylyese]

translationninja wrote...

So what, you want to destroy now or not? What is this ambiguous dancing back and forth?

I have never advocated Destroy. You came to that conclusion on your own.

[translationninja]

Aylyese wrote...

translationninja wrote...

So what, you want to destroy now or not? What is this ambiguous dancing back and forth?

I have never advocated Destroy. You came to that conclusion on your own.

So what do you suggest?

[lx_theo]

Aylyese wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

CoolHanc101 wrote...

Synthesis forces one decision on EVERYONE.
This goes against the free-will and self-determination that shepard has been fighting for.

but hes not taking away any ones free will or self determination.

Just by forcing synthesis on everyone it is a violation of free will and self determination. 

No ending is perfect. That is the whole point of all the choices at the end. You pick between enslavement, genocide, and taking away the choice of other in synthesis.

Its just a matter of each individual deciding which sacrifice is best for them. Many people like each possibility.

And no, they have been fighting for their lives much more so than those, and put their faith in the Crucible to win it for them no matter how it did.

[Aylyese]

translationninja wrote...

Aylyese wrote...

translationninja wrote...

So what, you want to destroy now or not? What is this ambiguous dancing back and forth?

I have never advocated Destroy. You came to that conclusion on your own.

So what do you suggest?

There is no good ending to the game. None at all. That makes it a really stupid game because no matter what you do, you lose. But of the 4 endings, Synthesis is the worst because it gloryfies ideals that we as humans realised were dangerous and wrong decades ago. Synthesis is literally retarded. It retards our understanding of the rights of individuals by centuries. 

No one person knows what is best for everyone, nor does one computer, no matter how much they remind us it is an AI. Again, it's last solution was to turn us all into reapers. What makes this one better? Nothing. It is still doing it to all living creatures without their consent. If you really think the Catalyst knows what is best for all living creatures, then pick refuse and let it keep harvesting. I mean you have already accepted its logic, so by that reasoning, harvesting and creating reapers with people is all good.

Modifié par Aylyese, 04 juillet 2012 - 09:12 .

[OnlyHazeRemains]

This whole "synthesis is a violation of my freedom of choice" issue is exactly what the catalyst means when he said that organics have to be "ready" for it.

All i hear from anti-synthesis and pro refuse people in this thread is "me me me me me". Youre so awfully self-centered it hurts. Youre also a nice representation of the ignorance and narrow-mindedness of our capitalistic societies. This blubber about "personal freedom" is just egoism in disguise.
In todays society people are unwilling to put the greater good before their own, unwilling to change their decadent lifestyles for the greater good (environment), unwilling to pay part of their salary to help the poor (public healthcare), utimately unwilling to change anything about their life because they oppose change in itself, no matter what good (or bad) might come of the consequences.
People in Germany are fiercely opposing Euo-Bonds, shared european debt bonds, because they fear to loose the social status as richest country in europe. Look a few years in the future and this might be Europes downfall when were all bought up by China (same as the USA today already belong to China haha).

Our societies are still egoistic to the core, and untill this arthritic egoism is purged we will never be philosophically liberal enough to see synthesis for what it was really meant to be (disregarding the riddiculous way of how it was presented to us).

Synthesis is not the great equalizer, it doesnt remove all differences or brainwash everyone.
It instantly connects every organic and synthetic conciousness in the ME universe with the accumulated knowledge of billions of cycles and their respective races (now in reaper form).
Why do so many people fail to see that the pure scope of this knowledge would allow sentient beings to put aside their petty egoism and let them feel "empathy", even for their greatest enemy the reapers. I think this concept of empathy is already laid out in the holy bible, a 3400 year old book. And 3400 years later were still unable to understand it.

"The reapers killed us so they are our enemies and must be destroyed"
Pure black and white. No question for their motivation, no looking even 2 inches behind that. The catalyst is a mad AI, its lying and decieving and whatnot, so better killemall or even refuse.

/Edit
Because someone used this example before:

I am a fundamentalist Moslem, you are a fundamentalist Jew. I read the Koran you read the Tora.
We hate each other to the point where we take up weapons and shoot.

Now, along comes a mythic pink unicorn that implants us with the conciousness of the many people who actually wrote the Koran and the Tora. Dont you think that knowing the true intentions beind those Religions would allow us to accept each other? Maybe even acknowledge were both believing in the "same" god, we just have different names for him?

