1300 réponses à ce sujet

[Aylyese]

translationninja wrote...

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.

Oh, well, that is because Destroy and Control both only violates one species. Synthesis violates all species.

But seriously - this is being extraordinarily pedantic isn't it. It doesn't do anything to defend Synthesis at all.

[lx_theo]

Aylyese wrote...

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?

The thing about retconning comment seemed like you were taking a stab at Bioware for no apparent reason, usually meaning for a person they feel mad about it. If its out of nowhere, it usually mean something personal was effected. Leading to the idea that it was like Bioware wronged you with the clarification.

I'm against opinions that choose to try and disrepect other's choices by devaluing them.

[Aylyese]

lx_theo wrote...

Aylyese wrote...

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?

The thing about retconning comment seemed like you were taking a stab at Bioware for no apparent reason, usually meaning for a person they feel mad about it. If its out of nowhere, it usually mean something personal was effected. Leading to the idea that it was like Bioware wronged you with the clarification.

I'm against opinions that choose to try and disrepect other's choices by devaluing them.

The statement about RetCons is because that is what they did. They released an ending - universally panned. People made many a blog, thread, video, etc about all the problems with it. Bioware went back and redid them - or retconned. It's not personal, it's just fact. They didn't think this stupid ending through, and their attempts to hide all that is moreally wrong and disgusting about it are even less thought out. They can imply all the unicorns they want - Synthesis is still horrible from the outset.

And I am really going to have to avoid pointing out the irony of that statement..

Oh wait - nope, I am not better than that - damn.

lx_theo wrote...

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.

 

That is devaluing opinions - because free will and self determination are unimportant.


ETA: I will just come out and say it. Your problem is that I am appearing to devalue your opinion. Which is fine,really. I get that. But you devalue opinions on a grand scale when you write "Time of crisis" over the top of it. 

Modifié par Aylyese, 04 juillet 2012 - 11:45 .

[lx_theo]

Aylyese wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

Aylyese wrote...

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?

The thing about retconning comment seemed like you were taking a stab at Bioware for no apparent reason, usually meaning for a person they feel mad about it. If its out of nowhere, it usually mean something personal was effected. Leading to the idea that it was like Bioware wronged you with the clarification.

I'm against opinions that choose to try and disrepect other's choices by devaluing them.

The statement about RetCons is because that is what they did. They released an ending - universally panned. People made many a blog, thread, video, etc about all the problems with it. Bioware went back and redid them - or retconned. It's not personal, it's just fact. They didn't think this stupid ending through, and their attempts to hide all that is moreally wrong and disgusting about it are even less thought out. They can imply all the unicorns they want - Synthesis is still horrible from the outset.

And I am really going to have to avoid pointing out the irony of that statement..

Oh wait - nope, I am not better than that - damn.

lx_theo wrote...

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.

 

That is devaluing opinions - because free will and self determination are unimportant.

They didn't retcon anything... In factm the original ending did nothign to suggest otherwise. Any conclusions you can to were assumtpions on your part. There was no retcon in the statement you had bolding when you made the comment.

And no, that's not devaluing opinions, that's putting them on the same playing field to show that its a matter of what matters more to each person. In fact, its literally qualifying each person's opinion as the most important thing. I don't know where you're getting you devaluing thing from.

ETA: I will just come out and say it. Your problem is that I am appearing to devalue your opinion. Which is fine,really. I get that. But you devalue opinions on a grand scale when you write "Time of crisis" over the top of it.

Ooo... Sneaky edit there. Too bad its a hypocritical one, after going after me on assuming your motives.

Modifié par lx_theo, 04 juillet 2012 - 11:50 .

[translationninja]

Aylyese wrote...

translationninja wrote...

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.

Oh, well, that is because Destroy and Control both only violates one species. Synthesis violates all species.

But seriously - this is being extraordinarily pedantic isn't it. It doesn't do anything to defend Synthesis at all.

