284 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@3DAndBeyond:
There is no "unnatural" life. What intelligent life changes is, by definition, as much part of nature as the agent itself. Well, perhaps you believe there are normative standards of what is "natural" or not, but I reject those notions. We've been changing life since the neolithic, would you want to destroy all that just because it's been touched by human hands? If you wouldn't, then you've already conceded the point in question, and you can't use the argument that some life is "unnatural" to reject something.

Also, your opinion of the results of Synthesis is based on your own speculation. That means it does not apply as a criticism to Synthesis scenarios different from yours, and you have not given evidence that Synthesis actually results in what you believe it results in. Basically, the morality of the decision aside, you're attacking a strawman.

I understand you feel offended that Bioware presents a morally problematic choice as having a good outcome (the same applies for all three main endings in different degrees) because you believe in absolute moral standards that should be followed regardless of circumstance. I, on the other hand, find the setup very interesting because I believe that circumstances modify what is justifiable and that consequently, using any of the three main ending options is justifiable in - and through - the circumstance we find ourselves in at the end. Doing nothing, in my view, is to place your own morality above survival of all life in the galaxy. I honestly cannot understand that way of thinking. Anyway, we won't come to an agreement on this point because we come from a different meta-ethical position, so I don't think it's of any use to continue this argument.

There is unnatural life if it is artificially and without consent imposed on someone and does not develop or evolve.  Evolution is nature's way.  With permission you can do certain things to individuals but even then not just anything.   Advancing people beyond their time and readiness is unnatural and has parallels in ME itself.   Nice characterization saying I mean that some life is unnatural.  I believe that some life is made unnatural if it does not occur in some natural ways, especially if not specifically desired by those it is imposed upon.  This opinion exists in the ME world.  Some people do not even want implants of any kind because they reject tech.  But by allowing Shepard to impost this upon them you are saying that Shepard has more of a right to decide for them than they do.  Their bodies are not their own, but by forcing this change upon them that would not be a natural outcome of evolution, they are being made unnatural.

Your opinions on what synthesis does is speculation as well, so now your speculation is better than mine or you have more of a right to it?  My speculation is based on things the writers seem to want synthesis to mean and I said if that's achieved it would mean bad things.  So I'm not allowed to speculate on that because it only may happen.  But if I say something other than death or synthesis or the other choices or even refuse may not be impossible or should not be impossible then I am wrong.  You change the rules continually so that the only inevitability is the one that agrees with your speculation.

I am in no way placing my moral values above anything.  I am placing existing understanding of morality and the inherent wrong that is created by one person doing what you are saying I am doing.  If Shepard chooses for everyone s/he is imposing his/her own vision of morality and what it means to be alive upon them.  I reject the fatalistic notion that this should mean they will all ultimately die and all life in the galaxy will be extinguished.  But quality of life matters as well and life that is compromised too far merely for the sake of jumping up and saying "I'm alive" may not be life worth living. 

You won't have a discussion because you continually mischaracterize what I say and substitute your speculation as more authentic than that of anyone not in agreement.

[krasnoarmeets]

Ah nuts

Modifié par krasnoarmeets, 28 juillet 2012 - 10:45 .

[3DandBeyond]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Utopia doesnt neccesitate violating the basic inaliable rights of every living thing in the galaxy. At best, Synthesis is poorly concieved, morally reprehensible saccharine.

Yes and while we're at it how about perfection.  All organic life seeks perfection through tech.  To me that sounds like Mr. Tech himself (the kid) thinks everyone wants to be like him.

Oh yes and evolution one day will take material created by organics and combine it with organic DNA and that will be perfection.  Gee, I don't know why I have problem with all this when it really sounds so cool.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

clennon8 wrote...

@Ieldra2: It's ruined for some of us because Synthesis is clearly presented as the "best" or "ideal" ending (please, don't try to argue against this. just don't). Meanwhile, the Destroy ending got crapped on for the sake of trying to make the decision "tough." And, yes, quite frankly I would LOVE to see Synthesis ripped out of the game. It won't ever happen, so you can rest easy, but I would LOVE to see that happen.

Synthesis being scrapped wouldn't change the circumstances of your ending being "crapped on." So basically, all you're saying is that you want the people who enjoyed their ending to suffer, because you didn't get the ending you wanted. You know, the whole "misery loves company" phenomenon?

IWell then thanks for at least admitting the truth, especially on behalf of all other discontended fans on this site.

Even if you were trying to puttyfoot around it initially!

[clennon8]

Yes, I wish to make you suffer. Does that make me a bad person?

[teh DRUMPf!!]

clennon8 wrote...

Yes, I wish to make you suffer. Does that make me a bad person?

I would consider it a reprihensible trait, if only mildly. Not to say I'm not responsible for it myself, I just don't give a damn. Speaking of which...

