I'm doing my best to stop the circular logic I saw earlier in the thread because it was driving me nuts, too.Valhart wrote...
Oh man, the circlejerk in this thread is OVER 9000!
Modifié par Mystiq6, 07 juillet 2012 - 12:02 .
Fandango9641 wrote...
If you really want to explore that area, ask the syn-pathisers to replace the words 'organic' and 'synthetic' with two new variables, two that fundamentally differentiate RL human beings (race, gender, sexual orientation, religious denomination, whatever). Then ask them to justify the morally repugnant proposition of removing that distinction without the permission of a single, solitary person.
Any talk of 'the greater good' and we know for sure that we have an ickle megalomaniac on our hands.
Mystiq6 wrote...
I'm doing my best to stop the circular logic I saw earlier in the thread because it was driving me nuts, too.
Though it would seem that whenever I start posting in a thread, it stops with my post as the last one. It's rather entertaining to watch.
Those conversations show me that they are not hostile. And you can try to find reasons behind everything, I guess, but fact is that the geth were never intended as being violent. The dark energy script leaked a few months before the release of ME3 and that caused a change of the endings that we now see. Suddenly the geth were supposed to be violent, but nothing in the game proved that. It was the other way around. It went as far a sproving that the violent "geth" in ME1 were actually heretics who were turned against organics by the reapers.Mystiq6 wrote...
Thank you for reminding me, but it still doesn't explain why the geth didn't simply kill what they absolutely needed to and then leave. Again, I'm not saying the geth are inherently evil -- clearly they are poor, misunderstood creatures (kinda like dragons, as per Hagrid) -- but the viciousness they exhibited in the war cannot go unspoken for.
For the record, I opted to save both the quarians and geth because I love both of those genocidal bastards.
There were like 2 pages of posts I read where someone asked a question, person B answered, then person C chimed in to refute it, then person A comes back and asks another question and someone answers by defining points x, y and z and then comes up with a different response and then Harbinger steps in and laser-bombs everything that was said.Sarevok Synder wrote...
Mystiq6 wrote...
I'm doing my best to stop the circular logic I saw earlier in the thread because it was driving me nuts, too.
Though it would seem that whenever I start posting in a thread, it stops with my post as the last one. It's rather entertaining to watch.
Where have I used circular logic? The only one I can see who's guity of that is Starbrat.
Mystiq6 wrote...
There were like 2 pages of posts I read where someone asked a question, person B answered, then person C chimed in to refute it, then person A comes back and asks another question and someone answers by defining points x, y and z and then comes up with a different response and then Harbinger steps in and laser-bombs everything that was said.
That was the point where you and Heeden started replying to my posts.
Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 07 juillet 2012 - 12:16 .
Yes, but the point is... I'm the new Catalyst!AngryFrozenWater wrote...
But we are getting off-topic.
Don't make me dig up the posts! I was reading a lot of posts where there was a lot of back and forth and new arguments were springing up without anything actually getting answered.Sarevok Synder wrote...
Mystiq6 wrote...
There were like 2 pages of posts I read where someone asked a question, person B answered, then person C chimed in to refute it, then person A comes back and asks another question and someone answers by defining points x, y and z and then comes up with a different response and then Harbinger steps in and laser-bombs everything that was said.
That was the point where you and Heeden started replying to my posts.
So, where's the circular logic?
Mystiq6 wrote...
Don't make me dig up the posts! I was reading a lot of posts where there was a lot of back and forth and new arguments were springing up without anything actually getting answered.
Back on topic, sir! (Or madame.)
Guest_Fandango_*
Sarevok Synder wrote...
Fandango9641 wrote...
If you really want to explore that area, ask the syn-pathisers to replace the words 'organic' and 'synthetic' with two new variables, two that fundamentally differentiate RL human beings (race, gender, sexual orientation, religious denomination, whatever). Then ask them to justify the morally repugnant proposition of removing that distinction without the permission of a single, solitary person.
Any talk of 'the greater good' and we know for sure that we have an ickle megalomaniac on our hands.
I didn't like to put it so bluntly in my "discussions", but yeah, that's a truly frightening prospect.
Mystiq6 wrote...
The game lays out a couple of facts in regards to this argument (in which I also believe you're twisting the argument to your favor).One is that the geth were acting in self-defense as the quarians tried to shut down all down. The geth simply wanted to survive, a basic instinct in anything with sentience. In reaction to being shut down, the geth went to war with the quarians, wiping out the majority of them, forcing them off their own planet. Then, the geth isolated themselves and haven't been seen in 300 years. I'm not saying the quarians are innocent in this but I have some questions left unexplained by the game. Why did the geth kill so many quarians and not simply escape? Why did they ruin Rannoch?
Yes, that's probably a weak argument but here's another one. The Catalyst is synthetic. It killed its creators against their will and then proceeded to reap the rest of the galaxy. I call that evil -- by human standards, at least, since I'm not a quarian or turian. By the Catalyst's logic, it's not acting out of malice. That's by AI logic and you and I are not AIs.
The Catalyst has a limited view of things and I argued in another post that it has never actually seen synthetics wipe out organics. To get a better perspective, go look up the movie I, Robot, and read up about how the machines go from servants to enslaving mankind.