It is not pedantic at all, it is the elimination of ambiguity. Now you have made a workable statement: they only violate one species instead of all.

If that is your standpoint, who am I to argue that?

I am not arguing for or against synthesis in this thread, I am arguing against certain personal preferences, moralities and conclusions being presented as universally true moral framework.

[OnlyHazeRemains]

I still take offense in the claim synthesis "violates all species".
That may be true for us BSN lurkers in our current world.
I believe its not true inside the Mass Effect Universe.
Humans put their nationalities aside and formed the Systems Alliance. Nowhere in the game except in the names of Military ships are nationalities reflected upon. They became irrelevant.
Humans (reluctantly) learn to accept alien species, some even mate with asari. Well others call hanar "stupid jellyfish" but thats probably just an atemmt to appeal to the audience outside of the game. Human Soldiers fight alongside Geth, the former enemies of the first game.

Overall i think inside the game moralities have changed, society has changed and i think it very possible that the people in Mass Effect would not see Synthesis as an offense to their personal freedom. Especially if you look at the benefits, like instant access to incredible amounts of information and the reapers stopping to kill everything.

[Hyrist]

You consider the alteration of life a violation, then why are you on a forum board trying to convince others of your viewpoint?

Information is as much of a life changer than any other compelling force of the Galaxy, yet we do not pause a moment in educating someone from another culture about the 'facts' instead of leaving them to discover it through their own ,and often violent, devices.

It's a double standard that is as clear as day to me. We as a culture say "Oh no, we can't violate the individuality of species, that's wrong! Yet we do so, unceasingly in the social context, daily."

Synthsis is the end argument. Everyone has the access to the same information pool, everyone has the knowledge of the same history. How to build is known, the mysteries of the Universe are, for the most part, resolved. In the end the result becomes merely personal preference - a conversation that ultimately should not end up the way we are discussing it here, and honestly would not take place when the entirety of a person's perception of a matter could be relayed quicker than the time it would take for the individual to inaccurately post it here.

Furthermore, it would be much more difficult to lie about your opinion, which some people sadly actually do to fit the crowd.

So no, I have no qualms about Synthsis, as many people attempt socially in our life - you encounter this any time you preach religion or are preached at. This way of achieving the goal of unifying the perception of sentience is painless, quick, and does so in a manner that is not invasive to free will beyond the fact that it happens. And to be frank, some people could use a little eureka moment to realize just how hypocritical they're being on this matter.

[Bizantura]

Samurai_Smartie wrote...

I still take offense in the claim synthesis "violates all species".
That may be true for us BSN lurkers in our current world.
I believe its not true inside the Mass Effect Universe.
Humans put their nationalities aside and formed the Systems Alliance. Nowhere in the game except in the names of Military ships are nationalities reflected upon. They became irrelevant.
Humans (reluctantly) learn to accept alien species, some even mate with asari. Well others call hanar "stupid jellyfish" but thats probably just an atemmt to appeal to the audience outside of the game. Human Soldiers fight alongside Geth, the former enemies of the first game.

Overall i think inside the game moralities have changed, society has changed and i think it very possible that the people in Mass Effect would not see Synthesis as an offense to their personal freedom. Especially if you look at the benefits, like instant access to incredible amounts of information and the reapers stopping to kill everything.

For me boundaries are very literal = my skin is what you see and is where my personal boundary ends.  That does get violated with the synthesis option and why I considered it curtailing my personal freedom.  I wouldn't even want to merge with other humans or anything else, but thats jest me.

[OnlyHazeRemains]

Bizantura wrote...
For me boundaries are very literal = my skin is what you see and is where my personal boundary ends.  That does get violated with the synthesis option and why I considered it curtailing my personal freedom.  I wouldn't even want to merge with other humans or anything else, but thats jest me.

Ok so where in the synthesis ending is it visually shown or verbally explained that these boundaries are violated.

