175 réponses à ce sujet

[Clayless]

Shouldn't this thread be continued here?

[Lord Goose]

Why is it that both patterns aren't showing regardless of Shepard's alignment, but only showing with a Renegade's?

Actually, you can see Renegade pattern in that scene. It is just not that evident. Normally, of course, Renegade pattern would not be seen, since it's result of malfunction.

[Vigilant111]

Sir MOI wrote...

I don't give a dam about nature, I give a dam about intelligent life. If making evolution completely artificial makes us better and more happy then **** nature.
Or if you prefer, let's create a "new" nature, far better than the old one.
Open your mind, think outside your christian precepts.

The irony, didn't you know that Adam and Eve were created by a higher intelligence?

[Clayless]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

Shouldn't this thread be continued here?

Especially as it's turning into a religious debate judging by that comment above me.

[Sir MOI]

I fail to see your point...
I am not going to do a Religious debate here.

Modifié par Sir MOI, 29 juillet 2012 - 04:00 .

[Vigilant111]

iamweaver wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

iamweaver wrote...

just to be combative... Is that like how homosexuality is a crime against nature?

Seriously, what makes altering the DNA pattern to allow it to interface with synthetics more or less against nature than any of the other ways sapients use technology to alter their bodies?

It's not as though it ends up turning us into mindless clones or anything (though to be fair, you don't know that before you zap yourself).  EC shots show each race continuing to be unique, and building on their previous works.

THere are arguments agains synthesis, sure - but "against nature" is, IMO, not a good one.

*Incredulous

I don't know what you are insinuating but homosexuality is not synthesis

Yes, altering bodies... but by wilful conduct with a specific purpose in mind, with effects foreseen and expected. Not just blindly following Catalyst's recommendations about some vague idea

Put it this way, it is against organic nature, as organics must be allowed to evolve naturally without artificial means, otherwise, u are just a synthetic with organic parts

I was just reacting to the whole overuse of the "crime against nature" line by many and in many RL situations.  I was sure that it would annoy some folks, but I was feeling combative when I posted it .

But the whole idea that "organics must be allowed to evolve naturally" is just bunk.  The moment that genetic alteration can fix hereditary diseases, I sure as heck hope that we don't refuse to use them, stating that they are "crimes against nature".

There's nothing magically pure or special about "natural" genetic mutation and drift.  It's just what happens to organics by the forces around it, without the application of intelligence.

Genetic alteration is not for everyone, only for the needy and when necessary, it is not a piece of cake

Yes, we are mutants who thrive on random chances of dumb luck ...we are nothing special, our culture, our intelligence, our art are absolutely rubbish but that is not a valid reason for choosing synthesis

Utilising technology for the greater good is great, but not when it replaces and interferes with organic functions. Organic life will have no meaning, we just rely on the gear inside our bodies from now on, no point in doing Olympics or play chess anymore

Modifié par Vigilant111, 29 juillet 2012 - 04:19 .

[iamweaver]

Vigilant111 wrote...

iamweaver wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

iamweaver wrote...

just to be combative... Is that like how homosexuality is a crime against nature?

Seriously, what makes altering the DNA pattern to allow it to interface with synthetics more or less against nature than any of the other ways sapients use technology to alter their bodies?

It's not as though it ends up turning us into mindless clones or anything (though to be fair, you don't know that before you zap yourself).  EC shots show each race continuing to be unique, and building on their previous works.

THere are arguments agains synthesis, sure - but "against nature" is, IMO, not a good one.

*Incredulous

I don't know what you are insinuating but homosexuality is not synthesis

Yes, altering bodies... but by wilful conduct with a specific purpose in mind, with effects foreseen and expected. Not just blindly following Catalyst's recommendations about some vague idea

Put it this way, it is against organic nature, as organics must be allowed to evolve naturally without artificial means, otherwise, u are just a synthetic with organic parts

I was just reacting to the whole overuse of the "crime against nature" line by many and in many RL situations.  I was sure that it would annoy some folks, but I was feeling combative when I posted it .

But the whole idea that "organics must be allowed to evolve naturally" is just bunk.  The moment that genetic alteration can fix hereditary diseases, I sure as heck hope that we don't refuse to use them, stating that they are "crimes against nature".