You've said on two different occaisions that I am "not worth" conversing with, for some arbitrary reason of your own. Only, this is the fourth time now that you've broken that rule.

Your evasion maneuver from losing arguments is now more see-through than ever.

[clennon8]

Ah, yes, that was you, wasn't it? The reason I said that is because I thought your arguments were pretty trite and mediocre, but I could tell you were the kind of person who has his own quantum reality going on around him, so I would be wasting my time. Frankly, aside from this very brief excursion, I've largely given up on talking to Synth-heads about Synthesis. I figure I would have better luck trying to unconvert dyed-in-the-wool scientologists.

Now, why don't you give your "I'm rubber you're glue" response, and then we can both go our separate ways.

Modifié par clennon8, 28 juillet 2012 - 10:48 .

[Wayning_Star]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...


there are times when we cannot subject others to our sense of morality. Just as in combining their atom or not combining their atoms. In the MEU, the consensus was that it wasn't 'all that bad' as opposed to being reaped up, or enslaved by a SuperShep.



snipped

Sorry I have to stop you right there.  It isn't and wasn't the consensus ever that it wasn't all that bad when compare with others.  By and large it is seen as immoral and even undesired.  Polls here have even shown most wouldn't want that for themselves so making it happened is forced eugenics.  There's no equivocating the morality of that.  I'm not subjecting anyone to my sole and personal sense of morality but am stating what the laws are in most countries, statutes of International law, commonly accepted morality and so on.  I reject that there is no other way and that inevitability and the impossible are true concepts even against the reapers.  I also reject the idea that you abandon accepted standards of morality even if it means others will suffer if you do nothing.  But that's the thing-the choice is to assault others or do nothing.  People may die and probably will die because you refused to assault others.  That is a more moral decision.  And far better than altering people unnaturally. 

why do you keep reverting to 'real time', it's not about here and now and old earth standards, it's about a universe hundreds of years into the future with technology so integrated within their reality, that is already almost genetically infused. Our concepts,belief systems, moral imparatives are simply non applicable. They don't want old earths advice, they don't need to worry about what we might choose for them,cause we don't even exist anymore for them. They've accepted,to a point, the technological risks of creating "new life",we can only imagine what that is. With the onset of alien cultures, un knowable conceptual stuff, Like Asari mind melds. It's the future, we are the past. So we have to make any decisions based SOLELY on the problems in the Mass Effect Universe. Not 2012 earth standards, heck we cannot even slow our dedication to exploiting resources past empy, or limit our pollution enough to affect global warming, we won't even care to fully admit it's even a problem, just set and watch the snow caps melt to just say snafu. Any 'far better than altering' stuff is for the comic  book crowd, as related to the grim reality faced in the fictious world of the MEU, but the Premise remains, how to 'fix' the broken record of the cycle, with the TOOLS AT HAND, being the technology of the times,sentient and sapient. Super advanced, maybe millions of years old, techno memories of some race so far ahead of us here, we're just as a spider on a hot stove, but their machine tool for changing the fate of the MEU is available, to alter the necessary to accomplish Shepards mission to end the reaper cycle. Ungenics isn't even close to what's going on with that, genocide looks like simple road kill, compared to that, freedom of choice is brought to the point of what would a universe do?  Shepard, of that time frame, has the means to do what he was chosen for. What we like or dislike now shouldn't be the canon, it's what the creatures of the MEU need to survive. Stop the cycle, let the universe do the rest. In time it will all find it's happy medium. The most ugly fact of the matter is, we, even here in 2012, as Sheps gardian angel of sorts, have no choice whatsoever. The creators of the reapers/catalys sealed that fate long ago, before we were even able to warm a rock.. Heck I'm amazed that the catalyst even granted audience, if it knew Shep was connect to old earth 'common sense', must of been the crucible that hid that little time warp. Javik even thinks the organics in the MEU are primitives, and hes a youngster and simpleton compared to the creators of the catalyst. His race could barely out smart an AI from that era. We are dealing with them, not the catalyst, he's merely a symptom..of their 'social graces'. So if you want to get all "indignant" take it up with the creators, not Shepard if he choosed synthesis, after all, it's his business, we're just his captive fans. (also he didn't get to vote on the aformentioned polls on moral highgrounds, didn't have that luxury.)