Substitute Moslem and Jew with Synthetic and Organic and there you have the synthesis ending (including the mystical pink unicorn )

Modifié par Samurai_Smartie, 04 juillet 2012 - 09:24 .

[Shoulin]

I thought hard this time with the extended cut endings when I got to this point. Honestly Synthesis just sounded right to me after everything that had happened. EDI lived and was able to stay with Joker and the Geth were able to help the Quarians rebuild and live their lives without having to use the masks. I just couldn't kill them honestly, as someone who doesn't get sappy over much I couldn't do it. It felt to me like I would of been killing more friends.

Sure killing the Reapers might of been what we was after all along but in the new dialogue it explains that a new solution was needed now. In all honesty could you make the choice of killing AI or cybernetic beings if you helped them in some form and became friends with them? I couldn't choose any other option when I did my full perfect Paragon the other day.

[lx_theo]

Aylyese wrote...

translationninja wrote...

Aylyese wrote...

translationninja wrote...

So what, you want to destroy now or not? What is this ambiguous dancing back and forth?

I have never advocated Destroy. You came to that conclusion on your own.

So what do you suggest?

There is no good ending to the game. None at all. That makes it a really stupid game because no matter what you do, you lose. But of the 4 endings, Synthesis is the worst because it gloryfies ideals that we as humans realised were dangerous and wrong decades ago. Synthesis is literally retarded. It retards our understanding of the rights of individuals by centuries. 

No one person knows what is best for everyone, nor does one computer, no matter how much they remind us it is an AI. Again, it's last solution was to turn us all into reapers. What makes this one better? Nothing. It is still doing it to all living creatures without their consent. If you really think the Catalyst knows what is best for all living creatures, then pick refuse and let it keep harvesting. I mean you have already accepted its logic, so by that reasoning, harvesting and creating reapers with people is all good.

Well that was... wierd.

I agree there is no good ending, but none are betetr or worst than the other. It depends on what you as an individual think is most important, and people should respect other's opinions on why they agree with one or the other. 

Though, I can say one person can know what is right for everyone. It is often argued in its favor in history that the best government is a one person decision maker that works for what's best for the people without having greed get the best of them. The problem is human nature often corrupts people in the position, and democratic style leaderships that embrace freewill and self-determination are simply more reliable to work for the people.

As for your idea in taking refuse, that is illogical all together. The Catalyst makes it clear that Synthesis is the preferred solution, but resistance to the idea has proven too strong to make it work. Everyone being united and putting faith in the Crucible makes it much easier for that change to be accepted.

[Aylyese]

Samurai_Smartie wrote...

This whole "synthesis is a violation of my freedom of choice" issue is exactly what the catalyst means when he said that organics have to be "ready" for it.

All i hear from anti-synthesis and pro refuse people in this thread is "me me me me me". Youre so awfully self-centered it hurts. Youre also a nice representation of the ignorance and narrow-mindedness of our capitalistic societies. This blubber about "personal freedom" is just egoism in disguise.
In todays society people are unwilling to put the greater good before their own, unwilling to change their decadent lifestyles for the greater good (environment), unwilling to pay part of their salary to help the poor (public healthcare), utimately unwilling to change anything about their life because they oppose change in itself, no matter what good (or bad) might come of the consequences.
People in Germany are fiercely opposing Euo-Bonds, shared european debt bonds, because they fear to loose the social status as richest country in europe. Look a few years in the future and this might be Europes downfall when were all bought up by China (same as the USA today already belong to China haha).

Our societies are still egoistic to the core, and untill this arthritic egoism is purged we will never be philosophically liberal enough to see synthesis for what it was really meant to be (disregarding the riddiculous way of how it was presented to us).

Synthesis is not the great equalizer, it doesnt remove all differences or brainwash everyone.
It instantly connects every organic and synthetic conciousness in the ME universe with the accumulated knowledge of billions of cycles and their respective races (now in reaper form).
Why do so many people fail to see that the pure scope of this knowledge would allow sentient beings to put aside their petty egoism and let them feel "empathy", even for their greatest enemy the reapers. I think this concept of empathy is already laid out in the holy bible, a 3400 year old book. And 3400 years later were still unable to understand it.

"The reapers killed us so they are our enemies and must be destroyed"
Pure black and white. No question for their motivation, no looking even 2 inches behind that. The catalyst is a mad AI, its lying and decieving and whatnot, so better killemall or even refuse.

