461 réponses à ce sujet

[wantedman dan]

Xilizhra wrote...

Death is the evil.

Prove it.

Irrelevant. If they make a choice that leads to that death, and they're aware of the stakes, it's in part their responsibility whether they pull the trigger or not.

So we're changing our argument now. I see. If the person who is dying chose that path in the first place, said person is absolved of responsibility of their death.

[wantedman dan]

Jamie9 wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

So you, too, operate under the false assumption that conflict is an inherent evil.

Conflict IS evil. It should be avoided whenever possible.

However, freedom IS worth fighting for. It IS worth sacrificing for.

Conflict should be stopped. But not by sacrificing freedom.

Then every argument you've ever had, every disagreement--hell, that anyone's ever had--is evil.

Conflict is at the heart of maturation, both physically and intellectually. You are narrowminded if you believe conflict to only consist of bloodshed and death.

[ghost9191]

Saans Shadow wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

Saans Shadow wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Do the Synthesis crowd hate the concept of free will and overcoming adversity through our own means?

For me not at all, but i'm not willing to dominate, commit genocide, or doom my friends and lover when i promised to save them.  It's a personal choice though

not like i have been arguing about tolerence or anything but if the geth were destroyed by the quarians then shep didn't commit genocide:innocent:

lol while this did make me laugh, I'm one of the few who believe the Reapers are victims of the catalyst as much as the entire galaxy is and believe they derserve a chance at redemption   So yeah still genocide in my eyes still but on a much larger scale considering I see each reaper as an avatar of it's parent race.

well by that logic you commited genocide 3 times before that, well 4 or 5 if you count the batarians and geth on virmire

but i get seeing them as victims but ask the families of the dead if they do too, they wouldn't be as accep[ting of the reapers as others. and they are still a threat in my eyes . machines that were programmed to do that. that is what they were built for and i do not see them abandoning that so easily,. which is why i go with destroy if you haven't seen my sig yet

an d i just mean it is different for ppl that have the evil done to them. they need someone to blame for it

Modifié par ghost9191, 07 juillet 2012 - 12:59 .

[Jamie9]

wantedman dan wrote...

Then every argument you've ever had, every disagreement--hell, that anyone's ever had--is evil.

Conflict is at the heart of maturation, both physically and intellectually. You are narrowminded if you believe conflict to only consist of bloodshed and death.

Ah, we've had a misunderstanding.

When I was referring to conflict, I was referring directly to the violent kind.

Arguments, difference of opinion? That is freedom, no? As sacred as life itself.

[Saans Shadow]

Baronesa wrote...

So... every struggle we have today for our rights, for our freedoms is meaningless because at some point someone will wave a magic wand and make everything go away without any suffering?

And then there is the other part... short of complete brainwashing there is no possible way for everyone to change in an instant, in the same way they have to change as time passes.

Is then brainwashing everyone preferable than simply trying to educate and change their views?

Would you rather control and literally change and mold minds rather than educate them?

If you plopped a laptop in front a 12th century knight, how would he percieve it? Magic:wizard:
Just because we can't explain it doesn't mean it's not possible.  I don't believe it's brainwashing, Like the Geth, organics are able to access information at the speed of light...how's that for education

[Xilizhra]

Prove it.

How can I? Evil is subjective. Death being a very bad thing we should try to abolish is my opinion.

So we're changing our argument now. I see. If the person who is dying chose that path in the first place, said person is absolved of responsibility of their death.

I disagree with the second part.

[Ridwan]

Xilizhra wrote...

Prove it.

How can I? Evil is subjective. Death being a very bad thing we should try to abolish is my opinion.

Dude, death is natural.

[Jamie9]

ghost9191 wrote...

well by that logic you commited genocide 3 times before that, well 4 or 5 if you count the batarians and geth on virmire

but i get seeing them as victims but ask the families of the dead if they do too, they wouldn't be as accep[ting of the reapers as others. and they are still a threat in my eyes . machines that were programmed to do that. that is what they were built for and i do not see them abandoning that so easily,. which is why i go with destroy if you haven't seen my sig yet

an d i just mean it is different for ppl that have the evil done to them. they need someone to blame for it

I don't see Reapers as villains either. A moment right before the Catalyst happens, and it sums up my thoughts: Shepard shoots Anderson. He/she is not in control, and feels terrible upon being forced to do it, but they did it nonetheless.

I view the Reapers in the same way. Just as TIM was the actual murderer of Anderson, the Catalyst is the actual murderer of the Cycles.

[Saans Shadow]

ghost9191 wrote...

Saans Shadow wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

Saans Shadow wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Do the Synthesis crowd hate the concept of free will and overcoming adversity through our own means?