By the reasoning of the 3 basic principles of robotics, protecting humans from each other means enslaving them since otherwise they will wipe each other out if left unchecked. The Catalyst use a similar kind of logical extension something to reach its own conclusions.
Modifié par Heeden, 07 juillet 2012 - 03:05 .
This is what I'm talking about, talking in circles.Heeden wrote...
I'm going to pinch a Legion quote from AngryFrozenWater here "We do not judge them for being true to their nature." The Catalyst was created to perform a task, it was furnished with data and programming to complete that task, the results are the fault of the ones who created it but still I can not call them evil; either misguided or stupid yes but evil suggests they fully realise the damage and suffering they would cause and simply didn't care.
You are ignoring pieces of my arguments. I will restate them more clearly.Modifié par Mystiq6, 07 juillet 2012 - 04:15 .
Modifié par Heeden, 07 juillet 2012 - 04:28 .
This conversation cannot continue if you're going to toss out everything I say on a technicality. I gave you arguments that the notion of "evil" is, for lack of a better metaphor, in the eye of the beholder. You're telling me it's not and not giving any counter arguments. You cannot compare the morals of Saren to a machine gun. If you think evil is a universal truth, applicable on both sides of the entity in question, then just say so, and we're done.Heeden wrote...
@Mystic6
I wouldn't label an entity as evil unless it was knowingly and willingly causing suffering with selfish motivations. Ozymandias from Watchmen and TIM from ME are two characters who's actions may be considered evil, but who's motivations at least come from some sort of higher goal than self-advancement. They may be misguided, arrogant and have a skewed perspective but (in TIM's case at least) taking him down felt like a huge waste of potential, a necessary act but I regret the fact it was necessary.
The Catalyst is a machine, built for a purpose. I see no more reason to label him as evil than I do Shepard's assault rifle (which given its much smaller size and time-scale could be a more efficient killer than the Reaper-cycle could dream of).
Modifié par Mystiq6, 07 juillet 2012 - 05:01 .
Modifié par darkpassenger2342, 07 juillet 2012 - 04:45 .
Its relevance is only to the logic applied to justify actions to equate morality to being evil. I don't even know how I got here.darkpassenger2342 wrote...
be careful bringing up that analogy mystiq, alot of people are going to respond negatively to it.
none of these endings are in any way comparable to the holocaust or racial cleansing.
Modifié par Mystiq6, 07 juillet 2012 - 04:51 .
doesnt look like you took it far, im only warning you because ive seen the backlash it causes the last two days.Mystiq6 wrote...
Its relevance is only to the logic applied to justify actions to equate morality to being evil. I don't even know how I got here.darkpassenger2342 wrote...
be careful bringing up that analogy mystiq, alot of people are going to respond negatively to it.
none of these endings are in any way comparable to the holocaust or racial cleansing.
However, I think I answered the thread's topic by bringing it up. It might be safe to say that the universe is under threat by the Catalyst when picking Synthesis. Under Control and Destroy, the Catalyst is destroyed.
Modifié par darkpassenger2342, 07 juillet 2012 - 04:54 .
Mystiq6 wrote...
This conversation cannot continue if you're going to toss out everything I say on a technicality. I gave you arguments that the notion of "evil" is, for lack of a better metaphor, in the eye of the beholder, and you're telling me it's not. You cannot compare the morals of Saren to a machine gun.
Let's bring this to the most extreme example I can think of: Adolf Hitler. He thought he was purifying the human race by wiping out non-Aryans. You tell me if you think the man is evil or not.
So be it. Regardless of "Godwin's Law," I consider the example perfectly relevant. I don't think I've once brought it up in an argument before, which I hope speaks to its relevance. I am not trying to win or lose. If that's how you see this discussion, that's not my intention. I like good arguments. It's why I still come here.Heeden wrote...
Mystiq6 wrote...
This conversation cannot continue if you're going to toss out everything I say on a technicality. I gave you arguments that the notion of "evil" is, for lack of a better metaphor, in the eye of the beholder, and you're telling me it's not. You cannot compare the morals of Saren to a machine gun.
I was actually comparing the morals (or at least intrinsic lack of morality) of the Catalyst to a machine gun.Let's bring this to the most extreme example I can think of: Adolf Hitler. He thought he was purifying the human race by wiping out non-Aryans. You tell me if you think the man is evil or not.
By the laws of the internet invoking Godwin's law counts as an instant you-lose I'm afraid, but if I call you an idiot for making that comparison the obvious ad-hominem should cancel it out. Also I should point out that Hitler was not a robot obeying his programming.
Modifié par Mystiq6, 07 juillet 2012 - 05:28 .
Mystiq6 wrote...
You consider the concept of evil to be a universal truth regardless of perspective and I do not. We are done.
Heeden wrote...
Mystiq6 wrote...
You consider the concept of evil to be a universal truth regardless of perspective and I do not. We are done.
Actually I consider the concept of evil to be a crutch for people who can't accept that the universe is a complicated place and sometimes **** just happens.
Heeden wrote...
Also I should point out that Hitler was not a robot obeying his programming.
Modifié par Mystiq6, 07 juillet 2012 - 05:27 .
Retour en haut