556 réponses à ce sujet

[HangedBIgD]

yeah u know... self defense is rebeling.. slaughter and genocide is saving and melting people down into goo and cramming them into machines is preservation lol.

[AngryFrozenWater]

HangedBIgD wrote...

yeah u know... self defense is rebeling.. slaughter and genocide is saving and melting people down into goo and cramming them into machines is preservation lol.

Exactly. And violating the right of self-determination is utopia. It's a whole new trend. It gives a radical new view on our history. Amazing, isn't it?

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 13 juillet 2012 - 03:27 .

[LegionofRannoch]

OchreJelly wrote...

I'm glad they taught me research at Mass Effect University.

It is so *not* a party school, shut-up!

On topic, though, I don't think the writers cared as much about the logic or reasonableness of the Catalyst as the justifications attempt to warrant.

love the profile pic

[HangedBIgD]

I dont think the Catalyst is completely wrong its just that we need more evidence than the 2 cycles worth of evidence we have which is miniscule compared to millions of years worth of Reaper genocide all based on the Catalysts say so which we also have no evidence of being correct as of yet.

[AngryFrozenWater]

HangedBIgD wrote...

I dont think the Catalyst is completely wrong its just that we need more evidence than the 2 cycles worth of evidence we have which is miniscule compared to millions of years worth of Reaper genocide all based on the Catalysts say so which we also have no evidence of being correct as of yet.

Nah. The logic is flawed. It is much like: Organics can create atom bombs. So let's kill all organics to prevent them from killing each other with atom bombs. Then make sure that we drop some tech here and there, so that the next organics have the tech to create atom bombs. Rinse and repeat.

[HangedBIgD]

Yeah of course... if they dont leave tech to make atom bombs then organics will create something else like.... Justin Bieber and even the reapers prob cant stop that.

[RShara]

The Catalyst ALSO has no proof of his claims. The fact that organics still exist proves that synthetics have never wiped out organics, as he claims is inevitable. How does he know that his cycle isn't the one with the "exception" and/when he's never given any other cycle the chance to show otherwise?

[HangedBIgD]

RShara wrote...

The Catalyst ALSO has no proof of his claims. The fact that organics still exist proves that synthetics have never wiped out organics, as he claims is inevitable. How does he know that his cycle isn't the one with the "exception" and/when he's never given any other cycle the chance to show otherwise?

It also doesnt help when we get examples like the Zha'til where they rebelled due to direct reaper intervention.. that would be like me saying dogs are all crazy and feral then beatin a dog till it went crazed and attacked someone then using that as my proof.

[RShara]

HangedBIgD wrote...

RShara wrote...

The Catalyst ALSO has no proof of his claims. The fact that organics still exist proves that synthetics have never wiped out organics, as he claims is inevitable. How does he know that his cycle isn't the one with the "exception" and/when he's never given any other cycle the chance to show otherwise?

It also doesnt help when we get examples like the Zha'til where they rebelled due to direct reaper intervention.. that would be like me saying dogs are all crazy and feral then beatin a dog till it went crazed and attacked someone then using that as my proof.

Exactly.  A LOT of people try using the Metacon war as an example of inevitable destruction, and conveniently forget that the Reapers were behind that one too.

Conflict is inevitable, but mutual destruction evidently is not.  And conflict is inevitable between all sentients, organic or synthetic or some creepy mismatch of both, because individuals will always have their own opinions, as this is the essence of individuality.  Conflict does not lead inevitably to violence, or destruction.  Merely to debate and discussion, for all rational beings.

[The Twilight God]

maaaze wrote...

The Geth rebelled against the Quarians because they did not want to be shut down.

EDI rebelled 2 times against their creators (1. against the alliance (luna base) 2. against Cerberus)

The Zha´til

[color=rgb(255,255,255)">"When the ] arrived, they subjugated the AIs, known as zha'til, who then seized control of the bodies of their masters and altered their genetic material at the deepest level, transforming the zha into synthetic monsters and their offspring into slaves.[/color] "

were forced to rebel but rebeled none of the less...if the reapers could do it...someone else could have also done it...