For me not at all, but i'm not willing to dominate, commit genocide, or doom my friends and lover when i promised to save them.  It's a personal choice though

not like i have been arguing about tolerence or anything but if the geth were destroyed by the quarians then shep didn't commit genocide:innocent:

lol while this did make me laugh, I'm one of the few who believe the Reapers are victims of the catalyst as much as the entire galaxy is and believe they derserve a chance at redemption   So yeah still genocide in my eyes still but on a much larger scale considering I see each reaper as an avatar of it's parent race.

well by that logic you commited genocide 3 times before that, well 4 or 5 if you count the batarians and geth on virmire

but i get seeing them as victims but ask the families of the dead if they do too, they wouldn't be as accep[ting of the reapers as others. and they are still a threat in my eyes . machines that were programmed to do that. that is what they were built for and i do not see them abandoning that so easily,. which is why i go with destroy if you haven't seen my sig yet

an d i just mean it is different for ppl that have the evil done to them. they need someone to blame for it

I have actually thought about that lol What race did Sovy represent? What knowledge was lost with those that we destroyed but 20/20 hindsight and all lol

[Jamie9]

M25105 wrote...

Dude, death is natural.

I'm into philosophy and moral debates (hell, one of my favourite things about BioWare games in general).

Death is required?

The knowledge of death spurs us to do as much as possible in life, enjoy it as much as possible. Yet, it can often lead people to being selfish, endulging themselves as the expense of others, knowing they only have a limited time available to them.

Others want to do as much good in their lives as possible.

If death was removed, would this change?

Personally, I don't think so. You'd still have selfish people, and you'd still have altruistic people. And eventually, I'm sure most of us would want to rest, to die, but it would be on our terms and not natures.

But would that be right? I don't know.

[wantedman dan]

Jamie9 wrote...

Ah, we've had a misunderstanding.

When I was referring to conflict, I was referring directly to the violent kind.

Arguments, difference of opinion? That is freedom, no? As sacred as life itself.

We haven't had a misunderstanding. You narrowly defined conflict, thus making it suit your argument.

Wasn't it Horton who said, "I'll mean what I say."?

[Saans Shadow]

M25105 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Prove it.

How can I? Evil is subjective. Death being a very bad thing we should try to abolish is my opinion.

Dude, death is natural.

I agree death is natural but I plan living Asgard style for a few thousand years

[ghost9191]

@Sans Shadow

to quote mister gutsy "kill them all and let god sort them out" to the reapers. but i also believe the races that made the reapers are dead, they have been for a long time and getting rid of the reapers puts those races to death. but that is without really metagaming

they are victims but they are still a threat and my shep is just a soldier trying to stop that threat

like when you went into the geth consensus, you knew you would be killing probably a million geth, a "city" but you did it because it had to be done, same with the batarian colony, and that was only to delay the reapers

"winning this war will have a high price" shepard

"as it always does"  Javik

Modifié par ghost9191, 07 juillet 2012 - 01:09 .

[danby]

darkpassenger2342 wrote...

an undetermined amount has passed between the cycles, and they always end the same - war
synthesis is the ultimate solution.
interlinked minds like geth, a golden age of neverending euphoria..
 it doesnt have to be the "happy" ending.
i have viewed the other endings, and i like synthesis...
not because its got the sunshining, but the comments made by EDI are great...
i feel like it was everything the reaper creators ( i think of them as similar to the group of prothean scientists on the last planet from Me1) intended originally, but it wasnt possible because human and machine had to exist more cycles to develop a basis of understanding, as shown to us in this game as over half you crew being half machine... its evident that society especially in this ficticious time needs machines to survive, without there would be no crew, no mission, no squadmates. lets review
 shepard - obvious half machine, stated by starchild
garrus- partially robot, but only due to war injuries
jack- infused with biotics plates
zaeed - same as garrus
joker and edi- full organic, full machine, in love
miranda- basically an android, forever seeking to understand her psycho father
legion- no explanation necessary
tali - all quarians are basically half machine
the illusive man hides his half machine self from you and uses holograms until the end b/c he didnt want you to know

i dont want to waste anymore room but you get my point.

Having a prothstetic leg and becoming a borg are two VERY different things.

[Malditor]

wantedman dan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

So tell me. How many lives would you sacrifice for this ideal?

False dichotomy.

According to his banner he would sacrifice all the lives for the ideal.
Actually, refuse and synthesis can be considered the same thing. Refusal condems all the races to death because the person won't make a choice. Synthesis is "condeming" all life to be changed, which some consider the death of the humanity apparently.
Only difference is in synthesis at least everyone is still living.

[wantedman dan]

Xilizhra wrote...

How can I? Evil is subjective. Death being a very bad thing we should try to abolish is my opinion.

Death is a natural circumstance of life. If there is no destination, what becomes of the journey?

I disagree with the second part.

So you disagree with the concept of self-determination.