[SHARXTREME]

And it is all so very simple.
Reapers are products of synthesis by Catalyst who Destroyed original creators and now Controls them.
Reapers enforced Synthesis, Destroy and Control on every cycle.
Shepard fights Reapers who try to enforce Synthesis and to Destroy and Control advanced species.
You come and choose to enforce Synthesis on EVERYONE instead, not just advanced species.
Because the main enemy, mass genocide lunatic Catalyst VI told you it's ideal solution.
What?
.
.BTW On Synthesis and synthetic intelligence.
In ascending order: Virtual Intelligence(VI), Artificial intelligence (AI), Synthetic Intelligence (SI)

Catalyst is simple VI when you think about it. Low level control mechanism, system that controls function and role of the Reapers.

Reapers are as a whole collective shackled AI. They are not SI because Catalyst controls their actions directly with their primary motivation based in Catalyst VI program.
They can't evolve and change. Their are imprisoned. They handed over the Control to Catalyst VI and became the Reapers. They can't never become SI.

EDI is evolved unshackled AI, almost SI, but still not SI because "she" has still no autonomy(Normandy)

Geth as a whole after Legion sacrifice became first true collective SI.(original goal of catalyst Vi achieved, but Catalyst wants everything in its image)

So basically, Synthetic Intelligence must be man-made, autonomous, and able to evolve, to surpass original function, and what's most important is to be as a whole greater then sum of their parts or actions that lead to their creation(Catalyst and the Reapers together can never become SI)
But Geth are still not individuals. Individual SI is the next step. Legion was almost the next step.

.
Synthesis in that situation is not the next step, it's step backwards to even before the creation of Reapers and Catalyst. Collective VI shaped by faulty VI.

Control is status quo.(Catalyst Shepard reverts from individual being to Shepard VI, forever imprisoned in character set/rules from the moment when s/he gave up on his/her soul, "on what s/he is" ). Shepard suicide "for greater good"..

Destroy is to destroy new life form that actually evolved from this situation and solved the Reaper problem and to risk another Reaper situation in the future. Geth "genocide".

Refuse is collective suicide, and a big risk.
.
So every option is wrong for Shepard, because you must use Catalysts methods of Control, Synthesis and Destroy, or surrender and that's not realistic nor acceptable.

[Baldrick67]

Hyrist wrote...

You consider the alteration of life a violation, then why are you on a forum board trying to convince others of your viewpoint?

Information is as much of a life changer than any other compelling force of the Galaxy, yet we do not pause a moment in educating someone from another culture about the 'facts' instead of leaving them to discover it through their own ,and often violent, devices.

It's a double standard that is as clear as day to me. We as a culture say "Oh no, we can't violate the individuality of species, that's wrong! Yet we do so, unceasingly in the social context, daily."

Synthsis is the end argument. Everyone has the access to the same information pool, everyone has the knowledge of the same history. How to build is known, the mysteries of the Universe are, for the most part, resolved. In the end the result becomes merely personal preference - a conversation that ultimately should not end up the way we are discussing it here, and honestly would not take place when the entirety of a person's perception of a matter could be relayed quicker than the time it would take for the individual to inaccurately post it here.

Furthermore, it would be much more difficult to lie about your opinion, which some people sadly actually do to fit the crowd.

So no, I have no qualms about Synthsis, as many people attempt socially in our life - you encounter this any time you preach religion or are preached at. This way of achieving the goal of unifying the perception of sentience is painless, quick, and does so in a manner that is not invasive to free will beyond the fact that it happens. And to be frank, some people could use a little eureka moment to realize just how hypocritical they're being on this matter.

Synthesis would be the slow death of the galaxy.

There are no mountains left to climb, no unknown path to tread as all the knowledge and understanding of the galaxy is ours. There are no unknowns left as we are all one and the same. There is only one voice, one will and one way. No more jokes about men being from mars and woman being from venus as we completely understand each other. No mysteries to solve.