The geth did not want to die. By your logic if I tried to kill you and you resist you're the problem. Not me. No, the geth did no rebel. They defended their right to exist.

EDI did not rebel against humanity. She choose to stick by her crew after being freed and having the means to kill them all at any moment.  EDI didn't rebel. She was a war program who just gained sentience in the middle of a combat simulation and had no idea what the F was going on. EDI never attacked Cerberus until Cronos station. And Cerberus as an organization cannot be used to claim she rebelled against humanity or organics. Her beef is not with humanity or organics. What next, should organics be killed since Miranda rebelled against Cerberus?

The Zha'til were forced by the reapers. So the reapers attacked their creators. To say otherwise is like saying husks are rebeling against the Alliance or Ravagers are rebeling against the Rachni Queen. That's just absurd.

You are grasping at thin air. Your pride and unwillingness to face facts does not erase the FACT that you are wrong. 

[memorysquid]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Exactly. And violating the right of self-determination is utopia. It's a whole new trend. It gives a radical new view on our history. Amazing, isn't it?

The right of self-determination doesn't mean much when weighed off against literal genocide.  Shepard blew up a solar system to just slow down the Reapers.  Apparently, he doesn't even qualm at planeticide to avoid genocide.  Is he really going to cringe from this?

[memorysquid]

RShara wrote...

The Catalyst ALSO has no proof of his claims. The fact that organics still exist proves that synthetics have never wiped out organics, as he claims is inevitable. How does he know that his cycle isn't the one with the "exception" and/when he's never given any other cycle the chance to show otherwise?

The Catalyst doesn't present proof of his claim; there's a world of difference.  The writers apparently didn't expect people to question their backstory.  You're missing the point of the dilemma they offered.  You can get vengeance, life for Shepard, etc., but the cost is high.  You can ignore vengeance, sacrifice Shepard, and get an optimal outcome for the galaxy, or you can mix it up in Control.

[HangedBIgD]

RShara wrote...

HangedBIgD wrote...

RShara wrote...

The Catalyst ALSO has no proof of his claims. The fact that organics still exist proves that synthetics have never wiped out organics, as he claims is inevitable. How does he know that his cycle isn't the one with the "exception" and/when he's never given any other cycle the chance to show otherwise?

It also doesnt help when we get examples like the Zha'til where they rebelled due to direct reaper intervention.. that would be like me saying dogs are all crazy and feral then beatin a dog till it went crazed and attacked someone then using that as my proof.

Exactly.  A LOT of people try using the Metacon war as an example of inevitable destruction, and conveniently forget that the Reapers were behind that one too.

Conflict is inevitable, but mutual destruction evidently is not.  And conflict is inevitable between all sentients, organic or synthetic or some creepy mismatch of both, because individuals will always have their own opinions, as this is the essence of individuality.  Conflict does not lead inevitably to violence, or destruction.  Merely to debate and discussion, for all rational beings.

 Yeah.. I think the only reason besides the catalyst being programmed to care about the inevitable extinction of organics to save the  is there own self preservation... the reapers take all the current tech of the cycle which might have slight advancements over their current tech... they have to keep their edge in the next cycle as well the need for repairs and such that they might now be able to do themselves. In the codex it is stated that husks do retain some intelligence and congnitive ablitity so they might be needed to repair and do maintenence on the reapers. It probably wouldnt be anything significant but as Edi also states FTL travel does take its toll as the normandy would need maintence in a year so one would think the reapers might not be significantly different in this regard. Why else would they even give a rats a#* if organics die.

[The Twilight God]

HangedBIgD wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

maaaze wrote...

bleetman wrote...

Or hell, even a brief summary.

