200 réponses à ce sujet

[Plasma Prestige]

Icesong wrote...

alienatedflea wrote...

Icesong wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

 Fortunately, this doubt disappeared as the Catalyst informed me that this wasn‘t a forced advancement.  

People aren't a collective. Unless you're part of a race that's a collective, then okay. Consent is needed for it to not be forced. Even if it's something positive. 

having peace doesnt mean people become a collective...

I was trying to say that each individual would have to decide for themselves to be synthesized for it not to be a "forced advancement".

But then surely all the endings, except maybe control are bad. In each decision, you are forced to make a decision for the entire galaxy: in the Destroy ending, you deprive the Geth of the right to live, even though it had been demonstrated that not only are they capable of cooperating with organics, but also that they are just as sentient as living creatures; in the Refusal ending, you chose the extinction of every sapient race in the galaxy to uphold the idea of "choosing one's own destiny." Control is the only ending in which you don't make this type of choice, and yet still, how is a mere mortal, even if he be Commander Shepard, capable of making the decision that he has the ability to control the most powerful force in the galaxy?

[Tealjaker94]

Rojahar wrote...

What actual harm results from the non-consensual synthesis, exactly? There's lack of consent for somebody in every ending. I fail to see what makes synthesis' non-consent the worst.

It affects every living being in the galaxy. Destroy affects the Reapers, our enemy, and our synthetic allies. Control only affects the Reapers. 

[daaaav]

Rojahar wrote...

What actual harm results from the non-consensual synthesis, exactly? There's lack of consent for somebody in every ending. I fail to see what makes synthesis' non-consent the worst.

For me it's that a fundamental change is required for two groups of folks to get along.

How does that NOT rub you the wrong way?

[Wayning_Star]

nothing is wrong with synthesis, if you decide from within the MEU, from outside of there, you're taking liberties. Most of the arguments against it are made from an alien point of view, as organics who've never made, met or dealt with or ever tried to understand someone as alien as a synthetic life form. This makes is hard to take that route, as you cannot affix any value, personal or otherwise, to their plight in the MEU, who are now and forever linked to them anyway. They created them, they have to deal with them some day. They've forced the dilemma on themselves, or so it seems.

It's all just a value judgement, some take the high road others take the low road.

[daaaav]

double post

Modifié par daaaav, 13 juillet 2012 - 03:55 .

[Tealjaker94]

Rojahar wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...

It affects every living being in the galaxy.

Yes, but... so what?  HOW does it affect everyone in a negative way?  What harm is done exactly?

You're not killing or enslaving anyone.  What part of synthesis is worse than killing or enslaving?

You're question was how it is a worse violation of consent. It violates the consent of more people. 

[D24O]

Rojahar wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...

It affects every living being in the galaxy.

Yes, but... so what?  HOW does it affect everyone in a negative way?  What harm is done exactly?

You're not killing or enslaving anyone.  What part of synthesis is worse than killing or enslaving?

The problem with questions like this is that its one persons headcanon vs another. There isn't really enough info to go on besides that, same really goes with every ending. There's no right one, just the one that you feel you can interpert in a way that is satisfactory.

[mass perfection]

Rojahar wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...

It affects every living being in the galaxy.

Yes, but... so what?  HOW does it affect everyone in a negative way?  What harm is done exactly?

You're not killing or enslaving anyone.  What part of synthesis is worse than killing or enslaving?

That's irrelevant.

[Wayning_Star]

Rojahar wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...

It affects every living being in the galaxy.

Yes, but... so what?  HOW does it affect everyone in a negative way?  What harm is done exactly?

You're not killing or enslaving anyone.  What part of synthesis is worse than killing or enslaving?

I'd be pretty upset waking up with circuits on my skin and green glowy eyes...out of the blue. We have no way of knowing what the reactions would be here, only in the MEU, where everything is augumented with cybernetics and other nifty keeno 'synthetic' stuff. I think the shock quotient would be way less there, but the choice part is what sticks in the craw of many players, but then the reapers don't give Shepard but a few choices. Maybe that is the only viable link to enslavement. Choices given, not demands met. Kind of a big loss there, but maybe in the MEU, a big trade off?

[Tealjaker94]

Rojahar wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...

You're question was how it is a worse violation of consent. It violates the consent of more people. 

When you fart, everyone around you breaths in fecal matter without consent.  So what?

There's a significant difference between farting and altering genetic code at a fundamental level. My body is my own. I have no ownership over the air.

[mass perfection]

Rojahar wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...

Rojahar wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...

It affects every living being in the galaxy.

Yes, but... so what?  HOW does it affect everyone in a negative way?  What harm is done exactly?

You're not killing or enslaving anyone.  What part of synthesis is worse than killing or enslaving?

You're question was how it is a worse violation of consent. It violates the consent of more people. 

When you fart, everyone around you breaths in fecal matter without consent.  So what?

That's a terrible analogy.

[Tealjaker94]

Rojahar wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...

There's a significant difference between farting and altering genetic code at a fundamental level. My body is my own. I have no ownership over the air.

Explain the difference.  What happens?  What part of synthesis to you object to?

I just explained the difference. And I object to having my genetic code changed because there might be a synthetic-organic war sometime in the future.

[Wayning_Star]

Plasma Prestige wrote...

Icesong wrote...

alienatedflea wrote...

Icesong wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

 Fortunately, this doubt disappeared as the Catalyst informed me that this wasn‘t a forced advancement.  

People aren't a collective. Unless you're part of a race that's a collective, then okay. Consent is needed for it to not be forced. Even if it's something positive. 

having peace doesnt mean people become a collective...

I was trying to say that each individual would have to decide for themselves to be synthesized for it not to be a "forced advancement".