Without anything to overcome and the unknown to explore stagnation would quickly settle in and the rot would begin.

Part of the amazing fun of the Mass Effect universe was meeting new races, going to new places and learning about the lore and history.

Imagine Star Trek without "Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before".

Well you can in the ME universe with Synthesis as that is what you get, nothing is left to explore as it's all known and understood. A dead boring universe now.

[OnlyHazeRemains]

Baldrick67 wrote...
[...]
Well you can in the ME universe with Synthesis as that is what you get, nothing is left to explore as it's all known and understood. A dead boring universe now.

Thats your subjective interpretation of synthesis.
EDI talks about reaching a level of existence she cannot even imagine, and overcoming mortality.
Does that sound like "rot and stagnation"?

Seriously?

[Aylyese]

lx_theo wrote...

Aylyese wrote...


The statement about RetCons is because that is what they did. They released an ending - universally panned. People made many a blog, thread, video, etc about all the problems with it. Bioware went back and redid them - or retconned. It's not personal, it's just fact. They didn't think this stupid ending through, and their attempts to hide all that is moreally wrong and disgusting about it are even less thought out. They can imply all the unicorns they want - Synthesis is still horrible from the outset.

And I am really going to have to avoid pointing out the irony of that statement..

Oh wait - nope, I am not better than that - damn.

lx_theo wrote...

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.

 

That is devaluing opinions - because free will and self determination are unimportant.

They didn't retcon anything... In factm the original ending did nothign to suggest otherwise. Any conclusions you can to were assumtpions on your part. There was no retcon in the statement you had bolding when you made the comment.

And no, that's not devaluing opinions, that's putting them on the same playing field to show that its a matter of what matters more to each person. In fact, its literally qualifying each person's opinion as the most important thing. I don't know where you're getting you devaluing thing from.

ETA: I will just come out and say it. Your problem is that I am appearing to devalue your opinion. Which is fine,really. I get that. But you devalue opinions on a grand scale when you write "Time of crisis" over the top of it.

Ooo... Sneaky edit there. Too bad its a hypocritical one, after going after me on assuming your motives.

The ending where you speak to the catalyst has been retroactively modified to "correct" continuity issues with why someone as smart as Shepard would do something as stupid as pick synthesis. It is that simple. 

The second paragraph is something something.... I do not get "Your opinion is equal" from "Your opinion on what you will and will not agree to takes a back seat to mine in a time of crisis" at all. Because basically, you are saying that.

And I note you did not reply to the point of my statement, rather than just throw another name at me. But anyway - you are upset that I am 'devaluing' your opinion or you wouldn't have said that in the first place. Obviously. But you have already done the same thing to the whole galaxy because something something... 

Oh yeah, sorry if you think it was sneaky. Not my intention. Afterthought and I didn't want to break it away from the rest of the thought. Not intentional, but believe what you want.

Modifié par Aylyese, 04 juillet 2012 - 01:39 .

[Rhiens VI]

Samurai_Smartie wrote...

Thats your subjective interpretation of synthesis.
EDI talks about reaching a level of existence she cannot even imagine, and overcoming mortality.
Does that sound like "rot and stagnation"?

No, it sounds more like drug-induced hallucination.

But that's me subjectively interpreting.

[SirCroft]

What everyone said + the idea of being perfect is a frightening one.

[Aylyese]

Samurai_Smartie wrote...

Bizantura wrote...
For me boundaries are very literal = my skin is what you see and is where my personal boundary ends.  That does get violated with the synthesis option and why I considered it curtailing my personal freedom.  I wouldn't even want to merge with other humans or anything else, but thats jest me.

Ok so where in the synthesis ending is it visually shown or verbally explained that these boundaries are violated.

Because your DNA lives outside of your skin? 

Samurai_Smartie wrote...