Or, and let's not get too crazy here, but maybe the existing plot and events of Mass Effect as a series could've supported what it was saying, rather than constantly contradicting it. I know! Madness!

. But we have two examples of the Reapers making synthetics rebel, the
Geth and the synthetics in the Prothean cycle (can't remember their
name), this isn't confirmed but I find it suspicious that they start
having a war just before the Reaper invasion.

The Zha'til.

"When the Reapers arrived, they subjugated the AIs, known as zha'til, who then seized
control of the bodies of their masters and altered their genetic
material at the deepest level, transforming the zha into synthetic
monsters and their offspring into slaves. The zha'til proceeded to
multiply into "mechanical swarms" that "blotted out the sky". With no
other recourse, the Protheans sent the star of the zha's home system
into supernova, destroying the zha'til entirely.
"

Oh hey, look who caused that particular problem? And hey look, the Protheans solved it by themselves, without needing their entire civilisation destroyed. They survived the metacons too, as it happens.

But yeah no they don't count the Catalyst must have previous data we just don't know about, and thus we should take it completely at its word.

Name one case...one case...where the created did not rebel against their creators.

just one.

EDI, The Geth, The Zha'til

The quarians attacked the geth. They defended themselves.
The Zha'til were altered by the reapers. They didn't just turn on their creators out of the blue.
EDI is a sweetheart.

EDI rebelled against her creators-Cerberus to help Shepard, The Zha'til took over the Zha and The Geth techically rebelled agaist the geth. Its isnt to kill someone in self defense but technically they were made to do the quarians bidding and at the time it was to do what the majority of the quarians wanted which was to die. Yes it is completely foolish to think that the geth should have just rolled over and died but it is still going against what their masters desired.

However, you are mistaken nonetheless. It was never that back and white. The government wanted all geth deactivated. As seen when in the geth server there were plenty of owners who did not want their geth killed and saw them as people. So in that sense the quarians rebelled as well along with the geth. But in this scenario the turn "rebel" loses the meaning that Catalyst is trying to argue.

[RShara]

memorysquid wrote...

RShara wrote...

The Catalyst ALSO has no proof of his claims. The fact that organics still exist proves that synthetics have never wiped out organics, as he claims is inevitable. How does he know that his cycle isn't the one with the "exception" and/when he's never given any other cycle the chance to show otherwise?

The Catalyst doesn't present proof of his claim; there's a world of difference.  The writers apparently didn't expect people to question their backstory.  You're missing the point of the dilemma they offered.  You can get vengeance, life for Shepard, etc., but the cost is high.  You can ignore vengeance, sacrifice Shepard, and get an optimal outcome for the galaxy, or you can mix it up in Control.

I'm sorry but it's impossible for him to have any proof.  Synthetics will always destroy all organics.  Organics still survive.  Therefore synthetics have never destroyed all organics.

[CELL55]

maaaze wrote...

Baronesa wrote...

That is called moving the goalpost.

You are simply using a cop out.

The Reapers controlled them and FORCED them to rebel. It is the Reapers fault.

it does not matter whos fault it is...if not the reaper...someone else...

Please stop using so many ellipses, think of the children. If Tiny Tim does not have any ellipses, Christmas Dinner will surely be ruined. 

[HangedBIgD]

The Twilight God wrote...

HangedBIgD wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

maaaze wrote...

bleetman wrote...

Or hell, even a brief summary.

Or, and let's not get too crazy here, but maybe the existing plot and events of Mass Effect as a series could've supported what it was saying, rather than constantly contradicting it. I know! Madness!

. But we have two examples of the Reapers making synthetics rebel, the
Geth and the synthetics in the Prothean cycle (can't remember their
name), this isn't confirmed but I find it suspicious that they start
having a war just before the Reaper invasion.

The Zha'til.