Over 70% of people who voted on this forum voted they would rather die. Almost 60% of participants here said they would kill a person who was trying to enact synthesis.

Democratically on this forum is was voted down.

Would you still force it, because you believe it is the best thing for everyone? 

Would you be able to answer Yes to that question without realising a significant amount of arrogance on your behalf to still think you are right?

[Aylyese]

lx_theo wrote...

Aylyese wrote...

translationninja wrote...

Aylyese wrote...

translationninja wrote...

So what, you want to destroy now or not? What is this ambiguous dancing back and forth?

I have never advocated Destroy. You came to that conclusion on your own.

So what do you suggest?

There is no good ending to the game. None at all. That makes it a really stupid game because no matter what you do, you lose. But of the 4 endings, Synthesis is the worst because it gloryfies ideals that we as humans realised were dangerous and wrong decades ago. Synthesis is literally retarded. It retards our understanding of the rights of individuals by centuries. 

No one person knows what is best for everyone, nor does one computer, no matter how much they remind us it is an AI. Again, it's last solution was to turn us all into reapers. What makes this one better? Nothing. It is still doing it to all living creatures without their consent. If you really think the Catalyst knows what is best for all living creatures, then pick refuse and let it keep harvesting. I mean you have already accepted its logic, so by that reasoning, harvesting and creating reapers with people is all good.

Well that was... wierd.

I agree there is no good ending, but none are betetr or worst than the other. It depends on what you as an individual think is most important, and people should respect other's opinions on why they agree with one or the other. 

Though, I can say one person can know what is right for everyone. It is often argued in its favor in history that the best government is a one person decision maker that works for what's best for the people without having greed get the best of them. The problem is human nature often corrupts people in the position, and democratic style leaderships that embrace freewill and self-determination are simply more reliable to work for the people.

As for your idea in taking refuse, that is illogical all together. The Catalyst makes it clear that Synthesis is the preferred solution, but resistance to the idea has proven too strong to make it work. Everyone being united and putting faith in the Crucible makes it much easier for that change to be accepted.

Biowares version of Retconning to try to put lipstick on a pig.

And no. No one person can know what is right for everyone. Democracy proves that because no leader is ever unanimously voted in by the entire world. Just because they are selected by the majority, it does not mean they know what is best for everyone.

Modifié par Aylyese, 04 juillet 2012 - 09:31 .

[Hvlukas]

 In short: I won't choose synthesis, because it's against my ethics and moral. 

A little longer: I won't choose synthesis, because it's against my ethics and moral. All of Mass Effect has had me make moral or ethical choices, and my personal Shepard's story has been a mirror reflection of my own values, in so far possible. I view the Mass Effect series as games of morality and choices, and therefore my response to the choices of the endings will naturally reflect my personal view point. Those, in the specific case of synthesis, are that homogenizing people, altering their bodies and "forcing freedom" upon them (as I conclude synthesis eventually will be) are awfull and immoral actions.

I'm fine with other people having other view points, and I'm not at all offended by other people's choices. Mass Effect 3, in my opinion, invites a debate of what's a reasonable sacrifice to get peace, and everybody will have their own reasoning.

However, I'm kind of irritated by people who think/wish BioWare has a prefered, canonical ending. They have four, goddamnit! The justification of either of those is entirely up to the player. And that is the whole point of the game.

Modifié par Hvlukas, 04 juillet 2012 - 09:30 .

[lx_theo]

Aylyese wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

Aylyese wrote...

translationninja wrote...

Aylyese wrote...

translationninja wrote...

So what, you want to destroy now or not? What is this ambiguous dancing back and forth?

I have never advocated Destroy. You came to that conclusion on your own.

So what do you suggest?

There is no good ending to the game. None at all. That makes it a really stupid game because no matter what you do, you lose. But of the 4 endings, Synthesis is the worst because it gloryfies ideals that we as humans realised were dangerous and wrong decades ago. Synthesis is literally retarded. It retards our understanding of the rights of individuals by centuries. 

No one person knows what is best for everyone, nor does one computer, no matter how much they remind us it is an AI. Again, it's last solution was to turn us all into reapers. What makes this one better? Nothing. It is still doing it to all living creatures without their consent. If you really think the Catalyst knows what is best for all living creatures, then pick refuse and let it keep harvesting. I mean you have already accepted its logic, so by that reasoning, harvesting and creating reapers with people is all good.