There's nothing magically pure or special about "natural" genetic mutation and drift.  It's just what happens to organics by the forces around it, without the application of intelligence.

Genetic alteration is not for everyone, only for the needy and when necessary, it is not a piece of cake

Yes, we are mutants who thrive on random chances of dumb luck ...we are nothing special, our culture, our intelligence, our art are absolutely rubbish but that is not a valid reason for choosing synthesis

Utilising technology for the greater good is great, but not when it replaces and interferes with organic functions. Organic life will have no meaning, we just rely on the gear inside our bodies from now on, no point in doing Olympics or play chess anymore

If genetics shows us a way to eliminate some of DNA's reproductive flaws, and we can "gengineeer" people to be able to live to 300, I'm in favor of that.  If genetics shows us a way to use nanomachines to assist us in living to 300, I'm in favor of that.  If genetics shows a way to incorporate nanomachines into our DNA directly to allow us to live to 300, I'm in favor of that.

[Vigilant111]

iamweaver wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

iamweaver wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

iamweaver wrote...

just to be combative... Is that like how homosexuality is a crime against nature?

Seriously, what makes altering the DNA pattern to allow it to interface with synthetics more or less against nature than any of the other ways sapients use technology to alter their bodies?

It's not as though it ends up turning us into mindless clones or anything (though to be fair, you don't know that before you zap yourself).  EC shots show each race continuing to be unique, and building on their previous works.

THere are arguments agains synthesis, sure - but "against nature" is, IMO, not a good one.

*Incredulous

I don't know what you are insinuating but homosexuality is not synthesis

Yes, altering bodies... but by wilful conduct with a specific purpose in mind, with effects foreseen and expected. Not just blindly following Catalyst's recommendations about some vague idea

Put it this way, it is against organic nature, as organics must be allowed to evolve naturally without artificial means, otherwise, u are just a synthetic with organic parts

I was just reacting to the whole overuse of the "crime against nature" line by many and in many RL situations.  I was sure that it would annoy some folks, but I was feeling combative when I posted it .

But the whole idea that "organics must be allowed to evolve naturally" is just bunk.  The moment that genetic alteration can fix hereditary diseases, I sure as heck hope that we don't refuse to use them, stating that they are "crimes against nature".

There's nothing magically pure or special about "natural" genetic mutation and drift.  It's just what happens to organics by the forces around it, without the application of intelligence.

Genetic alteration is not for everyone, only for the needy and when necessary, it is not a piece of cake

Yes, we are mutants who thrive on random chances of dumb luck ...we are nothing special, our culture, our intelligence, our art are absolutely rubbish but that is not a valid reason for choosing synthesis

Utilising technology for the greater good is great, but not when it replaces and interferes with organic functions. Organic life will have no meaning, we just rely on the gear inside our bodies from now on, no point in doing Olympics or play chess anymore

If genetics shows us a way to eliminate some of DNA's reproductive flaws, and we can "gengineeer" people to be able to live to 300, I'm in favor of that.  If genetics shows us a way to use nanomachines to assist us in living to 300, I'm in favor of that.  If genetics shows a way to incorporate nanomachines into our DNA directly to allow us to live to 300, I'm in favor of that.

Life is not a race to beat the Asari in "Who is older" contest

Mortality is part of life, and it is NOT a flaw that needs to be fixed, what needs to be fixed is meaningless lifetimes, death makes life meaningful

[DirtyPhoenix]

Vigilant111 wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Not just blindly following Catalyst's recommendations about some vague idea

Don't you do this in every option? How would you know destroy would do exactly what the catalyst says?
How would you know that control is not a means to control you?

By choosing destroy and control, u negate or at least hope to negate the Catalyst's statement and both of them are not the recommended options

It wouldn't matter to me what his recommendations are, he can recommend refusal all he likes, doesn't mean I'm being compelled to pick that. What I meant was, if you think synthesis is a blind jump, which in a way, it is, then the other endings are too. Especially if you don't trust the catalyst. And destroy should look the most suspecious. What if he knows you want exactly that and is trying to lure you? 

And how does control negate the catalyst's logic? It basically says the galaxy will always need policing so I be the god-overwatch of the galaxy. What the catalyst says, just in different words.