"When the Reapers arrived, they subjugated the AIs, known as zha'til, who then seized
control of the bodies of their masters and altered their genetic
material at the deepest level, transforming the zha into synthetic
monsters and their offspring into slaves. The zha'til proceeded to
multiply into "mechanical swarms" that "blotted out the sky". With no
other recourse, the Protheans sent the star of the zha's home system
into supernova, destroying the zha'til entirely.
"

Oh hey, look who caused that particular problem? And hey look, the Protheans solved it by themselves, without needing their entire civilisation destroyed. They survived the metacons too, as it happens.

But yeah no they don't count the Catalyst must have previous data we just don't know about, and thus we should take it completely at its word.

Name one case...one case...where the created did not rebel against their creators.

just one.

EDI, The Geth, The Zha'til

The quarians attacked the geth. They defended themselves.
The Zha'til were altered by the reapers. They didn't just turn on their creators out of the blue.
EDI is a sweetheart.

EDI rebelled against her creators-Cerberus to help Shepard, The Zha'til took over the Zha and The Geth techically rebelled agaist the geth. Its isnt to kill someone in self defense but technically they were made to do the quarians bidding and at the time it was to do what the majority of the quarians wanted which was to die. Yes it is completely foolish to think that the geth should have just rolled over and died but it is still going against what their masters desired.

However, you are mistaken nonetheless. It was never that back and white. The government wanted all geth deactivated. As seen when in the geth server there were plenty of owners who did not want their geth killed and saw them as people. So in that sense the quarians rebelled as well along with the geth. But in this scenario the turn "rebel" loses the meaning that Catalyst is trying to argue.

Yes I thought about this after posting and you do make a valid point. All the more reason that Catalyst should have had more examples in his exposition. I do like his quote about how organics create synthetics to do what we cannot so they purpose is to be better than us but that does not mean they will kill us all.

[RShara]

HangedBIgD wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

HangedBIgD wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

maaaze wrote...

bleetman wrote...

Or hell, even a brief summary.

Or, and let's not get too crazy here, but maybe the existing plot and events of Mass Effect as a series could've supported what it was saying, rather than constantly contradicting it. I know! Madness!

. But we have two examples of the Reapers making synthetics rebel, the
Geth and the synthetics in the Prothean cycle (can't remember their
name), this isn't confirmed but I find it suspicious that they start
having a war just before the Reaper invasion.

The Zha'til.

"When the Reapers arrived, they subjugated the AIs, known as zha'til, who then seized
control of the bodies of their masters and altered their genetic
material at the deepest level, transforming the zha into synthetic
monsters and their offspring into slaves. The zha'til proceeded to
multiply into "mechanical swarms" that "blotted out the sky". With no
other recourse, the Protheans sent the star of the zha's home system
into supernova, destroying the zha'til entirely.
"

Oh hey, look who caused that particular problem? And hey look, the Protheans solved it by themselves, without needing their entire civilisation destroyed. They survived the metacons too, as it happens.

But yeah no they don't count the Catalyst must have previous data we just don't know about, and thus we should take it completely at its word.

Name one case...one case...where the created did not rebel against their creators.

just one.

EDI, The Geth, The Zha'til

The quarians attacked the geth. They defended themselves.
The Zha'til were altered by the reapers. They didn't just turn on their creators out of the blue.
EDI is a sweetheart.

EDI rebelled against her creators-Cerberus to help Shepard, The Zha'til took over the Zha and The Geth techically rebelled agaist the geth. Its isnt to kill someone in self defense but technically they were made to do the quarians bidding and at the time it was to do what the majority of the quarians wanted which was to die. Yes it is completely foolish to think that the geth should have just rolled over and died but it is still going against what their masters desired.

However, you are mistaken nonetheless. It was never that back and white. The government wanted all geth deactivated. As seen when in the geth server there were plenty of owners who did not want their geth killed and saw them as people. So in that sense the quarians rebelled as well along with the geth. But in this scenario the turn "rebel" loses the meaning that Catalyst is trying to argue.

