470 réponses à ce sujet

[ghost9191]

wantedman dan wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

So basically stoop to the level of the Reapers to beat them, thus becoming just as inherently evil.

Inherent. You keep using that word, but etc.

It’s a hard decision, but not inherently evil. Certainly less so than directly and knowingly causing the deaths of all sapient life through inaction.

To commit genocide is to make you inherently evil. To refuse to and have your principles remain intact, not so much.

except you are commiting or assisting the reapers in commiting genocide on a much larger scale. just to keep your "principles" intact

you know ppl will die if you don't act, and they will number in the millions perhaps billions , so by your inactions you cause the deaths of billions which is genocide,

[wantedman dan]

ghost9191 wrote...

pretty sure you know where i am coming from then?   i am not saying which one is better , just that you do commit genocide with refusal for the same reasons with destroy. you do not know 100% if it will destroy the geth. you are taking a chance with it

Observation of an action =/= committing said action. I guess I should take credit for that epic SuperBowl last March, right? I observed it happening, so obviously, by that logic, the victory should be credited to me.

Quote snipped for irrelevance.

Modifié par wantedman dan, 04 juillet 2012 - 09:06 .

[wantedman dan]

ghost9191 wrote...

except you are commiting or assisting the reapers in commiting genocide on a much larger scale. just to keep your "principles" intact

you know ppl will die if you don't act, and they will number in the millions perhaps billions , so by your inactions you cause the deaths of billions which is genocide,

Assisting? Assisting? Do you even know what that word means?

[SMichelle]

Karimloo wrote...

Why even split the Crucible into three colour coded areas where one area has a touchy control merge thingy, a beam which burns you, and a tube is beyond me.

Why not just a ramp to a control console that allows Shepard to press a button. Why all the DRAMATIC ****?!?!?

Because it's more artistic that way.

Duh! 

[arial]

wantedman dan wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

So basically stoop to the level of the Reapers to beat them, thus becoming just as inherently evil.

Inherent. You keep using that word, but etc.

It’s a hard decision, but not inherently evil. Certainly less so than directly and knowingly causing the deaths of all sapient life through inaction.

To commit genocide is to make you inherently evil. To refuse to and have your principles remain intact, not so much.

letting the Galaxy die when you could have saved it is also "inherently evil"

[lillitheris]

wantedman dan wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

So basically stoop to the level of the Reapers to beat them, thus becoming just as inherently evil.

Inherent. You keep using that word, but etc.

It’s a hard decision, but not inherently evil. Certainly less so than directly and knowingly causing the deaths of all sapient life through inaction.

To commit genocide is to make you inherently evil. To refuse to and have your principles remain intact, not so much.

“Inherent. You keep using that word, but etc.” No.

And, once again, you are committing genocide in Refuse, just through inaction instead. Of all sapient life. So, no…it’s far worse.

[Whatever42]

ghost9191 wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Destroy is the ultimate rejection of the Catalyst, I agree.

Unfortunately, it dooms all organic life. Sad.

want to buy evidence?

There is no evidence of how any conclusion works out. But there is reason for my statement.

The Catalyst has seen interactions between synthetics and organics always deteriorate to war - war in which organics will eventually lose.

Destroy will purge the galaxy of synthetics today but some day, someone will create new ones. These synthetics will know that organics in this galaxy destroyed their synthetic allies in the past to save themselves. This will not incline them to trust us. We threw them under the bus. Clearly, being our friends doesn't work. If the Catalyst is right, and it may be, than organic life is certainly doomed.

Now the refusal option does mean that current galactic civilization is destroyed. But we all die. As Shepard says, we fight for those that live, in this case for future generations of galactic civilization. We leave them a legacy of organics standing by synthetics, even at the risk of our own doom. What would engender more trust and obligation than that. 

This would not only break the Reaper cycle but the cycle of organic versus synthetic war.

Metagaming, we know the Catalyst is honest. If he is right about our eventual doom then Destroy will certainly doom us. 

[wantedman dan]

arial wrote...

letting the Galaxy die when you could have saved it is also "inherently evil"

How so?

[wantedman dan]

lillitheris wrote...

And, once again, you are committing genocide in Refuse, just through inaction instead. Of all sapient life. So, no…it’s far worse.

wantedman dan wrote...

Observation of an action =/= committing said action. I guess I should take credit for that epic SuperBowl last March, right? I observed it happening, so obviously, by that logic, the victory should be credited to me.

Quote snipped for irrelevance.