Well that was... wierd.

I agree there is no good ending, but none are betetr or worst than the other. It depends on what you as an individual think is most important, and people should respect other's opinions on why they agree with one or the other. 

Though, I can say one person can know what is right for everyone. It is often argued in its favor in history that the best government is a one person decision maker that works for what's best for the people without having greed get the best of them. The problem is human nature often corrupts people in the position, and democratic style leaderships that embrace freewill and self-determination are simply more reliable to work for the people.

As for your idea in taking refuse, that is illogical all together. The Catalyst makes it clear that Synthesis is the preferred solution, but resistance to the idea has proven too strong to make it work. Everyone being united and putting faith in the Crucible makes it much easier for that change to be accepted.

Biowares version of Retconning to try to put lipstick on a pig.

And no. No one person can know what is right for everyone. Democracy proves that because no leader is ever unanimously voted in. Just because they are selected by the majority, it does not mean they know what is best for everyone.

Oh, you're talking about each individual? I thought we were talking about everyone as a group. Because, you know, being greedy is often good for one person, for each individual. Is that the moral code we should be going on? making a decision that will target benefiting the indivudal over the greater good? As far as decision can go, there are always ones that will serve the greater good and as much people as possible. To assume we have to apply some BS logic no one would ever use in that situation is jsut silly.

And what retconning? You mean them explaining it in more depth because issues posed? You know they said they were going to provide clarity almost right off the bat? That isn't retconning. There was no other option to any of that other than whatever your mind came up with. Or is this really about Bioware taking away one of your anti-synthesis talking points?

[Aylyese]

lx_theo wrote...

Aylyese wrote...

Biowares version of Retconning to try to put lipstick on a pig.

And no. No one person can know what is right for everyone. Democracy proves that because no leader is ever unanimously voted in. Just because they are selected by the majority, it does not mean they know what is best for everyone.

Oh, you're talking about each individual? I thought we were talking about everyone as a group. Because, you know, being greedy is often good for one person, for each individual. Is that the moral code we should be going on? making a decision that will target benefiting the indivudal over the greater good? As far as decision can go, there are always ones that will serve the greater good and as much people as possible. To assume we have to apply some BS logic no one would ever use in that situation is jsut silly.

And what retconning? You mean them explaining it in more depth because issues posed? You know they said they were going to provide clarity almost right off the bat? That isn't retconning. There was no other option to any of that other than whatever your mind came up with. Or is this really about Bioware taking away one of your anti-synthesis talking points?

Attempting to belittle me will only belittle your argument. I honestly couldn't care what you think about me, but you are the one trying to make a point on here. People will dismiss it if you look like a troll. Just sayin.

And each individual counts. If you present synthesis as an opt-in, people can walk in off the street and choose to be synthesised, then go for it. I will have no complaints at all. 

If they found out tomorrow that Peanuts fight cancer cells. Should they disperse it in the air? Because as a whole, we should be fighting cancer. Who cares about the people that die of anaphylaxis, right? They are just selfish individuals.

Stupid argument is stupid. Every single person counts. You, me, the bum on the corner, everyone. This is why UDHR exists.

[inko1nsiderate]

Hvlukas wrote...


However, I'm kind of irritated by people who think/wish BioWare has a prefered, canonical ending. They have four, goddamnit! The justification of either of those is entirely up to the player. And that is the whole point of the game.

Ah, yes.  I entirely agree.  All of this talk about canonical choices in game doesn't really make a lot of sense to me.

[lx_theo]

Aylyese wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

Aylyese wrote...

Biowares version of Retconning to try to put lipstick on a pig.

And no. No one person can know what is right for everyone. Democracy proves that because no leader is ever unanimously voted in. Just because they are selected by the majority, it does not mean they know what is best for everyone.

Oh, you're talking about each individual? I thought we were talking about everyone as a group. Because, you know, being greedy is often good for one person, for each individual. Is that the moral code we should be going on? making a decision that will target benefiting the indivudal over the greater good? As far as decision can go, there are always ones that will serve the greater good and as much people as possible. To assume we have to apply some BS logic no one would ever use in that situation is jsut silly.

And what retconning? You mean them explaining it in more depth because issues posed? You know they said they were going to provide clarity almost right off the bat? That isn't retconning. There was no other option to any of that other than whatever your mind came up with. Or is this really about Bioware taking away one of your anti-synthesis talking points?