[Baronesa]

Jamie9 wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Dude, death is natural.

I'm into philosophy and moral debates (hell, one of my favourite things about BioWare games in general).

Death is required?

The knowledge of death spurs us to do as much as possible in life, enjoy it as much as possible. Yet, it can often lead people to being selfish, endulging themselves as the expense of others, knowing they only have a limited time available to them.

Others want to do as much good in their lives as possible.

If death was removed, would this change?

Personally, I don't think so. You'd still have selfish people, and you'd still have altruistic people. And eventually, I'm sure most of us would want to rest, to die, but it would be on our terms and not natures.

But would that be right? I don't know.

That reminded me of this

[Jamie9]

wantedman dan wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

Ah, we've had a misunderstanding.

When I was referring to conflict, I was referring directly to the violent kind.

Arguments, difference of opinion? That is freedom, no? As sacred as life itself.

We haven't had a misunderstanding. You narrowly defined conflict, thus making it suit your argument.

Wasn't it Horton who said, "I'll mean what I say."?

No, we did have a misunderstanding. I used the wrong terminology is all.

I meant what I meant. Conflict (as in war or murder; death through human - or alien - means).

My argument was that freedom, a good life, and the basic rights should always be upheld.

Conflict (the bloody kind) is good if it fights for freedom, good lives, and basic rights. Otherwise, it is evil.

Modifié par Jamie9, 07 juillet 2012 - 01:10 .

[Saans Shadow]

Jamie9 wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Dude, death is natural.

I'm into philosophy and moral debates (hell, one of my favourite things about BioWare games in general).

Death is required?

The knowledge of death spurs us to do as much as possible in life, enjoy it as much as possible. Yet, it can often lead people to being selfish, endulging themselves as the expense of others, knowing they only have a limited time available to them.

Others want to do as much good in their lives as possible.

If death was removed, would this change?

Personally, I don't think so. You'd still have selfish people, and you'd still have altruistic people. And eventually, I'm sure most of us would want to rest, to die, but it would be on our terms and not natures.

But would that be right? I don't know.

I feel you there, as pro-synth as I am that part when EDI talks about transcending mortality freaks me out a bit but being immortal is something I can't understand being fleshy creature as I am lol

[Ridwan]

Baronesa wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Dude, death is natural.

I'm into philosophy and moral debates (hell, one of my favourite things about BioWare games in general).

Death is required?

The knowledge of death spurs us to do as much as possible in life, enjoy it as much as possible. Yet, it can often lead people to being selfish, endulging themselves as the expense of others, knowing they only have a limited time available to them.

Others want to do as much good in their lives as possible.

If death was removed, would this change?

Personally, I don't think so. You'd still have selfish people, and you'd still have altruistic people. And eventually, I'm sure most of us would want to rest, to die, but it would be on our terms and not natures.

But would that be right? I don't know.

That reminded me of this

Bah, Dawkins. Managed to click away.

[wantedman dan]

Malditor wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

So tell me. How many lives would you sacrifice for this ideal?

False dichotomy.

According to his banner he would sacrifice all the lives for the ideal.
Actually, refuse and synthesis can be considered the same thing. Refusal condems all the races to death because the person won't make a choice. Synthesis is "condeming" all life to be changed, which some consider the death of the humanity apparently.
Only difference is in synthesis at least everyone is still living.

No, they can't.

Synthesis forcefully condemns. Refusal allows life to determine for itself.

Modifié par wantedman dan, 07 juillet 2012 - 01:10 .

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Sousabird wrote...

I like destroy after blasting the reapers to hell we're left to create our own future and reach it at our own pace, to me that is truly the one choice worth the sacrafices made for it.

No sacrifice is worth commiting Genocide for.

[Xilizhra]

Death is a natural circumstance of life. If there is no destination, what becomes of the journey?

There is a destination, that being the ultimate end of the universe unless we find something better. It's an open question as to whether or not there has to be a destination.

So you disagree with the concept of self-determination.

I consider the preservation of life to be more important. No, it's not right to simply allow someone to commit suicide.

[Ridwan]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Sousabird wrote...

I like destroy after blasting the reapers to hell we're left to create our own future and reach it at our own pace, to me that is truly the one choice worth the sacrafices made for it.

No sacrifice is worth commiting Genocide for.

I'm pretty sure the Geth would've done the same thing. We make our own path, rather than follow some reaper kid.

[wantedman dan]

Jamie9 wrote...

No, we did have a misunderstanding. I used the wrong terminology is all.

I meant what I meant. Conflict (as in war or murder; death through human - or alien - means).

My argument was that freedom, a good life, and the basic rights should always be upheld.

Conflict (the bloody kind) is good if it fights for freedom, good lives, and basic rights. Otherwise, it is evil.

Then "we" didn't have a misunderstanding, lol.