When did you speak to Sovereign through the catalyst?darkpassenger2342 wrote...
@HOYD
the reapers dont think that lol.... the people ( by people, i do not mean humans, i mean whoever created the reapers) who designed the reapers, the crucible plans, the catalyst, and the cycle itself programmed them.......
why do you guys think they have minds like organics? because they talk?
yes sovereign was capable of reasoning, but only because you were speaking through the catalyst, who admittedly controls the reapers as one.
the reapers are nothing more than a computer program.
they are not 'living" beings.
Synthesis is what the Reapers want
Débuté par
The Angry One
, juil. 05 2012 04:40
#951
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 11:20
Harbinger of your Destiny
-
- Members
- 1 625 messages
Retour en haut
#952
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 11:21
The Angry One
-
- Members
- 22 246 messages
darkpassenger2342 wrote...
so you are saying that starchild was lying when he said he controls the reapers????
you say you argue the lore but you will contest anything in the ending as a lie.
its absurd.
Are you saying Sovereign was lying when he said "We are each a nation, independant, free of weakness"?
Besides it doesn't matter. Again, genocidal monster or automaton. Pick one, and explain why either is worth preserving over ourselves.
#953
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 11:21
Baronesa
-
- Members
- 1 934 messages
darkpassenger2342 wrote...
so you are saying that starchild was lying when he said he controls the reapers????
you say you argue the lore but you will contest anything in the ending as a lie.
its absurd.
sorry i must have missed the BLEEDING REAPERS on my 4 playthroughs of the first 2 games.
The fact that the Catalyst controls the Reapers does not mean they are not SENTIENT.... they are still AI.
by definition IN GAME, AI are considered to be alive... In fact the politically correct term to refer to an AI is "Synthetic" since the term artificial is considered derogatory...
The codex is your friend... it does not bite
#954
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 11:22
Grand Admiral Cheesecake
-
- Members
- 5 704 messages
The Angry One wrote...
darkpassenger2342 wrote...
so you are saying that starchild was lying when he said he controls the reapers????
you say you argue the lore but you will contest anything in the ending as a lie.
its absurd.
Are you saying Sovereign was lying when he said "We are each a nation, independant, free of weakness"?
Besides it doesn't matter. Again, genocidal monster or automaton. Pick one, and explain why either is worth preserving over ourselves.
Because some people like blue or green explosions!
#955
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 11:22
darkpassenger2342
-
- Members
- 6 944 messages
@TAO
no, they are capable of independant thought as well, like legion...
starchild explains this at the same time he tells you HE CONTROLS THEM
i love how you guys read something in the game, and interpret HALF of it as fact and the other half as a lie, then come here to only contest the half you think is the lie and believe the other crap so easily.
no, they are capable of independant thought as well, like legion...
starchild explains this at the same time he tells you HE CONTROLS THEM
i love how you guys read something in the game, and interpret HALF of it as fact and the other half as a lie, then come here to only contest the half you think is the lie and believe the other crap so easily.
Modifié par darkpassenger2342, 06 juillet 2012 - 11:23 .
#956
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 11:23
Harbinger of your Destiny
-
- Members
- 1 625 messages
I'm, only going to say this one more time. The only ending which guarantees that there is no more reapers is destroy. If after we destroy the reapers we build synthetics that rise up and we are unable to stop them that is our bad but that is our mistake to make and if we make such a boneheaded decision then we deserve to be wiped out.
#957
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 11:24
darkpassenger2342
-
- Members
- 6 944 messages
you dont know you were until you beat the third game and starchild tells you HE CONTROLS THE REAPERS AS ONE.Harbinger of your Destiny wrote...
When did you speak to Sovereign through the catalyst?darkpassenger2342 wrote...
@HOYD
the reapers dont think that lol.... the people ( by people, i do not mean humans, i mean whoever created the reapers) who designed the reapers, the crucible plans, the catalyst, and the cycle itself programmed them.......
why do you guys think they have minds like organics? because they talk?
yes sovereign was capable of reasoning, but only because you were speaking through the catalyst, who admittedly controls the reapers as one.
the reapers are nothing more than a computer program.
they are not 'living" beings.
you guys must have missed this part.
#958
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 11:24
Grand Admiral Cheesecake
-
- Members
- 5 704 messages
darkpassenger2342 wrote...
@TAO
no, they are capable of independant thought as well, like legion...
starchild explains this at the same time he tells you HE CONTROLS THEM
i love how you guys read something in the game, and interpret HALF of it as fact and the other half as a lie, then come here to only contest the half you think is the lie and believe the other crap so easily.