[The Genophage]

ghost9191 wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

just gonna say love how ppl say they refuse so they don't kill the geth, news flash everyone. the geth die in refuse along with every other race. and don't give that metagaming bs because going in you know damn well you can't win

you just sacrificed most of your resources to get the crucible docked and you can see your ships getting blown up. the crucible changed the catalyst and it is obvious that it doesn't want you to to pick destroy

not saying which is better but don't say you at least don't commit genocide on the geth., because in destroy the geth are a casualty of war and a sacrifice for the many, whereas in refuse they just death is pointless

but that is me

You must not know the definition of Genocide.

anyone with access to the internet knows what the definition of genocide is. you gonna make a point or ask questions out on ignorance <_<

No you don't, because your still calling the Geth "a sacrifice of war"

no i called the geth a casualty of war. they are a sacrifice for the many, in destroy the destroying the geth is genocide. but it is done to save the many. in refusal you don't achieve anything with their deaths, other then to give the next cycle the cahne to use the crucible or a conventional victory

Sigh.....
 Genocide in the dictionary- "the deliberate and systematic destruction"

Deliberate -Done consciously, happening by chance, Done with or marked by full consciousness of its consequences

systematicALLY-arranged in or comprimised in order.

By choosing Destroy, you systematically and deliberately kill the Geth, you are aware of what is going to happen. If they die in refuse, its a causalty of war, if you shoot a tube to kill them all, its genocide. Unless you have any evidence to prove me otherwise, don't write me "NOO ITS A CASUALTIE OF WAR"

Modifié par The Genophage, 04 juillet 2012 - 09:09 .

[arial]

wantedman dan wrote...

arial wrote...

letting the Galaxy die when you could have saved it is also "inherently evil"

How so?

if you seriously don't know, you need to go take a tenth grade Ethics class

[ghost9191]

wantedman dan wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

except you are commiting or assisting the reapers in commiting genocide on a much larger scale. just to keep your "principles" intact

you know ppl will die if you don't act, and they will number in the millions perhaps billions , so by your inactions you cause the deaths of billions which is genocide,

Assisting? Assisting? Do you even know what that word means?

try to make this simple, because due to your rage and dulisions you are having trouble to read i am guessing

by your inactions (Lack or absence of action) you cause the deaths of billions. you had a choice to stop it , you chose not to so by doing so you commit genocide. If you weren't given a choice in the matter to stop it then sure it wouldn't be your fault, but the fact is you were and by doing nothing you allowed the reapers to continue on with their cycle thus harvesting every advanced organic race and assisting them in genocide

Modifié par ghost9191, 04 juillet 2012 - 09:11 .

[Joe Del Toro]

arial wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

arial wrote...

letting the Galaxy die when you could have saved it is also "inherently evil"

How so?

if you seriously don't know, you need to go take a tenth grade Ethics class

That stank so much of '14 year old who doesn't know what he's talking about', man. Seriously, answer his question.

[lillitheris]

If harm through inaction is a strange concept to you, it simply means that you allow harm to be done when you are in a position to stop it. It is no different than actively causing harm.

It’s not really that difficult a concept.

Modifié par lillitheris, 04 juillet 2012 - 09:11 .

[wantedman dan]

arial wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

arial wrote...

letting the Galaxy die when you could have saved it is also "inherently evil"

How so?

if you seriously don't know, you need to go take a tenth grade Ethics class

Answer the question, Arial.

[ghost9191]

The Genophage wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

just gonna say love how ppl say they refuse so they don't kill the geth, news flash everyone. the geth die in refuse along with every other race. and don't give that metagaming bs because going in you know damn well you can't win

you just sacrificed most of your resources to get the crucible docked and you can see your ships getting blown up. the crucible changed the catalyst and it is obvious that it doesn't want you to to pick destroy

not saying which is better but don't say you at least don't commit genocide on the geth., because in destroy the geth are a casualty of war and a sacrifice for the many, whereas in refuse they just death is pointless

but that is me

You must not know the definition of Genocide.

anyone with access to the internet knows what the definition of genocide is. you gonna make a point or ask questions out on ignorance <_<

No you don't, because your still calling the Geth "a sacrifice of war"

no i called the geth a casualty of war. they are a sacrifice for the many, in destroy the destroying the geth is genocide. but it is done to save the many. in refusal you don't achieve anything with their deaths, other then to give the next cycle the cahne to use the crucible or a conventional victory

Sigh.....
 Genocide in the dictionary- "the deliberate and systematic destruction"

Deliberate-[color=rgb(34, 34, 34)">Done consciously, ] [/color]refer[color=rgb(51, 51, 51)"> ] [/color]something[color=rgb(51, 51, 51)"> ] [/color]happening by chance, Done with or marked by full consciousness of its consequences

systematic-arranged[color=rgb(51, 51, 51)"> ] [/color]or[color=rgb(51, 51, 51)"> ] [/color]an ordered

By choosing Destroy, you systematically and deliberately kill the Geth, you are aware of what is going to happen. If they die in refuse, its a causalty of war, if you shoot a tube to kill them all, its genocide. Unless you have any evidence to prove me otherwishttp://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/new_post/12965864/12968457e, don't write me "NOO ITS A CASUALTIE OF WAR"

ok try to read my posts very carefully.

i said that it was genocide, but so is refusal , by your inactions you cause the deaths of 14 known races, pretty it up all you want, you did a far greater evil then i , you are the cause, you had the ability to choose a different option , instead you chose, you , chose not to stop the cycle. therefore commiting genocide of 14 species , deliberately

and it's just a game

[SMichelle]

Grimwick wrote...