Attempting to belittle me will only belittle your argument. I honestly couldn't care what you think about me, but you are the one trying to make a point on here. People will dismiss it if you look like a troll. Just sayin.

And each individual counts. If you present synthesis as an opt-in, people can walk in off the street and choose to be synthesised, then go for it. I will have no complaints at all. 

If they found out tomorrow that Peanuts fight cancer cells. Should they disperse it in the air? Because as a whole, we should be fighting cancer. Who cares about the people that die of anaphylaxis, right? They are just selfish individuals.

Stupid argument is stupid. Every single person counts. You, me, the bum on the corner, everyone. This is why UDHR exists.

Belittle you? Okay, that's a good way to deflect a good point. Maybe you'll be willing to actually deal with the point some time.

And I'm not saying individual doesn't count. I'm saying when making a decision about a huge group, no person in their right mind are going to try to find a solution that every single person benefits from and agrees with. Because there are never any. What they do is they try to make decisions on what would help the most people.

Destroy is no different than something like nuking all of a country to take out the terroists.

Control is no different than putting in place an unbeatable dictator in charge.

Refuse is no different than letting a nuclear war set off and kill everyone because you didn't like the compromises on the table.

All these are very infringing on democratic ideas. All of these are infringing on those ideals you seem to think is only an issue with synthesis. Some people like to say that synthesis is like playing God. They are all like playing God.

The only difference is that you believe that respecting the individual's choice is more important than avoiding genocide, enslavement, or total destruction. Not everyone does. Some people think that free will and self determination need to take a back seat in times of crisis.

[translationninja]

Aylyese wrote...

Samurai_Smartie wrote...

This whole "synthesis is a violation of my freedom of choice" issue is exactly what the catalyst means when he said that organics have to be "ready" for it.

All i hear from anti-synthesis and pro refuse people in this thread is "me me me me me". Youre so awfully self-centered it hurts. Youre also a nice representation of the ignorance and narrow-mindedness of our capitalistic societies. This blubber about "personal freedom" is just egoism in disguise.
In todays society people are unwilling to put the greater good before their own, unwilling to change their decadent lifestyles for the greater good (environment), unwilling to pay part of their salary to help the poor (public healthcare), utimately unwilling to change anything about their life because they oppose change in itself, no matter what good (or bad) might come of the consequences.
People in Germany are fiercely opposing Euo-Bonds, shared european debt bonds, because they fear to loose the social status as richest country in europe. Look a few years in the future and this might be Europes downfall when were all bought up by China (same as the USA today already belong to China haha).

Our societies are still egoistic to the core, and untill this arthritic egoism is purged we will never be philosophically liberal enough to see synthesis for what it was really meant to be (disregarding the riddiculous way of how it was presented to us).

Synthesis is not the great equalizer, it doesnt remove all differences or brainwash everyone.
It instantly connects every organic and synthetic conciousness in the ME universe with the accumulated knowledge of billions of cycles and their respective races (now in reaper form).
Why do so many people fail to see that the pure scope of this knowledge would allow sentient beings to put aside their petty egoism and let them feel "empathy", even for their greatest enemy the reapers. I think this concept of empathy is already laid out in the holy bible, a 3400 year old book. And 3400 years later were still unable to understand it.

"The reapers killed us so they are our enemies and must be destroyed"
Pure black and white. No question for their motivation, no looking even 2 inches behind that. The catalyst is a mad AI, its lying and decieving and whatnot, so better killemall or even refuse.

Over 70% of people who voted on this forum voted they would rather die. Almost 60% of participants here said they would kill a person who was trying to enact synthesis.

Democratically on this forum is was voted down.

Would you still force it, because you believe it is the best thing for everyone? 

Would you be able to answer Yes to that question without realising a significant amount of arrogance on your behalf to still think you are right?

If you honestly believe the people voting on the BSN for the proposed resolution of a video game would DIE, DEATH, CEASE TO EXIST, for some idea of self-determination in a real-life scenario........oh why do I bother.

I know I have been riding this whole war veteran thing to death here, but again and again I encounter situations where I'm left with no choice but to bring it up.

I am a war veteran, I have seen death and destruction, I have had my buddy'S innards sprayed over me by an IED.

I stipulate within my own humble opinion that people that make big speeches about "I rather die than...." have never been confronted with the destruction and cruelty of real violence.