Well then I should pick destroy to kill the star brat then.
Problem solved.
#959
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 11:24
darkpassenger2342
-
- Members
- 6 944 messages
my goal was not to stop the reapers, my goal was the end the cycle...Harbinger of your Destiny wrote...
I'm, only going to say this one more time. The only ending which guarantees that there is no more reapers is destroy. If after we destroy the reapers we build synthetics that rise up and we are unable to stop them that is our bad but that is our mistake to make and if we make such a boneheaded decision then we deserve to be wiped out.
i guess we beat the game for different reasons.
#960
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 11:26
Rhayak
-
- Members
- 858 messages
The Angry One wrote...
Reject is not letting the Reapers win, it's standing up and saying we'll fight them to the end.
That they do win is irrelevant to the fact that we tried to stop them.
That is the pinnacle of your personal pride put before the whole galaxy and all those who believed in you. Destroy makes more sense if what you want is spit in the Reapers' face, as you get rid of them and all they ever built.
Synthesis is not a compromise. The Reapers gain everything they want, and we are remade to suit them.
We are ALL remade! Both us and the Reapers. They never wanted anything but contrast the conflict between synthetics and organics, and now they don't have to harvest us anymore to accomplish that.
They may sound inherently evil throughout the series, but really they are not.
The benefits of synthesis are things we could achieve on our own terms,
not according to the Mass Effect story.
By being forced on everyone, that in itself becomes meaningless.
that's only true on an idealistic level.
Yes, it would've been the right thing. Nobody has the right to sacrifice people because they think their way is best in that manner.
Peace by faking a common enemy will be a temporary, false peace at best.
So, nuclear holocaust instead of letting the world believe a lie....
I am the first to think every life is precious, but in the movie setting, as they put it, killing millions to save billions and PREVENT the death of additional billions does make sense.
About how temporary that is, i don't know. Perhaps i should research if they made more comics....
Modifié par Rhayak, 06 juillet 2012 - 11:27 .
#961
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 11:26
The Angry One
-
- Members
- 22 246 messages
darkpassenger2342 wrote...
@TAO
no, they are capable of independant thought as well, like legion...
starchild explains this at the same time he tells you HE CONTROLS THEM
i love how you guys read something in the game, and interpret HALF of it as fact and the other half as a lie, then come here to only contest the half you think is the lie and believe the other crap so easily.
Yes, and they revel in what they do. Controlled or not.
Besides, the Catalyst's own logic works against synthesis. Those that surpass others will inevitably dominate and destroy them, yes?
I hate to break it to you, but Reapers could still crush hybrids like bugs. The galaxy continues at their whim. According to the Catalyst, that is a risk you shouldn't take.
#962
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 11:26
Baronesa
-
- Members
- 1 934 messages
darkpassenger2342 wrote...
you dont know you were until you beat the third game and starchild tells you HE CONTROLS THE REAPERS AS ONE.Harbinger of your Destiny wrote...
When did you speak to Sovereign through the catalyst?darkpassenger2342 wrote...
@HOYD
the reapers dont think that lol.... the people ( by people, i do not mean humans, i mean whoever created the reapers) who designed the reapers, the crucible plans, the catalyst, and the cycle itself programmed them.......
why do you guys think they have minds like organics? because they talk?
yes sovereign was capable of reasoning, but only because you were speaking through the catalyst, who admittedly controls the reapers as one.
the reapers are nothing more than a computer program.
they are not 'living" beings.
you guys must have missed this part.
...
Then why the HELL did Sovereign needed to reach the Citadel to summon the other REapers... if the Catalyst either is the Citadel or lives there...
By your reasoning then the whole plot of ME is irrelevant since starchild could have done what Sovereign wanted at any moment.
Furthermore, if we follow your thou8ght pattern that the Reaper are controlled and NOT ALIVE... then there is no problem by destroying them... yet you want to make peace with them...
There is a deep level of double standards on your reasoning that I simply cannot let fly
#963
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 11:27
Jackums
-
- Members
- 1 479 messages
[quote]The Angry One wrote...
Everything in the narrative supports me. NOTHING supports the Catalyst.[/quote]
No, it doesn't. You're interpreting the narrative in a way that supports what you're saying. Interpretation.
Proof is not subjective.
[quote]The Angry One wrote...
An appeal to probability is a logical fallacy.[/quote]
Claiming assumptions and perceptions are fact is void of all logic entirely.
[quote]The Angry One wrote...
Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions.
Also, domination is again not the issue. Extinction is. This is what the Catalyst claims.[/quote]
I'll leave this out as I'm not enthusiastic at the idea of expanding this into another debate.