But then surely all the endings, except maybe control are bad. In each decision, you are forced to make a decision for the entire galaxy: in the Destroy ending, you deprive the Geth of the right to live, even though it had been demonstrated that not only are they capable of cooperating with organics, but also that they are just as sentient as living creatures; in the Refusal ending, you chose the extinction of every sapient race in the galaxy to uphold the idea of "choosing one's own destiny." Control is the only ending in which you don't make this type of choice, and yet still, how is a mere mortal, even if he be Commander Shepard, capable of making the decision that he has the ability to control the most powerful force in the galaxy?

the thing I didn't like about control was the fact that Shepard was stuck in that role forever, or almost, reapers self repair, so it'd be almost forever..if not longer, as big and full of resources are in the MEU. It's not fair to Shep to imprison him there for being a hero, or just to be the hero. He mght go mad too, who knows? Then what? 

[V.Havelock]

Synthesis reminds me of krogan uprising, except on the galactic level. Maybe the asari, human turian, etc are 'ready'. What about those pretty yahg? what about 'the primitives' in this cycle?

Besides, Mordin told me not to.... "Disrupts socio-technological balance. All scientific advancement due to intelligence overcoming, compensating for limitations. Can't carry a load, so invent wheel. Can't catch food, so invent spear. Limitations! No limitations, no advancement. No advancement, culture stagnates! Works other way too. Advancement before culture is ready, disastrous. Saw it with Krogan. Uplifted by Salarians. Disastrous. Our Fault....

Like giving nuclear weapons to cavemen. Krogan unprepared for spaceflight, technological advance. Krogan could have evolved alone. Worked out aggression. Been ready to use new tech responsibly. Instead, salarians came. Disrupted krogan as blunt instrument against rachni. Short-sighted. Foolish."

Modifié par V.Havelock, 13 juillet 2012 - 04:32 .

[Volc19]

You every watch Doctor Who? Well, once we travel out of our galaxy and find new life while Synthesized, we basically become the Cybermen.

By picking Synthesis, you agree with the Reapers' notion that diversity ends up causing a cataclysm of untold proprtions. The new life won't be synthesized, and are therefore a ticking time bomb. I know the Reapers won't be having it, they still have their old goal in their minds. So, either the Reapers start reaping the new life, or you need to build a new Crucible to force Synthesis on them. Delete or Upgrade. We become the green scourge of the Universe.

[Plasma Prestige]

Tealjaker94 wrote...

Rojahar wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...

There's a significant difference between farting and altering genetic code at a fundamental level. My body is my own. I have no ownership over the air.

Explain the difference.  What happens?  What part of synthesis to you object to?

I just explained the difference. And I object to having my genetic code changed because there might be a synthetic-organic war sometime in the future.

I object to wiping out all synthetics to kill the Reapers; I object to controlling the Reapers for the purposes of avoiding annihilaton; I object to refusing so as to extinguish all life in the galaxy.

While it is possible I might object to altering my DNA, the aforementioned are much more serious.

[Plasma Prestige]

Volc19 wrote...

You every watch Doctor Who? Well, once we travel out of our galaxy and find new life while Synthesized, we basically become the Cybermen.

By picking Synthesis, you agree with the Reapers' notion that diversity ends up causing a cataclysm of untold proprtions. The new life won't be synthesized, and are therefore a ticking time bomb. I know the Reapers won't be having it, they still have their old goal in their minds. So, either the Reapers start reaping the new life, or you need to build a new Crucible to force Synthesis on them. Delete or Upgrade. We become the green scourge of the Universe.

By picking Destroy, you agree with the Reapers' notion that the coexistence of synthetics and organics is impractical or impossible. By picking Control, you save the Reapers... By choosing Refuse, you accept the Reapers fate for you...

I don't see how Synthesis is any worse than what I just described above.

[Baa Baa]

mass perfection wrote...

Rojahar wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...

Rojahar wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...

It affects every living being in the galaxy.

Yes, but... so what?  HOW does it affect everyone in a negative way?  What harm is done exactly?

You're not killing or enslaving anyone.  What part of synthesis is worse than killing or enslaving?

You're question was how it is a worse violation of consent. It violates the consent of more people. 

When you fart, everyone around you breaths in fecal matter without consent.  So what?

That's a terrible analogy.

I agree. I understand what you're going for, but that is an awful analogy

[Tealjaker94]

Rojahar wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...

I just explained the difference. And I object to having my genetic code changed because there might be a synthetic-organic war sometime in the future.

How is your genetic code changed in an objectionable way?   You seem to think it's the worst thing ever based on principal, taking such great offense, yet take no offense whatsoever to the ideas of enslaving or destroying entire races.

You notice how accepting Javik is of synthesis? Reminds me of Winston Smith at the end of 1984. Care to explain why Javik isn't at all angry about becoming part-synthetic?

[Wayning_Star]

Tealjaker94 wrote...

Rojahar wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...

There's a significant difference between farting and altering genetic code at a fundamental level. My body is my own. I have no ownership over the air.

Explain the difference.  What happens?  What part of synthesis to you object to?

I just explained the difference. And I object to having my genetic code changed because there might be a synthetic-organic war sometime in the future.

I find it hard to understand what my genetic code even is, muchless what the changes might do, so I cannot actually decide on that alone. Swearing off all things technological in a hope that synthetic beings will never be created seems rough too, as the catalyst is the only resident expert on that subject, deference to its opinion/information is controlling in that case,he's been around for a few million years watching the cycle continue. The war between sythetics vs. organics, seems not so remote, if you cosider that the catalyst is alien to lying, not programmed for it.

Modifié par Wayning_Star, 13 juillet 2012 - 04:20 .