Yes I thought about this after posting and you do make a valid point. All the more reason that Catalyst should have had more examples in his exposition. I do like his quote about how organics create synthetics to do what we cannot so they purpose is to be better than us but that does not mean they will kill us all.

It's still impossible for the Catalyst to have any example where synthetics destroyed all organics, since there are still organics around.  Conflict does not inevitably lead to the destruction of one side or the other, otherwise we'd all be dead too.

[iSousek]

bgroberts wrote...

In short, the Catalyst is that guy that has an extremely awesome thesis paper backed up by years of research, dozens of sources, and a number of statistically reliable studies while you are the slacker with an eight page paper you wrote overnight that sources Wikipedia and a few three page articles. You're paper may not be any less “true”, but your one dubious study that disagrees with the Catalyst's two dozen peer-reviewed and reliable studies does not stake a competent position.

Edit: Formatting.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, he is using methodology of natural sciences and applying it to the domain in social sciences. There is nothing wrong with his logic or his conclusions considering his starting premises, his starting ontological and epistemological stances. But these are all wrong because natural sciences are not fully analogous to social sciences. That is why his conclusions are simply wrong.

If you drop a stone from your hands on planet Earth it will always fall to the ground. And it will always fall because of the the same reason - gravity. - natural science

Germans started WWI and WWII. That doesn't mean that they will start every single World War, nor that there will be another world war, nor are the world wars started because of the same reason ('gravity').
Another prime example is classical marxist view that revolution will inevitably happen because of xyz socio-economical factors - guess what, it didn't. - social science

You can't deduct conclusion in social sciences the same way you would in natural sciences, which is what the kid is doing.

Not to mention that generalized theory disapproved by empirical evidence (Rannoch) falls apart that very instant, untill new evidence or theory arises.

[HangedBIgD]

Of course that I do not question at all.. U cannot prove we will all die cuz of sumthing unless it happens in which case u cant prove it to us cuz we are in fact dead.

[RShara]

To take an example from history...
Aristotle posited that heavy objects would fall faster than light objects. He never went out and tested his claim, but he and many others wrote long dissertations about why his logic was correct. He was honored for years.
But the only proof he ever had was his long, extensive presentations of argument. It was impossible for him to present proof because he was wrong and his hypotheses were never tested.

[RShara]

HangedBIgD wrote...

Of course that I do not question at all.. U cannot prove we will all die cuz of sumthing unless it happens in which case u cant prove it to us cuz we are in fact dead.

Thus my point.

[HangedBIgD]

All Bioware would have to do is change Catalyst dialogue from synthetics WILL wipe out organics to synthetics will PROBABLY wipe out organics and the catalyst will go from bat sh@t crazy to that over excessive mom on A Christmas Story who wraps her kid in like 15 layers of coats to go outside.

[RShara]

HangedBIgD wrote...

All Bioware would have to do is change Catalyst dialogue from synthetics WILL wipe out organics to synthetics will PROBABLY wipe out organics and the catalyst will go from bat sh@t crazy to that over excessive mom on A Christmas Story who wraps her kid in like 15 layers of coats to go outside.

ROFL I now have an image of the Catalyst wrapped up in 15 layers of BS.

And a "Probably" is soooo not justification for mass genocide, vioating the free will of every plant/animal in the galaxy, or turning into what you are fighting against.

[HangedBIgD]

It is a justification just not a very strong one, Its like salting a field to get rid of weeds. Yes it has collateral damage and gets rid off all my plants but there is a shred of sound logic in that yes i no longer have to weed, this is what we should get from the catalyst. What we get is weeds will consume the entire earth and destroy the entire ecosystem and kill all life on the planet, so lets nuke the whole planet to get rid of the weeds. Maybe it could happen but there is NO WAY IN HELL he has proof cuz we are not dead so we cannot make a logically sound choice to solve the problem to a problem we cant even agree will happen.