[quote]The Angry One wrote...
Then how the hell was the cycle "the only solution"?
Either it's right because it's explored every option, or it's not. You've basically just admitted that it's wrong due to being inflexible.[/quote]
It evidently was shackled to an extent that allowed it to consider other options. The options the Crucible presented, however, were not possible without the Crucible itself. Hence, its solution was previously the only way. By its logic anyway. Though this is not relevant to your claim that Synthesis is bad simply because the Catalyst prefers it.
[quote]The Angry One wrote...
It's fighting them to the very end instead of doing their bidding, it's the very definition of resistance.[/quote]
How is the Catalyst and its tools all being destroyed "its bidding"?
How is the Catalyst being replaced, giving you total control over its tools, "its bidding"?
And your idea that Synthesis, or any of the RGB choices, are anything more than it trying to solve the problem it was created to solve, is nothing more than your own assumption that lacks any evidence.
[quote]The Angry One wrote...
Everything I say is based on the facts and dialogue presented in the game that fully contradict the "unicorns and puppies" message of synthesis.[/quote]
Your interpretations and assumptions are based on canon material, though said material does not make these conclusions; you make them yourself. They could be interpreted in a multitude of ways. Yours is not absolute.
[quote]The Angry One wrote...
I'm stating that there was already a prior agreement to fight the Reapers,[/quote]
To stop the Reapers. Refuse is the only option that does not do this, and is therefore the only endgame choice that galactic civilisation did not agree to.
[quote]The Angry One wrote...
and in any case Shepard does not know any of those options will work as advertised,[/quote]
But we're not discussing this from Shepard's perspective. I've heard the whole "metagaming" argument already. We're discussing this as players who are very well aware of the consequences of each choice.
[quote]The Angry One wrote...
and no. Submission to the Reapers is not preferable to extinction. Talk to any squadmate and see what they have to say about that.[/quote]
The RGB options are not submission. That's nothing more than your own headcanon.
They're compromise. Something no-one ever imagined was possible, and therefore did not discuss.
[quote]The Angry One wrote...
Faulty logic, destroy and reject are not forcing people to do anything they're not already doing.[/quote]
It's forcefully wiping out a sentient race. It falls into the same category as Synthesis and Refuse.
[quote]The Angry One wrote...
Control forces them to live under Reaper rule for eternity.[/quote]
Speculation.
[quote]The Angry One wrote...
I'm pointing out that option A is what people have already chosen, and option B changes them into the very thing they're fighting.[/quote]
And that's exactly the headcanon I'm referring to.
Nowhere did they agree to do anything other than fight to stop the Reapers. This immediately excludes Refuse, as it's the only option that does not do this. Quote the game where it was stated everyone agreed to die for the sake of one man's/woman's pride, morals, and ego. If you cannot, your claim is invalid.
[quote]The Angry One wrote...
We can know, because the Catalyst never gives an example. Never backs up it's claims. Always causes the problems it claims to prevent. Demonstrates it's inflexibility and stupidity at every turn.[/quote]
That leaves it as neither correct nor incorrect.
Do we have evidence of there being alien life in other galaxies? No. Does that mean we know there isn't? No.
That is not logic by any stretch of the imagination. Your argument is invalid.
[quote]The Angry One wrote...
Events from this cycle and the last prove it wrong. It's own descriptions of it's origin prove it wrong. All you have is "well, in billions of years it could happen!" Not good enough. [/quote]
And you have no proof of it never having happened. You also have no way of knowing.
I'm no more incorrect than you are.
[quote]The Angry One wrote...
Oh god I did not just read that... oh I did didn't I. Sigh.
Evolution is a natural process which we have named.
That is not "man-made" any more than gravity is.[/quote]
I never said the physicality of it is man-made.
I said the definition, and concept of it as a whole is. Reality itself is based on our perception. Why is a rock called a rock? Because we deem it so. It's not a rock, it simply is. Evolution is described as wholely natural because we deem it so, not because that's the reality of the situation. Why can it not be unnatural? Because we define it as natural? Here's the keyword; we. We used to think the earth was flat. Was it so because we deemed it so? No. Just as evolution is not strictly natural because we deem it so. We have no idea what may happen in the future, or whether synthetics will become a part of evolution. Just the same as the concept of "natural" is nothing more than our own categorising of things we perceive.
[quote]The Angry One wrote...
I do. Show me proof to the contrary.[/quote]
Show me proof of your claim.
[quote]The Angry One wrote...
Because I have proof and you have none. [/quote]
I've yet to see it. Your delusion that your own perception is evidence is nothing more than that; a delusion.