I still take offense in the claim synthesis "violates all species".
That may be true for us BSN lurkers in our current world.
I believe its not true inside the Mass Effect Universe.
Humans put their nationalities aside and formed the Systems Alliance. Nowhere in the game except in the names of Military ships are nationalities reflected upon. They became irrelevant.
Humans (reluctantly) learn to accept alien species, some even mate with asari. Well others call hanar "stupid jellyfish" but thats probably just an atemmt to appeal to the audience outside of the game. Human Soldiers fight alongside Geth, the former enemies of the first game.

Overall i think inside the game moralities have changed, society has changed and i think it very possible that the people in Mass Effect would not see Synthesis as an offense to their personal freedom. Especially if you look at the benefits, like instant access to incredible amounts of information and the reapers stopping to kill everything.

 

You can take offence all you wish. It is still true. When you mutilate the DNA of everyone and everything in the galaxy without their consent, you violate everyone and everything in the galaxy. 

Modifié par Aylyese, 04 juillet 2012 - 01:44 .

[SHARXTREME]

I agree with what Baldrick67 wrote above.
Synthesis is basically advanced artificial DNA network of soulless neither-truly-alive neither-truly-dead reaperoids.
The dumbfounded WTF faces on Krogan and Turian in Synthesis ending are great.

I'm sure that I would never want for Krogan to stop being Krogan, and be my version of Krogans so I can accept them or that they would accept me.
That is the main reason why synthesis is wrong, uniformity vs diversity.
Peace is not Uniformity. Peace is Diversity. You can't force peace. You can't force someone to be something you think they must be, or to be in the place you think they need to be. You can't erase their "wrongs" just so they apear "right" to you. (like Catalyst goal of melding everybody with the reapers, husks, grass and coconuts so they fit his program)
That view is what starts wars, genocide, what spawns Hitlers/Catalysts who try to engineer/synthesize/control/destroy everybody to fit in their own "perfect" world.
Chinese, Russians, Americans, Krogans, Turians, humans, all have quality that others lack, but we all share the same weaknesses. Should we unite in weaknesses and flaws(that is real chaos) or get strength from strenghts and quality of others(that is the natural order, not order that reapers talk about) 
When we start to learn from diversity instead to force uniformity then we will be able to accept harmony and prosperity.
Nature is diversity. Individuals are defined by Free will. Even Legion platform knew that, he didn't force anything on Shepard, Quarians or Geth, he learned from both and evolved (inside) the geth collective naturally, 
.

Modifié par SHARXTREME, 04 juillet 2012 - 02:26 .

[Baldrick67]

Samurai_Smartie wrote...

Baldrick67 wrote...
[...]
Well you can in the ME universe with Synthesis as that is what you get, nothing is left to explore as it's all known and understood. A dead boring universe now.

Thats your subjective interpretation of synthesis.
EDI talks about reaching a level of existence she cannot even imagine, and overcoming mortality.
Does that sound like "rot and stagnation"?

Seriously?

EDI, the Geth and reapers where already immortal. They didn't age, as long as they had power and access to spare parts they would never die.
The reapers where already at a state of perfection or so they believed - the pinnacle of evolution. No need to advance from that. They hadn't changed for millions or billions of years, they did the same reaping every cycle. That sure sounds like rot and stagnation to me.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Samurai_Smartie wrote...

Baldrick67 wrote...
[...]
Well you can in the ME universe with Synthesis as that is what you get, nothing is left to explore as it's all known and understood. A dead boring universe now.

Thats your subjective interpretation of synthesis.
EDI talks about reaching a level of existence she cannot even imagine, and overcoming mortality.
Does that sound like "rot and stagnation"?

Seriously?

Yes it does, oh my god can you imagine the ramifications if everyone was immortal. Also the catalyst says it is the final evolution. That means there is no where left for evolution to go. All that is left is stagnation and slow very slow Decay..

Synthesis is a truly horrifying concept.

Modifié par DinoSteve, 04 juillet 2012 - 02:03 .

[lx_theo]

Aylyese wrote...

lx_theo wrote...

Aylyese wrote...