I reckon if they were confronted with such a manner then everything except survival would become very trivial to them and they would very quietly sing to the tune of their captors/tormentors/whatevers.

So, I'm really not trying to make myself out as "wiser" or "better knowing" than anyone around here and I'm pretty sure there are other fellow military veterans here that may disagree with me. But please, stop a moment and think what you are saying. You know, William Wallace screaming freeedöööööm just before getting disemboweled is just Hollywood and not reality.

No one is arguing that any of the offered solutions is better than the other in this game, but arguing that the death of a billion sentient geth is morally less despicable than accepting a genetic modification, something that occurs in nature all the time anyways, is just.....I don't have a polite word for it....

Modifié par translationninja, 04 juillet 2012 - 10:49 .

[Aylyese]

lx_theo wrote...

Aylyese wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

Aylyese wrote...

Biowares version of Retconning to try to put lipstick on a pig.

And no. No one person can know what is right for everyone. Democracy proves that because no leader is ever unanimously voted in. Just because they are selected by the majority, it does not mean they know what is best foreveryone.

Oh, you're talking about each individual? I thought we were talking about everyone as a group. Because, you know, being greedy is often good for one person, for each individual. Is that the moral code we should be going on? making a decision that will target benefiting the indivudal over the greater good? As far as decision can go, there are always ones that will serve the greater good and as much people as possible. To assume we have to apply some BS logic no one would ever use in that situation is jsut silly.

And what retconning? You mean them explaining it in more depth because issues posed? You know they said they were going to provide clarity almost right off the bat? That isn't retconning. There was no other option to any of that other than whatever your mind came up with. Or is this really about Bioware taking away one of your anti-synthesis talking points?

Attempting to belittle me will only belittle your argument. I honestly couldn't care what you think about me, but you are the one trying to make a point on here. People will dismiss it if you look like a troll. Just sayin.

And each individual counts. If you present synthesis as an opt-in, people can walk in off the street and choose to be synthesised, then go for it. I will have no complaints at all. 

If they found out tomorrow that Peanuts fight cancer cells. Should they disperse it in the air? Because as a whole, we should be fighting cancer. Who cares about the people that die of anaphylaxis, right? They are just selfish individuals.

Stupid argument is stupid. Every single person counts. You, me, the bum on the corner, everyone. This is why UDHR exists.

Belittle you? Okay, that's a good way to deflect a good point. Maybe you'll be willing to actually deal with the point some time.

And I'm not saying individual doesn't count. I'm saying when making a decision about a huge group, no person in their right mind are going to try to find a solution that every single person benefits from and agrees with. Because there are never any. What they do is they try to make decisions on what would help the most people.

Destroy is no different than something like nuking all of a country to take out the terroists.

Control is no different than putting in place an unbeatable dictator in charge.

Refuse is no different than letting a nuclear war set off and kill everyone because you didn't like the compromises on the table.

All these are very infringing on democratic ideas. All of these are infringing on those ideals you seem to think is only an issue with synthesis. Some people like to say that synthesis is like playing God. They are all like playing God.

The only difference is that you believe that respecting the individual's choice is more important than avoiding genocide, enslavement, or total destruction. Not everyone does. Some people think that free will and self determination need to take a back seat in times of crisis.

On point one, your personal commentary on my motives is extremely transparent. But you can play dumb, I really don't care. 

On the rest of it... this is a whole thread dedicated to the majority of people here explaining WHY they do not agree that free will and self determination are negotiable. You don't have to agree, but when we respect that, we are respecting your rights as an individual to feel that way. You cannot say the same for your argument.

translationninja wrote...

Aylyese wrote...

Samurai_Smartie wrote...

This whole "synthesis is a violation of my freedom of choice" issue is exactly what the catalyst means when he said that organics have to be "ready" for it.

All i hear from anti-synthesis and pro refuse people in this thread is "me me me me me". Youre so awfully self-centered it hurts. Youre also a nice representation of the ignorance and narrow-mindedness of our capitalistic societies. This blubber about "personal freedom" is just egoism in disguise.
In todays society people are unwilling to put the greater good before their own, unwilling to change their decadent lifestyles for the greater good (environment), unwilling to pay part of their salary to help the poor (public healthcare), utimately unwilling to change anything about their life because they oppose change in itself, no matter what good (or bad) might come of the consequences.
People in Germany are fiercely opposing Euo-Bonds, shared european debt bonds, because they fear to loose the social status as richest country in europe. Look a few years in the future and this might be Europes downfall when were all bought up by China (same as the USA today already belong to China haha).