[quote]The Angry One wrote...
I have, multiple times. Quotes, examples and precident from within the narrative. You've given me nothing.[/quote]
You've supplied quotes which you've then drawn conclusions from. Not quotes that draw this conclusion themselves.
That's speculation based on canon material. Not canon material confirming your speculations.
Everything in the narrative supports me. NOTHING supports the Catalyst.[/quote]
No, it doesn't. You're interpreting the narrative in a way that supports what you're saying. Interpretation.
Proof is not subjective.
[quote]The Angry One wrote...
An appeal to probability is a logical fallacy.[/quote]
Claiming assumptions and perceptions are fact is void of all logic entirely.
[quote]The Angry One wrote...
Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions.
Also, domination is again not the issue. Extinction is. This is what the Catalyst claims.[/quote]
I'll leave this out as I'm not enthusiastic at the idea of expanding this into another debate.
[quote]The Angry One wrote...
Then how the hell was the cycle "the only solution"?
Either it's right because it's explored every option, or it's not. You've basically just admitted that it's wrong due to being inflexible.[/quote]
It evidently was shackled to an extent that allowed it to consider other options. The options the Crucible presented, however, were not possible without the Crucible itself. Hence, its solution was previously the only way. By its logic anyway. Though this is not relevant to your claim that Synthesis is bad simply because the Catalyst prefers it.
[quote]The Angry One wrote...
It's fighting them to the very end instead of doing their bidding, it's the very definition of resistance.[/quote]
How is the Catalyst and its tools all being destroyed "its bidding"?
How is the Catalyst being replaced, giving you total control over its tools, "its bidding"?
And your idea that Synthesis, or any of the RGB choices, are anything more than it trying to solve the problem it was created to solve, is nothing more than your own assumption that lacks any evidence.
[quote]The Angry One wrote...
Everything I say is based on the facts and dialogue presented in the game that fully contradict the "unicorns and puppies" message of synthesis.[/quote]
Your interpretations and assumptions are based on canon material, though said material does not make these conclusions; you make them yourself. They could be interpreted in a multitude of ways. Yours is not absolute.
[quote]The Angry One wrote...
I'm stating that there was already a prior agreement to fight the Reapers,[/quote]
To stop the Reapers. Refuse is the only option that does not do this, and is therefore the only endgame choice that galactic civilisation did not agree to.
[quote]The Angry One wrote...
and in any case Shepard does not know any of those options will work as advertised,[/quote]
But we're not discussing this from Shepard's perspective. I've heard the whole "metagaming" argument already. We're discussing this as players who are very well aware of the consequences of each choice.
[quote]The Angry One wrote...
and no. Submission to the Reapers is not preferable to extinction. Talk to any squadmate and see what they have to say about that.[/quote]
The RGB options are not submission. That's nothing more than your own headcanon.
They're compromise. Something no-one ever imagined was possible, and therefore did not discuss.
[quote]The Angry One wrote...
Faulty logic, destroy and reject are not forcing people to do anything they're not already doing.[/quote]
It's forcefully wiping out a sentient race. It falls into the same category as Synthesis and Refuse.
[quote]The Angry One wrote...
Control forces them to live under Reaper rule for eternity.[/quote]
Speculation.
[quote]The Angry One wrote...
I'm pointing out that option A is what people have already chosen, and option B changes them into the very thing they're fighting.[/quote]
And that's exactly the headcanon I'm referring to.
Nowhere did they agree to do anything other than fight to stop the Reapers. This immediately excludes Refuse, as it's the only option that does not do this. Quote the game where it was stated everyone agreed to die for the sake of one man's/woman's pride, morals, and ego. If you cannot, your claim is invalid.
[quote]The Angry One wrote...
We can know, because the Catalyst never gives an example. Never backs up it's claims. Always causes the problems it claims to prevent. Demonstrates it's inflexibility and stupidity at every turn.[/quote]
That leaves it as neither correct nor incorrect.
Do we have evidence of there being alien life in other galaxies? No. Does that mean we know there isn't? No.
That is not logic by any stretch of the imagination. Your argument is invalid.
[quote]The Angry One wrote...
Events from this cycle and the last prove it wrong. It's own descriptions of it's origin prove it wrong. All you have is "well, in billions of years it could happen!" Not good enough. [/quote]
And you have no proof of it never having happened. You also have no way of knowing.
I'm no more incorrect than you are.
[quote]The Angry One wrote...
Oh god I did not just read that... oh I did didn't I. Sigh.
Evolution is a natural process which we have named.
That is not "man-made" any more than gravity is.[/quote]
I never said the physicality of it is man-made.