Destroy is a choice offered by the SC? Although i personally prefer destroy there is no actual logical reasoning as to choosing it over refuse.

Unless you meta-game...

First time I played I had no idea what would happen.

I picked Destroy simply because that is what my Shepard had been trying to do for 3 games.


Catalyst:  "You could destroy us....but hey! Where are you going?"
My Shep:  "So it's that red tube over there then...?"
Catalyst:  "But I've got 2 other colors to tell you about!"
My Shep: "Nah, I'm good....*shoots the hell out of the red tube*

I knew refuse wouldn't work because the only thing separating us from countless cycles was the Crucible.  That's it.  My awesome Shepard Powers weren't going to save the day.

[wantedman dan]

ghost9191 wrote...

try to make this simple, because due to your rage and dulisions you are having trouble to read i am guessing

I'd say the same for you in your attempt at spelling.

by your inactions (Lack or absence of action) you cause the deaths of billions. you had a choice to stop it , you chose not to so by doing so you commit genocide. If you weren't given a choice in the matter to stop it then sure it wouldn't be your fault, but the fact is you were and by doing nothing you allowed the reapers to continue on with their cycle thus harvesting every advanced organic race and assisting them in genocide
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

So by actively choosing not to harm, personally--either by genocide, eugenics, or slavery--I am actively choosing to harm. That logic is non-sequitur and absurd.

The point is, there is no other option because of the atrocities that the others make me commit.

[wantedman dan]

lillitheris wrote...

If harm through inaction is a strange concept to you, it simply means that you allow harm to be done when you are in a position to stop it. It is no different than actively causing harm.

It’s not really that difficult a concept.

Your sentiment would be admirable if it were placed in the appropriate context.

Modifié par wantedman dan, 04 juillet 2012 - 09:13 .

[lillitheris]

wantedman dan wrote...

arial wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

arial wrote...

letting the Galaxy die when you could have saved it is also "inherently evil"

How so?

if you seriously don't know, you need to go take a tenth grade Ethics class

Answer the question, Arial.

The answer is simple: you allowed everyone to die when you could have prevented it.

Seriously, not a difficult concept.

[wantedman dan]

lillitheris wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

arial wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

arial wrote...

letting the Galaxy die when you could have saved it is also "inherently evil"

How so?

if you seriously don't know, you need to go take a tenth grade Ethics class

Answer the question, Arial.

The answer is simple: you allowed everyone to die when you could have prevented it.

Seriously, not a difficult concept.

By committing one of three atrocities to do such.

It's more complex than you apparently choose to believe. Ignorance is bliss, as they say.

[arial]

wantedman dan wrote...

arial wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

arial wrote...

letting the Galaxy die when you could have saved it is also "inherently evil"

How so?

if you seriously don't know, you need to go take a tenth grade Ethics class

Answer the question, Arial.

those who allow Atrocity to occur (even if they were not the ones to do it) have, and always will be looked upon as evil. This is the reason for the French Revolution (sure King Louis and Maria Antonieta were not commiting said Atrocities, but they had the power to stop them and did not)

If you have the power to stop the Reapers, but do not because you do not want to kill the Geth, you are just as responsible as the Reapers themselves

[Whatever42]

lillitheris wrote...

If harm through inaction is a strange concept to you, it simply means that you allow harm to be done when you are in a position to stop it. It is no different than actively causing harm.

It’s not really that difficult a concept.

It's not harm through inaction. I'm sure Shepard and the fleets acted.

A mad gunman tells you that you have to shoot your brother or he kills your whole family. You rush him. He shoots you and several members of your family but you get him.

That's not inaction. That's very deliberate action. And you aren't guilty of murder. He is.

[lillitheris]

wantedman dan wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

If harm through inaction is a strange concept to you, it simply means that you allow harm to be done when you are in a position to stop it. It is no different than actively causing harm.

It’s not really that difficult a concept.

Your sentiment would be admirable if it were placed in the appropriate context.

Good attempt at side-stepping, but rather transparent in the end.

You can prevent the entire galaxy getting killed. If you choose not to do that, you have killed them.

[ghost9191]

wantedman dan wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

try to make this simple, because due to your rage and delusions you are having trouble to read i am guessing

I'd say the same for you in your attempt at spelling.

by your inactions (Lack or absence of action) you cause the deaths of billions. you had a choice to stop it , you chose not to so by doing so you commit genocide. If you weren't given a choice in the matter to stop it then sure it wouldn't be your fault, but the fact is you were and by doing nothing you allowed the reapers to continue on with their cycle thus harvesting every advanced organic race and assisting them in genocide
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

So by actively choosing not to harm, personally--either by genocide, eugenics, or slavery--I am actively choosing to harm. That logic is non-sequitur and absurd.

The point is, there is no other option because of the atrocities that the others make me commit.

right so you choose an inaction of greater evil to soothe your conscience, /golfclap

get you like refuse, that is fine it is all opinion based

but just don't delude yourself, or do i don't care , don't feel like going around in circles

Modifié par ghost9191, 04 juillet 2012 - 09:18 .