And yes, what Taboo-X said. I'd make the decision which, according to me, is the best future of the galaxy and I'll do it without letting the catalyst's recommendations or my own personal vendetta cloud my judgement.

[Krunjar]

I agree with both of you to some extent. Mortality is a part of life. Still wouldn't it be nice to have just a bit more than a blink and then gone? I am also not averse to extending or improving my life through genetic or artificial engineering. That being said though I would not want to live at any cost nor forever.

Modifié par Krunjar, 29 juillet 2012 - 04:36 .

[Vigilant111]

pirate1802 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Not just blindly following Catalyst's recommendations about some vague idea

Don't you do this in every option? How would you know destroy would do exactly what the catalyst says?
How would you know that control is not a means to control you?

By choosing destroy and control, u negate or at least hope to negate the Catalyst's statement and both of them are not the recommended options

It wouldn't matter to me what his recommendations are, he can recommend refusal all he likes, doesn't mean I'm being compelled to pick that. What I meant was, if you think synthesis is a blind jump, which in a way, it is, then the other endings are too. Especially if you don't trust the catalyst. And destroy should look the most suspecious. What if he knows you want exactly that and is trying to lure you? 

And how does control negate the catalyst's logic? It basically says the galaxy will always need policing so I be the god-overwatch of the galaxy. What the catalyst says, just in different words.

And yes, what Taboo-X said. I'd make the decision which, according to me, is the best future of the galaxy and I'll do it without letting the catalyst's recommendations or my own personal vendetta cloud my judgement.

Ugh, the trust issue again... perhaps I didn't word it that well, I meant the statement that the Catalyst made regarding creators and the created, in both destroy and control, there are risks with uprising of new AIs. Isn't that implied that synthesis will stop that from happening? The Catalyst is making a projection about the future, it makes a recommendation of synthesis based on assumptions and simulations, and it expects you to follow its logic

You are not following the Catalyst blindly on its recommendations in that respect if you choose non-synthesis options, it did not recommend those options because those options do not solve the problem in its eyes...this has nothing to do with whether the Crucible will indeed perform its task as directed, this is a separate matter

No, no one knows if what happens in the future will actually negate the Catalyst's logic, the Catalyst maybe right, but only if organics allow so by creating AIs disregarding ethics and enslaving them

But yes, the Catalyst is only a talking head, u can even mute through the conversation and choose according to game facts and speculations...which makes this whole conversation moot, am I right?

[iamweaver]

Vigilant111 wrote...

iamweaver wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

iamweaver wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

iamweaver wrote...

just to be combative... Is that like how homosexuality is a crime against nature?

Seriously, what makes altering the DNA pattern to allow it to interface with synthetics more or less against nature than any of the other ways sapients use technology to alter their bodies?

It's not as though it ends up turning us into mindless clones or anything (though to be fair, you don't know that before you zap yourself).  EC shots show each race continuing to be unique, and building on their previous works.

THere are arguments agains synthesis, sure - but "against nature" is, IMO, not a good one.

*Incredulous

I don't know what you are insinuating but homosexuality is not synthesis

Yes, altering bodies... but by wilful conduct with a specific purpose in mind, with effects foreseen and expected. Not just blindly following Catalyst's recommendations about some vague idea

Put it this way, it is against organic nature, as organics must be allowed to evolve naturally without artificial means, otherwise, u are just a synthetic with organic parts

I was just reacting to the whole overuse of the "crime against nature" line by many and in many RL situations.  I was sure that it would annoy some folks, but I was feeling combative when I posted it .

But the whole idea that "organics must be allowed to evolve naturally" is just bunk.  The moment that genetic alteration can fix hereditary diseases, I sure as heck hope that we don't refuse to use them, stating that they are "crimes against nature".

There's nothing magically pure or special about "natural" genetic mutation and drift.  It's just what happens to organics by the forces around it, without the application of intelligence.