I said the definition, and concept of it as a whole is. Reality itself is based on our perception. Why is a rock called a rock? Because we deem it so. It's not a rock, it simply is. Evolution is described as wholely natural because we deem it so, not because that's the reality of the situation. Why can it not be unnatural? Because we define it as natural? Here's the keyword; we. We used to think the earth was flat. Was it so because we deemed it so? No. Just as evolution is not strictly natural because we deem it so. We have no idea what may happen in the future, or whether synthetics will become a part of evolution. Just the same as the concept of "natural" is nothing more than our own categorising of things we perceive.
[quote]The Angry One wrote...
I do. Show me proof to the contrary.[/quote]
Show me proof of your claim.
[quote]The Angry One wrote...
Because I have proof and you have none. [/quote]
I've yet to see it. Your delusion that your own perception is evidence is nothing more than that; a delusion.
[quote]The Angry One wrote...
I have, multiple times. Quotes, examples and precident from within the narrative. You've given me nothing.[/quote]
You've supplied quotes which you've then drawn conclusions from. Not quotes that draw this conclusion themselves.
That's speculation based on canon material. Not canon material confirming your speculations.
Modifié par JackumsD, 06 juillet 2012 - 11:30 .
#964
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 11:28
Harbinger of your Destiny
-
- Members
- 1 625 messages
"We are each a nation"darkpassenger2342 wrote...
@TAO
no, they are capable of independant thought as well, like legion...
starchild explains this at the same time he tells you HE CONTROLS THEM
i love how you guys read something in the game, and interpret HALF of it as fact and the other half as a lie, then come here to only contest the half you think is the lie and believe the other crap so easily.
Nation-a territorial division containing a body of people
of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively
large size and independent status
Why would Sovereign lie about that, what purpose would that serve. He could have said that his master the star brat pulled all the strings and the end result would still have been the same.
#965
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 11:29
darkpassenger2342
-
- Members
- 6 944 messages
omg he lied to you because that was all you needed to know in th first game....
he lied to you because thats all the writers wanted to tell you...
now an evil, vile, abhorration of death like the reaper is incapable of lying????
heh good one.
he lied to you because thats all the writers wanted to tell you...
now an evil, vile, abhorration of death like the reaper is incapable of lying????
heh good one.
#966
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 11:30
The Angry One
-
- Members
- 22 246 messages
Rhayak wrote...
That is the pinnacle of your personal pride put before the whole galaxy and all those who believed in you. Destroy makes more sense if what you want is spit in the Reapers' face, as you get rid of them and all they ever built.
Reject is not pride. For the last time, reject is resistence against a Reaper ultimatum, like we have always done before.
We are ALL remade! Both us and the Reapers. They never wanted anything but contrast the conflict between synthetics and organics, and now they don't have to harvest us anymore to accomplish that.
They may sound inherently evil throughout the series, but really they are not.
Reapers are already hybrids. Organics are remade in their image, they are not remade in ours. We become tolerable to them. They no longer harvest because we are no longer organics - that's despicable.
not according to the Mass Effect story.
WHAT? Species are achieving states similar to what synthesis forces on everyone in ME all the time.
The Zha'til achieved perfect synthesis in the previous cycle (and then the Reapers destroyed them).
that's only true on an idealistic level.
On a practical level, on a narrative level. On every level.
Remember what Legion and Mordin said? Being guided blinds you to alternatives. Being uplifted suddenly can be disastrous.
So, nuclear holocaust instead of letting the world believe a lie....
I am the first to think every life is precious, but in the movie setting, as they put it, killing millions to save billions and PREVENT the death of additional billions does make sense.
About how temporary that is, i don't know. Perhaps i should research if they made more comics....
Assuming the nuclear war is inevitable. It never was in our history.
Assuming it that if it is inevitable that it won't happen later. Again, fabricating a common enemy only works for so long.
#967
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 11:32
Harbinger of your Destiny
-
- Members
- 1 625 messages
Modifié par Harbinger of your Destiny, 06 juillet 2012 - 11:37 .
#968
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 11:36
Harbinger of your Destiny
-
- Members
- 1 625 messages
When someone lies it is for a reason. Why would Sovereign lie?darkpassenger2342 wrote...
omg he lied to you because that was all you needed to know in th first game....
he lied to you because thats all the writers wanted to tell you...
now an evil, vile, abhorration of death like the reaper is incapable of lying????
heh good one.
#969
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 11:41
The Angry One
-
- Members
- 22 246 messages
[quote]JackumsD wrote...