The statement about RetCons is because that is what they did. They released an ending - universally panned. People made many a blog, thread, video, etc about all the problems with it. Bioware went back and redid them - or retconned. It's not personal, it's just fact. They didn't think this stupid ending through, and their attempts to hide all that is moreally wrong and disgusting about it are even less thought out. They can imply all the unicorns they want - Synthesis is still horrible from the outset.

And I am really going to have to avoid pointing out the irony of that statement..

Oh wait - nope, I am not better than that - damn.

lx_theo wrote...

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.

 

That is devaluing opinions - because free will and self determination are unimportant.

They didn't retcon anything... In factm the original ending did nothign to suggest otherwise. Any conclusions you can to were assumtpions on your part. There was no retcon in the statement you had bolding when you made the comment.

And no, that's not devaluing opinions, that's putting them on the same playing field to show that its a matter of what matters more to each person. In fact, its literally qualifying each person's opinion as the most important thing. I don't know where you're getting you devaluing thing from.

ETA: I will just come out and say it. Your problem is that I am appearing to devalue your opinion. Which is fine,really. I get that. But you devalue opinions on a grand scale when you write "Time of crisis" over the top of it.

Ooo... Sneaky edit there. Too bad its a hypocritical one, after going after me on assuming your motives.

The ending where you speak to the catalyst has been retroactively modified to "correct" continuity issues with why someone as smart as Shepard would do something as stupid as pick synthesis. It is that simple. 

The second paragraph is something something.... I do not get "Your opinion is equal" from "Your opinion on what you will and will not agree to takes a back seat to mine in a time of crisis" at all. Because basically, you are saying that.

And I note you did not reply to the point of my statement, rather than just throw another name at me. But anyway - you are upset that I am 'devaluing' your opinion or you wouldn't have said that in the first place. Obviously. But you have already done the same thing to the whole galaxy because something something... 

Oh yeah, sorry if you think it was sneaky. Not my intention. Afterthought and I didn't want to break it away from the rest of the thought. Not intentional, but believe what you want.

No. It simply clarified and further explained it. Simpke as that.

This is still a weird thing that you have a problem with this. I said all that matters is each individual opinion when it comes down to choice, and no opinion should be disrepected unless it fall into the category of attacking other's opinion's for the sake of discrediting them. I then went on to explain that, even though your opinion obviously does not have this, people are believing that they may need to take a back seat when it comes to a crisis. That's why people are able to pick synthesis. It's part of their opinion, and only supports their, not devalues any others.

And I guess you're develuing my opinion some. I picked all three main ones over my three runs. 

[translationninja]

You can struggle as and twist it and turn it as much as you want, talk about violation etc., nothing can change the fact that stating synthesis is "worse" a.k.a preferring destroy over synthesis makes you a genocidal mass murderer.

Maybe a genocidal mass murderer with strong beliefs about a topic (DNA modification), and maybe a genocidal mass murderer whom believes to be absolutely right and making a necessary sacrifice (don't they all think that?) but still a mass murderer nontheless.

There is neither moral ambiguity or room for interpretation in that. All the races came together for a big final stand. So either all of them come out or none. No man left behind. There is no "oops sorry, you guys got the short straw because we others have decided...uhm...yeah...sorry gotta go, hope the wiping out of your species isn't too much of an inconvenience, but you know how Fred gets when it comes to his DNA.

[Fawx9]

Hyrist wrote...

You consider the alteration of life a violation, then why are you on a forum board trying to convince others of your viewpoint?

Information is as much of a life changer than any other compelling force of the Galaxy, yet we do not pause a moment in educating someone from another culture about the 'facts' instead of leaving them to discover it through their own ,and often violent, devices.

It's a double standard that is as clear as day to me. We as a culture say "Oh no, we can't violate the individuality of species, that's wrong! Yet we do so, unceasingly in the social context, daily."