Our societies are still egoistic to the core, and untill this arthritic egoism is purged we will never be philosophically liberal enough to see synthesis for what it was really meant to be (disregarding the riddiculous way of how it was presented to us).

Synthesis is not the great equalizer, it doesnt remove all differences or brainwash everyone.
It instantly connects every organic and synthetic conciousness in the ME universe with the accumulated knowledge of billions of cycles and their respective races (now in reaper form).
Why do so many people fail to see that the pure scope of this knowledge would allow sentient beings to put aside their petty egoism and let them feel "empathy", even for their greatest enemy the reapers. I think this concept of empathy is already laid out in the holy bible, a 3400 year old book. And 3400 years later were still unable to understand it.

"The reapers killed us so they are our enemies and must be destroyed"
Pure black and white. No question for their motivation, no looking even 2 inches behind that. The catalyst is a mad AI, its lying and decieving and whatnot, so better killemall or even refuse.

Over 70% of people who voted on this forum voted they would rather die. Almost 60% of participants here said they would kill a person who was trying to enact synthesis.

Democratically on this forum is was voted down.

Would you still force it, because you believe it is the best thing for everyone? 

Would you be able to answer Yes to that question without realising a significant amount of arrogance on your behalf to still think you are right?

If you honestly believe the people voting on the BSN for the proposed resolution of a video game would DIE, DEATH, CEASE TO EXIST, for some idea of self-determination in a real-life scenario........oh why do I bother.

I know I have been riding this whole war veteran thing to death here, but again and again I encounter situations where I'm left with no choice but to bring it up.

I am a war veteran, I have seen death and destruction, I have had my buddy'S innards sprayed over me by an IED.

I stipulate within my own humble opinion that people that make big speeches about "I rather die than...." have never been confronted with the destruction and cruelty of real violence.

I reckon if they were confronted with such a manner then everything except survival would become very trivial to them and they would very quietly sing to the tune of their captors/tormentors/whatevers.

So, I'm really not trying to make myself out as "wiser" or "better knowing" than anyone around here and I'm pretty sure there are other fellow military veterans here that may disagree with me. But please, stop a moment and think what you are saying. You know, William Wallace screaming freeedöööööm just before getting disemboweled is just Hollywood and not reality.

No one is arguing that any of the offered solutions is better than the other in this game, but arguing that the death of a billion sentient geth is morally less despicable than accepting a genetic modification, something that occurs in nature all the time anyways, is just.....I don't have a polite word for it....

For the last time. I do not advocate destroy. I do not pick destroy. I find destroy and the genocide of the geth to be objectional. If that is your entire argument against my points, then you are failing epically at debating because you have dismissed my every point on the basis that you find my morals repugnant when you have confused me with someone else.

Because of this, there really is no point to debating with you anymore. You clearly are not reading a thing I have written.

[Ridwan]

46 pages and going. Are we starting to use the different religions now to justify/vilify Synthesis?

[Aylyese]

M25105 wrote...

46 pages and going. Are we starting to use the different religions now to justify/vilify Synthesis?

That happened 20 pages ago. I am still being told I have to become a scientologist so the catholics won't kill me.

[spiriticon]

I don't know. I advocate  the ideals of synthesis, which is that all should live in harmony and the presence of a common understanding between all species.

BUT, to achieve that goal I basically roboticised every living thing in the universe. Kind of feels a little bit of a hollow victory.

Modifié par spiriticon, 04 juillet 2012 - 11:19 .

[Ridwan]

spiriticon wrote...

I don't know. I advocate  the ideals of synthesis, which is that all should live in harmony and the presence of a common understanding between all species.

BUT, to achieve that goal I basically roboticised every living thing in the universe. Kind of feels a little bit of a hollow victory.

It's because you forced it, things has to come naturally.

It's like the saying of giving a man a fish, or teaching him how to fish.

[lx_theo]

Aylyese wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

Aylyese wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

Aylyese wrote...

Biowares version of Retconning to try to put lipstick on a pig.

And no. No one person can know what is right for everyone. Democracy proves that because no leader is ever unanimously voted in. Just because they are selected by the majority, it does not mean they know what is best foreveryone.