No, it doesn't. You're interpreting the narrative in a way that supports what you're saying. Interpretation.
Proof is not subjective. [/quote]
There is no interpretation. THERE IS NO PROOF FOR WHAT THE CATALYST SAYS. PERIOD.
If the game shows me for 3 games that A is true, then an idiot at the end claims B is true, A carries far more weight.
[quote]
Claiming assumptions and perceptions are fact is void of all logic entirely. [/quote]
Show me proof that counters what I've said then.
[quote]It evidently was shackled to an extent that allowed it to consider other options. The options the Crucible presented, however, were not possible without the Crucible itself. Hence, its solution was previously the only way. By its logic anyway. Though this is not relevant to your claim that Synthesis is bad simply because the Catalyst prefers it. [/quote]
That's not evident at all. Also, "the Crucible is little more than a power source".
[quote]
How is the Catalyst and its tools all being destroyed "its bidding"?[/quote]
It's shaping the future, by removing all synthetic life according to it's racist philosophy.
[quote]How is the Catalyst being replaced, giving you total control over its tools, "its bidding"?[/quote]
By keeping the Reapers as the rulers of the galaxy.
[quote]And your idea that Synthesis, or any of the RGB choices, are anything more than it trying to solve the problem it was created to solve, is nothing more than your own assumption that lacks any evidence. [/quote]
That was not the problem it was created to solve, and no. It clearly has an agenda. It considers it's current solution unviable, so it approves of these new ones and decides the penalties.
[quote]T
Your interpretations and assumptions are based on canon material, though said material does not make these conclusions; you make them yourself. They could be interpreted in a multitude of ways. Yours is not absolute.[/quote]
Again, prove it.
[quote]
To stop the Reapers. Refuse is the only option that does not do this, and is therefore the only endgame choice that galactic civilisation did not agree to. [/quote]
I'm sure your Shepard has the clairvoyance to know that RGB stops the Reapers and refusing doesn't.
Not everyone else's does.
[quote]But we're not discussing this from Shepard's perspective. I've heard the whole "metagaming" argument already. We're discussing this as players who are very well aware of the consequences of each choice. [/quote]
If you're talking about Shepard deciding fates, then Shepard's perspective is totally relevant.
[quote]
The RGB options are not submission. That's nothing more than your own headcanon.
They're compromise. Something no-one ever imagined was possible, and therefore did not discuss. [/quote]
The Catalyst has decided it's current solution no longer works. There is no compromise. It loses nothing, because it's already determined it is useless to continue!
Synthesis is the most extreme version of that. It wins, it's philosophy wins, the Reapers win. Everyone else loses. Loses what they are, and what they could be.
[quote]
It's forcefully wiping out a sentient race. It falls into the same category as Synthesis and Refuse. [/quote]
And that's horrible, but you know what? One race =! entire galaxy and all future life for the rest of eternity. Everyone's future, everyone's potential, taken away.
[quote]
Speculation. [/quote]
Watch the control ending and ask yourself what Shepard will do to anyone who starts going against "the many".
[quote]
And that's exactly the headcanon I'm referring to.
Nowhere did they agree to do anything other than fight to stop the Reapers. This immediately excludes Refuse, as it's the only option that does not do this. Quote the game where it was stated everyone agreed to die for the sake of one man's/woman's pride, morals, and ego. If you cannot, your claim is invalid. [/quote]
Refuse is shepard and the galaxy TRYING to stop the Reapers.
[quote]
That leaves it as neither correct nor incorrect.
Do we have evidence of there being alien life in other galaxies? No. Does that mean we know there isn't? No.
That is not logic by any stretch of the imagination. Your argument is invalid. [/quote]
Prove it.
[quote]And you have no proof of it never having happened. You also have no way of knowing. [/quote]
I have the events of the game. I have dialogue and precident. You have nothing.
[quote]I'm no more incorrect than you are. [/quote]
Prove it.
[quote]
I never said the physicality of it is man-made.
I said the definition, and concept of it as a whole is. Reality itself is based on our perception. Why is a rock called a rock? Because we deem it so. It's not a rock, it simply is. Evolution is described as wholely natural because we deem it so, not because that's the reality of the situation. Why can it not be unnatural? Because we define it as natural? Here's the keyword; we. We used to think the earth was flat. Was it so because we deemed it so? No. Just as evolution is not strictly natural because we deem it so. We have no idea what may happen in the future, or whether synthetics will become a part of evolution. Just the same as the concept of "natural" is nothing more than our own categorising of things we perceive. [/quote]
Evolution is natural from our observations of nature. Evolution is not something that will stop just because we get cybernetic upgrades. This is common sense. Stop pretending the Catalyst knows more of evolution than we do when it botches every other concept so badly.