Genetic alteration is not for everyone, only for the needy and when necessary, it is not a piece of cake

Yes, we are mutants who thrive on random chances of dumb luck ...we are nothing special, our culture, our intelligence, our art are absolutely rubbish but that is not a valid reason for choosing synthesis

Utilising technology for the greater good is great, but not when it replaces and interferes with organic functions. Organic life will have no meaning, we just rely on the gear inside our bodies from now on, no point in doing Olympics or play chess anymore

If genetics shows us a way to eliminate some of DNA's reproductive flaws, and we can "gengineeer" people to be able to live to 300, I'm in favor of that.  If genetics shows us a way to use nanomachines to assist us in living to 300, I'm in favor of that.  If genetics shows a way to incorporate nanomachines into our DNA directly to allow us to live to 300, I'm in favor of that.

Life is not a race to beat the Asari in "Who is older" contest

Mortality is part of life, and it is NOT a flaw that needs to be fixed, what needs to be fixed is meaningless lifetimes, death makes life meaningful

Logically invalid point 1:  If life is about combatting its meaninglessness, then a longer lifespan will give you more chances to make it meaningful.

Logically invalid point 2:  Even if you live to 300, you still die.  Life ends.  Mortality is still a part of life.

Logically unlikely point 3:  How do you define "meaningful"?  Does that definition include in it altruistic things, like helping others, increasing their quality of life?  If so, what's wrong with that?

Invalid point 4: You're avoiding the actual argument.  I used increase of life as simply an example of something that most sould consider benificial to the species overall.  Feel free to pick whatever thing you think would increase the quality of organic life, and substitute it in for "live to 300 years" - then explain why the third option is any worse than the first two.

[DirtyPhoenix]

Vigilant111 wrote...

But yes, the Catalyst is only a talking head, u can even mute through the conversation and choose according to game facts and speculations...which makes this whole conversation moot, am I right?

Yes you are right.

What if someone weighs in all the factors, thinks it over and then picks synthesis? Because nobody I know picked synthesis just because holokid told him to. O.o It would not so much be a blind jump would it?

Modifié par pirate1802, 29 juillet 2012 - 05:14 .

[alienatedflea]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Life is not a race to beat the Asari in "Who is older" contest

Mortality is part of life, and it is NOT a flaw that needs to be fixed, what needs to be fixed is meaningless lifetimes, death makes life meaningful

death doesnt make life meaningful...that is morbid...what makes life meaningful is how you LIVE it...not the fact that you are born and you die...the extension of life does not make life less meaningful...

if you are saying thats the case, then I presume you think anyone over the age of 35 (40 tops) have a very meaningless life because that is our "natural" lifespan without any intervention of technology (hunters/gatherers)...I know that line of thinking is full of horse poo-ey

Fortunately, we are making more and more advances in genetics and we will most likely start tampering with human genetics in the near future to make genetic diseases non-existent as well as (because the military applications) make "super-humans"...something like "the 4400" a reality (maybe)

Synthesis only speeds up this process as well as instills human (organic) intuition into the cold calculated synthetic way of thinking...

Modifié par alienatedflea, 29 juillet 2012 - 05:35 .

[Vigilant111]

iamweaver wrote...

Logically invalid point 1:  If life is about combatting its meaninglessness, then a longer lifespan will give you more chances to make it meaningful.

Logically invalid point 2:  Even if you live to 300, you still die.  Life ends.  Mortality is still a part of life.

Logically unlikely point 3:  How do you define "meaningful"?  Does that definition include in it altruistic things, like helping others, increasing their quality of life?  If so, what's wrong with that?

Invalid point 4: You're avoiding the actual argument.  I used increase of life as simply an example of something that most sould consider benificial to the species overall.  Feel free to pick whatever thing you think would increase the quality of organic life, and substitute it in for "live to 300 years" - then explain why the third option is any worse than the first two.

No, that is just an excuse to procrastinate things: "We've got plenty of time to waste, just relax", yes u have more chances to make it meaningful, it also gives u more chance to f**k it up

Are u sure u are ready to die when you reached 300? maybe u still haven't found a meaningful life yet, so u ask for more time and more time and more time as long as technology enables so

Use your time wisely is being meaningful...yes you can do altruistic things, but can't you turn bad?