Oh, you're talking about each individual? I thought we were talking about everyone as a group. Because, you know, being greedy is often good for one person, for each individual. Is that the moral code we should be going on? making a decision that will target benefiting the indivudal over the greater good? As far as decision can go, there are always ones that will serve the greater good and as much people as possible. To assume we have to apply some BS logic no one would ever use in that situation is jsut silly.

And what retconning? You mean them explaining it in more depth because issues posed? You know they said they were going to provide clarity almost right off the bat? That isn't retconning. There was no other option to any of that other than whatever your mind came up with. Or is this really about Bioware taking away one of your anti-synthesis talking points?

Attempting to belittle me will only belittle your argument. I honestly couldn't care what you think about me, but you are the one trying to make a point on here. People will dismiss it if you look like a troll. Just sayin.

And each individual counts. If you present synthesis as an opt-in, people can walk in off the street and choose to be synthesised, then go for it. I will have no complaints at all. 

If they found out tomorrow that Peanuts fight cancer cells. Should they disperse it in the air? Because as a whole, we should be fighting cancer. Who cares about the people that die of anaphylaxis, right? They are just selfish individuals.

Stupid argument is stupid. Every single person counts. You, me, the bum on the corner, everyone. This is why UDHR exists.

Belittle you? Okay, that's a good way to deflect a good point. Maybe you'll be willing to actually deal with the point some time.

And I'm not saying individual doesn't count. I'm saying when making a decision about a huge group, no person in their right mind are going to try to find a solution that every single person benefits from and agrees with. Because there are never any. What they do is they try to make decisions on what would help the most people.

Destroy is no different than something like nuking all of a country to take out the terroists.

Control is no different than putting in place an unbeatable dictator in charge.

Refuse is no different than letting a nuclear war set off and kill everyone because you didn't like the compromises on the table.

All these are very infringing on democratic ideas. All of these are infringing on those ideals you seem to think is only an issue with synthesis. Some people like to say that synthesis is like playing God. They are all like playing God.

The only difference is that you believe that respecting the individual's choice is more important than avoiding genocide, enslavement, or total destruction. Not everyone does. Some people think that free will and self determination need to take a back seat in times of crisis.

On point one, your personal commentary on my motives is extremely transparent. But you can play dumb, I really don't care. 

On the rest of it... this is a whole thread dedicated to the majority of people here explaining WHY they do not agree that free will and self determination are negotiable. You don't have to agree, but when we respect that, we are respecting your rights as an individual to feel that way. You cannot say the same for your argument.

Point one... Do you have a better explanation for treating clarification in a way as though it wronged you?

Rest... What are you talking about? My entire argument has been that every choice is supposed to be respectable. The only thing I don't respect is not being able to respect how one values every sacrifice in their morality. You're comments against this just comes off as disrepectful of anyone who may feel otherwise. 

[Aylyese]

lx_theo wrote...

Aylyese wrote...

On point one, your personal commentary on my motives is extremely transparent. But you can play dumb, I really don't care. 

On the rest of it... this is a whole thread dedicated to the majority of people here explaining WHY they do not agree that free will and self determination are negotiable. You don't have to agree, but when we respect that, we are respecting your rights as an individual to feel that way. You cannot say the same for your argument.

Point one... Do you have a better explanation for treating clarification in a way as though it wronged you?

Rest... What are you talking about? My entire argument has been that every choice is supposed to be respectable. The only thing I don't respect is not being able to respect how one values every sacrifice in their morality. You're comments against this just comes off as disrepectful of anyone who may feel otherwise. 

Could you please qualify this statement. I cannot explain or justify my comments if I am not even sure to which ones you are referring to.

Second paragraph, second line. I do not know what you are trying to say there. Could you rephrase?

[translationninja]

Aylyese wrote...


For the last time. I do not advocate destroy. I do not pick destroy. I find destroy and the genocide of the geth to be objectional. If that is your entire argument against my points, then you are failing epically at debating because you have dismissed my every point on the basis that you find my morals repugnant when you have confused me with someone else.

Because of this, there really is no point to debating with you anymore. You clearly are not reading a thing I have written.

You are tip-toeing around quite conveniently, you have quote on quote stated that "synthesis" is "the worst". That means you would prefer any of the other choices over synthesis, including destroy. You can't proclaim synthesis to be "the worst choice" without assuming the responsibility of making any of the other choices.

Your words, synthesis = worst, hence you proclaim killing off the geth is better, you can't have it both ways.