[quote]
Show me proof of your claim. [/quote]
I have.
[quote]
I've yet to see it. Your delusion that your own perception is evidence is nothing more than that; a delusion. [/quote]
So you're just ignoring all the quotes and examples I've posted in this topic alone?
[quote]
You've supplied quotes which you've then drawn conclusions from. Not quotes that draw this conclusion themselves.
That's speculation based on canon material. Not canon material confirming your speculations.
[/quote]
Oh really? Why can't you come up with alternate explanations for those quotes then?
You keep yelling speculation but can't seem to offer alternate speculations, can you? Give it up already.
No, it doesn't. You're interpreting the narrative in a way that supports what you're saying. Interpretation.
Proof is not subjective. [/quote]
There is no interpretation. THERE IS NO PROOF FOR WHAT THE CATALYST SAYS. PERIOD.
If the game shows me for 3 games that A is true, then an idiot at the end claims B is true, A carries far more weight.
[quote]
Claiming assumptions and perceptions are fact is void of all logic entirely. [/quote]
Show me proof that counters what I've said then.
[quote]It evidently was shackled to an extent that allowed it to consider other options. The options the Crucible presented, however, were not possible without the Crucible itself. Hence, its solution was previously the only way. By its logic anyway. Though this is not relevant to your claim that Synthesis is bad simply because the Catalyst prefers it. [/quote]
That's not evident at all. Also, "the Crucible is little more than a power source".
[quote]
How is the Catalyst and its tools all being destroyed "its bidding"?[/quote]
It's shaping the future, by removing all synthetic life according to it's racist philosophy.
[quote]How is the Catalyst being replaced, giving you total control over its tools, "its bidding"?[/quote]
By keeping the Reapers as the rulers of the galaxy.
[quote]And your idea that Synthesis, or any of the RGB choices, are anything more than it trying to solve the problem it was created to solve, is nothing more than your own assumption that lacks any evidence. [/quote]
That was not the problem it was created to solve, and no. It clearly has an agenda. It considers it's current solution unviable, so it approves of these new ones and decides the penalties.
[quote]T
Your interpretations and assumptions are based on canon material, though said material does not make these conclusions; you make them yourself. They could be interpreted in a multitude of ways. Yours is not absolute.[/quote]
Again, prove it.
[quote]
To stop the Reapers. Refuse is the only option that does not do this, and is therefore the only endgame choice that galactic civilisation did not agree to. [/quote]
I'm sure your Shepard has the clairvoyance to know that RGB stops the Reapers and refusing doesn't.
Not everyone else's does.
[quote]But we're not discussing this from Shepard's perspective. I've heard the whole "metagaming" argument already. We're discussing this as players who are very well aware of the consequences of each choice. [/quote]
If you're talking about Shepard deciding fates, then Shepard's perspective is totally relevant.
[quote]
The RGB options are not submission. That's nothing more than your own headcanon.
They're compromise. Something no-one ever imagined was possible, and therefore did not discuss. [/quote]
The Catalyst has decided it's current solution no longer works. There is no compromise. It loses nothing, because it's already determined it is useless to continue!
Synthesis is the most extreme version of that. It wins, it's philosophy wins, the Reapers win. Everyone else loses. Loses what they are, and what they could be.
[quote]
It's forcefully wiping out a sentient race. It falls into the same category as Synthesis and Refuse. [/quote]
And that's horrible, but you know what? One race =! entire galaxy and all future life for the rest of eternity. Everyone's future, everyone's potential, taken away.
[quote]
Speculation. [/quote]
Watch the control ending and ask yourself what Shepard will do to anyone who starts going against "the many".
[quote]
And that's exactly the headcanon I'm referring to.
Nowhere did they agree to do anything other than fight to stop the Reapers. This immediately excludes Refuse, as it's the only option that does not do this. Quote the game where it was stated everyone agreed to die for the sake of one man's/woman's pride, morals, and ego. If you cannot, your claim is invalid. [/quote]
Refuse is shepard and the galaxy TRYING to stop the Reapers.
[quote]
That leaves it as neither correct nor incorrect.
Do we have evidence of there being alien life in other galaxies? No. Does that mean we know there isn't? No.
That is not logic by any stretch of the imagination. Your argument is invalid. [/quote]
Prove it.
[quote]And you have no proof of it never having happened. You also have no way of knowing. [/quote]
I have the events of the game. I have dialogue and precident. You have nothing.
[quote]I'm no more incorrect than you are. [/quote]
Prove it.