Synthsis is the end argument. Everyone has the access to the same information pool, everyone has the knowledge of the same history. How to build is known, the mysteries of the Universe are, for the most part, resolved. In the end the result becomes merely personal preference - a conversation that ultimately should not end up the way we are discussing it here, and honestly would not take place when the entirety of a person's perception of a matter could be relayed quicker than the time it would take for the individual to inaccurately post it here.

Furthermore, it would be much more difficult to lie about your opinion, which some people sadly actually do to fit the crowd.

So no, I have no qualms about Synthsis, as many people attempt socially in our life - you encounter this any time you preach religion or are preached at. This way of achieving the goal of unifying the perception of sentience is painless, quick, and does so in a manner that is not invasive to free will beyond the fact that it happens. And to be frank, some people could use a little eureka moment to realize just how hypocritical they're being on this matter.

Yes we've 'uplifted' cutures before, and most of the time its been a huge mistake. The Aboriginals are still in a state of dissarray after enlisting them in special schools to teach them the proper way to live.

The fact you force this on everyone in a matter of minutes instead of helping them to learn and discover for themselves is basically the same mistakes we made when we did it in the past.

[translationninja]

Fawx9 wrote...

Hyrist wrote...

You consider the alteration of life a violation, then why are you on a forum board trying to convince others of your viewpoint?

Information is as much of a life changer than any other compelling force of the Galaxy, yet we do not pause a moment in educating someone from another culture about the 'facts' instead of leaving them to discover it through their own ,and often violent, devices.

It's a double standard that is as clear as day to me. We as a culture say "Oh no, we can't violate the individuality of species, that's wrong! Yet we do so, unceasingly in the social context, daily."

Synthsis is the end argument. Everyone has the access to the same information pool, everyone has the knowledge of the same history. How to build is known, the mysteries of the Universe are, for the most part, resolved. In the end the result becomes merely personal preference - a conversation that ultimately should not end up the way we are discussing it here, and honestly would not take place when the entirety of a person's perception of a matter could be relayed quicker than the time it would take for the individual to inaccurately post it here.

Furthermore, it would be much more difficult to lie about your opinion, which some people sadly actually do to fit the crowd.

So no, I have no qualms about Synthsis, as many people attempt socially in our life - you encounter this any time you preach religion or are preached at. This way of achieving the goal of unifying the perception of sentience is painless, quick, and does so in a manner that is not invasive to free will beyond the fact that it happens. And to be frank, some people could use a little eureka moment to realize just how hypocritical they're being on this matter.

Yes we've 'uplifted' cutures before, and most of the time its been a huge mistake. The Aboriginals are still in a state of dissarray after enlisting them in special schools to teach them the proper way to live.

The fact you force this on everyone in a matter of minutes instead of helping them to learn and discover for themselves is basically the same mistakes we made when we did it in the past.

Synthesis hardly compares to making first contact with an aboriginal tribe and handing them some combs and lots of bottles of firewater, don't you think?

[Saans Shadow]

Aylyese wrote...

translationninja wrote...

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.

Oh, well, that is because Destroy and Control both only violates one species. Synthesis violates all species.

But seriously - this is being extraordinarily pedantic isn't it. It doesn't do anything to defend Synthesis at all.

As long as you treat everybody the same lol

[X-JIDE]

Synthesis is possibly one ending I will never pick in any of my playthroughs.

I chose Destroy because it was the moral thing to do, why?
Because the Reapers have killed trillions upon trillions of countless beings in the galaxy because the star kid went against its creators.
They can’t be trusted ... ever. And the fact that Control and Synthesis keeps them alive disgusts me even more.
They basically killed millions of humans on earth, turn everything living into husks, and destroyed most of the homeworlds. What’s stupid about it is the reaper husk’s gets the worst out of Synthesis, they’re stuck looking like that. And what about the families, friends that have lost people they care and love because of the Reapers?
They’re not just going to stand there and accept it like nothing happened because it did.

Way to turn your back on civilization.