[3DandBeyond]

Wayning_Star wrote...


why do you keep reverting to 'real time', it's not about here and now and old earth standards, it's about a universe hundreds of years into the future with technology so integrated within their reality, that is already almost genetically infused. Our concepts,belief systems, moral imparatives are simply non applicable. They don't want old earths advice, they don't need to worry about what we might choose for them,cause we don't even exist anymore for them. They've accepted,to a point, the technological risks of creating "new life",we can only imagine what that is. With the onset of alien cultures, un knowable conceptual stuff, Like Asari mind melds. It's the future, we are the past. So we have to make any decisions based SOLELY on the problems in the Mass Effect Universe. Not 2012 earth standards, heck we cannot even slow our dedication to exploiting resources past empy, or limit our pollution enough to affect global warming, we won't even care to fully admit it's even a problem, just set and watch the snow caps melt to just say snafu. Any 'far better than altering' stuff is for the comic  book crowd, as related to the grim reality faced in the fictious world of the MEU, but the Premise remains, how to 'fix' the broken record of the cycle, with the TOOLS AT HAND, being the technology of the times,sentient and sapient. Super advanced, maybe millions of years old, techno memories of some race so far ahead of us here, we're just as a spider on a hot stove, but their machine tool for changing the fate of the MEU is available, to alter the necessary to accomplish Shepards mission to end the reaper cycle. Ungenics isn't even close to what's going on with that, genocide looks like simple road kill, compared to that, freedom of choice is brought to the point of what would a universe do?  Shepard, of that time frame, has the means to do what he was chosen for. What we like or dislike now shouldn't be the canon, it's what the creatures of the MEU need to survive. Stop the cycle, let the universe do the rest. In time it will all find it's happy medium. The most ugly fact of the matter is, we, even here in 2012, as Sheps gardian angel of sorts, have no choice whatsoever. The creators of the reapers/catalys sealed that fate long ago, before we were even able to warm a rock.. Heck I'm amazed that the catalyst even granted audience, if it knew Shep was connect to old earth 'common sense', must of been the crucible that hid that little time warp. Javik even thinks the organics in the MEU are primitives, and hes a youngster and simpleton compared to the creators of the catalyst. His race could barely out smart an AI from that era. We are dealing with them, not the catalyst, he's merely a symptom..of their 'social graces'. So if you want to get all "indignant" take it up with the creators, not Shepard if he choosed synthesis, after all, it's his business, we're just his captive fans. (also he didn't get to vote on the aformentioned polls on moral highgrounds, didn't have that luxury.)

Ok it's a bit hard to read one big paragraph, and I'm not even totally sure what all that even means or how it relates.  I'm sorry it's probably my fault so if I get it wrong put the blame on me.

I am also talking about what exists in their time.  I made that point-they do define reality and no one says it's ok to force implants on those that don't want it and whole groups of people in ME didn't want even implants.  Also, synthesis changes all organic life-so there could be people living on planets that have never been seen before, never used tech before, but it's ok to put nanotech and Shepard's DNA or energy or essence in them.

The writers constantly are alluding to real world events of today all through the games.

Javik thinks a lot of things, but they were a conquering somewhat morally bankrupt group themselves.  Everyone was beneath them so they assimilated everyone into their idea of how things should be.  Agree and live.  Disagree and die.

If Shepard makes any choice s/he is taking authority out of the hands of all others.  Synthesis can in no way be even remotely considered to be ok or allowed.  I sincerely doubt it's ok in their time to force people to have things implanted in them or that it is ok to just run up and attack whoever you like.  People still have some individual control over their own bodies or maybe you missed the argument between the man and his sister-in-law over her unborn baby in ME1.

I have no idea what global warming has to do with all this, but sure I know people don't believe it.  And I know what I think about it because I've lived long enough to know something is very wrong with our climate.  We don't have Spring any more where I live and it doesn't snow or get as cold in the winter as it used to.  And there's something called a drought going on here and it's been the hottest month on record here.  So tell me something I don't already know. 

Your argument is almost like saying, "I was just following orders."    If you commit any act even under some duress, you are still responsible for what happens because of it.  If Shepard pulls the trigger on the Crucibled or Citadel or whatever, s/he is responsible not the creators.  And there's no evidence the creators made any of it.

The choices could not have come from the creators because they partly target reapers.  Reapers did not exist until the kid made the first one with his creators.  If the creators made the choices, they would not affect reapers.  If the kid made the choices then they all work to fulfill his need and his purpose.  If someone else made the choices, they would have to have known about the kid because the choices were created by altering the kid.  The only ones that know about the kid are his creators, the kid/reapers, and Shepard.

No one ever got that far before.  No one else therefore ever knew about the kid.  The crucible works with the citadel to change the kid to make new solutions.  The crucible/citadel combination changes the kid.  And they target reapers.  Whoever made them knew about the kid and the reapers.  The only ones who know about both the kid and the reapers is Shepard.  So, if he wants Synthesis then it is another solution to solve his problem and we know just how good his solutions (reapers) are.  His solutions are not permanent because he can't see that there's any nuanced way to solve a problem.  He would take a scythe out to give someone a hair cut.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 29 juillet 2012 - 06:25 .