[quote]
I never said the physicality of it is man-made.
I said the definition, and concept of it as a whole is. Reality itself is based on our perception. Why is a rock called a rock? Because we deem it so. It's not a rock, it simply is. Evolution is described as wholely natural because we deem it so, not because that's the reality of the situation. Why can it not be unnatural? Because we define it as natural? Here's the keyword; we. We used to think the earth was flat. Was it so because we deemed it so? No. Just as evolution is not strictly natural because we deem it so. We have no idea what may happen in the future, or whether synthetics will become a part of evolution. Just the same as the concept of "natural" is nothing more than our own categorising of things we perceive. [/quote]
Evolution is natural from our observations of nature. Evolution is not something that will stop just because we get cybernetic upgrades. This is common sense. Stop pretending the Catalyst knows more of evolution than we do when it botches every other concept so badly.
[quote]
Show me proof of your claim. [/quote]
I have.
[quote]
I've yet to see it. Your delusion that your own perception is evidence is nothing more than that; a delusion. [/quote]
So you're just ignoring all the quotes and examples I've posted in this topic alone?
[quote]
You've supplied quotes which you've then drawn conclusions from. Not quotes that draw this conclusion themselves.
That's speculation based on canon material. Not canon material confirming your speculations.
[/quote]
Oh really? Why can't you come up with alternate explanations for those quotes then?
You keep yelling speculation but can't seem to offer alternate speculations, can you? Give it up already.
Modifié par The Angry One, 06 juillet 2012 - 11:42 .
#970
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 11:46
Grand Admiral Cheesecake
-
- Members
- 5 704 messages
Alright I'm going to change gears here.
People who think synthesis is the bestest thing ever.
Sell me on it.
People who think synthesis is the bestest thing ever.
Sell me on it.
#971
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 11:46
KingZayd
-
- Members
- 5 344 messages
Harbinger of your Destiny wrote...
When someone lies it is for a reason. Why would Sovereign lie?darkpassenger2342 wrote...
omg he lied to you because that was all you needed to know in th first game....
he lied to you because thats all the writers wanted to tell you...
now an evil, vile, abhorration of death like the reaper is incapable of lying????
heh good one.
Exactly.
Sovereign was the Reaper source with the least reason to mislead you. He doesn't think much of you, and doesn't see you as a threat which is WHY he speaks freely.
#972
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 11:47
o Ventus
-
- Members
- 17 255 messages
Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...
Alright I'm going to change gears here.
People who think synthesis is the bestest thing ever.
Sell me on it.
Those people exist?
#973
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 11:48
Grand Admiral Cheesecake
-
- Members
- 5 704 messages
o Ventus wrote...
Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...
Alright I'm going to change gears here.
People who think synthesis is the bestest thing ever.
Sell me on it.
Those people exist?
There are people who like more than one LI.
So anything is possible.
#974
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 12:05
Jackums
-
- Members
- 1 479 messages
Quite clearly the entire basis of everything you claim about the endings is a product of your own inability (or refusal) to differentiate between "evidence" and "interpretation". It's become obvious discussing this with you further is redundant because you continue to spew the whole "this implies this, and I believe it, therefore it's fact" argument over everything, whilst ignoring the very definition of the word "proof", which is not subjective as your interpretations of canon material are. I do not supply evidence of my claims, as I'm not making any claims that Side A or Side B are more correct; I'm stating that we cannot know due to a lack of evidence of either position, which your assumptions are not, regardless of what quote you draw them from. And I'm not even going to get into the philosophical debate of human perception > reality, as you seem to hold a very realist perspective, which is too close-minded for such a topic of discussion.The Angry One wrote...
-snip-
That aside, not once have you supplied any irrefutable evidence of your claim that Synthesis is bad due to the Catalyst holding it as its preferred choice. You've supplied arguments based on how you perceive the endings; which are entirely valid as far as speculation goes. But that's as far as they go; speculation. It's neither objectively good or bad. It's dependent on individual interpretation, which is something you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge, hence this entire debate going in circles.
I tried my best to reason with you, and honestly believed you'd be flexible enough to become somewhat impartial to your emotional involvement in the topic and look at it objectively, even for a moment. Though, clearly, I was wrong. At the very least this discussion has sated my curiousity as to whether or not you're capable of considering perspectives that do not originate from your own point of view. It seems I was wrong. It was much enjoyed.
TL;DR Agree to disagree.
Modifié par JackumsD, 06 juillet 2012 - 12:09 .
#975
Posté 06 juillet 2012 - 12:07
Grand Admiral Cheesecake
-
- Members
- 5 704 messages