How did I avoid your argument? What is beneficial to the species overall is to have its ideas, its culture passed on, to let it evolve to become better, and that has nothing to do with increasing lifespans

I don't understand the bolded text...why do I have to explain why synthesis is worse? I thought we were talking about "crimes against nature" and genetic alteration

[Wayning_Star]

Yep, Bioware messed up, they made the trilogy termination too complicated without the props to hold up the absolute ending for everyone. Even space magic isn't enough to end the reaper threat user base. Without cut'n dried, many are just lost in space. This'll play hell for those who actually like the game, as the devs will but hard put to accomplish DLCs that'll not just confuse the non issues presented to discourage evil 'enjoyers' of the ME trilogy. Ergo, trolls 8 ,enjoyers 2.

key in golf clap applause..

[Vigilant111]

alienatedflea wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Life is not a race to beat the Asari in "Who is older" contest

Mortality is part of life, and it is NOT a flaw that needs to be fixed, what needs to be fixed is meaningless lifetimes, death makes life meaningful

death doesnt make life meaningful...that is morbid...what makes life meaningful is how you LIVE it...not the fact that you are born and you die...the extension of life does not make life less meaningful...

if you are saying thats the case, then I presume you think anyone over the age of 35 (40 tops) have a very meaningless life because that is our "natural" lifespan without any intervention of technology (hunters/gatherers)...I know that line of thinking is full of horse poo-ey

Fortunately, we are making more and more advances in genetics and we will most likely start tampering with human genetics in the near future to make genetic diseases non-existent as well as (because the military applications) make "super-humans"...something like "the 4400" a reality (maybe)

Synthesis only speeds up this process as well as instills human (organic) intuition into the cold calculated synthetic way of thinking...

The value of life is emphasized here, I did not say death ITSELF is meaningful objectively, life is meaningful because you know it will end and you need to do something meaningful, u are compelled to achieve things and I only meant it is a PART of life

Bolded text, no, I do not assume that, and I did not say without technology life is meaningless

Third paragraph, yes I speculate we already have that in the ME world, no need for synthesis

Last line, I accept that as your interpretation

[The Heretic of Time]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

you mean these eyes ?

*cought* BTW: Shepard´s eye implants has to be turn a 180 degrees, because if you played renegade his/her circles are on the top of the retina.

Which is not entirely impossible, since we see Adam Jensen's eye implants also rotating in a few cutscenes (in Deus Ex: Human Revolution).

The best and most logical explanation with the least leaps of faith is to assume that the blue eye implants are just that;  Shepards eye implants turned blue.

They might be upside down compared to the Renegade state, where the implants are red and turned 180 degrees compared to this. Why? We don't know, but does it really matter? Most likely BioWare got lazy and simply copy-pasted The Illusive Man's eyes for the Control and Synthesis scene, while not realizing TIM's eyes are slightly different from Shepards eye implants.


No, the indoctrination theory is far-fetched and not a reasonable explanation.

[iamweaver]

Vigilant111 wrote...

iamweaver wrote...

Logically invalid point 1:  If life is about combatting its meaninglessness, then a longer lifespan will give you more chances to make it meaningful.

Logically invalid point 2:  Even if you live to 300, you still die.  Life ends.  Mortality is still a part of life.

Logically unlikely point 3:  How do you define "meaningful"?  Does that definition include in it altruistic things, like helping others, increasing their quality of life?  If so, what's wrong with that?

Invalid point 4: You're avoiding the actual argument.  I used increase of life as simply an example of something that most sould consider benificial to the species overall.  Feel free to pick whatever thing you think would increase the quality of organic life, and substitute it in for "live to 300 years" - then explain why the third option is any worse than the first two.

No, that is just an excuse to procrastinate things: "We've got plenty of time to waste, just relax", yes u have more chances to make it meaningful, it also gives u more chance to f**k it up

Are u sure u are ready to die when you reached 300? maybe u still haven't found a meaningful life yet, so u ask for more time and more time and more time as long as technology enables so

Use your time wisely is being meaningful...yes you can do altruistic things, but can't you turn bad?

How did I avoid your argument? What is beneficial to the species overall is to have its ideas, its culture passed on, to let it evolve to become better, and that has nothing to do with increasing lifespans

I don't understand the bolded text...why do I have to explain why synthesis is worse? I thought we were talking about "crimes against nature" and genetic alteration

I gave you three ways that genetic modifications could be performed to a species to improve its quality of life. You responded with some philosophical rant about how longer life isn't better, because it's not the length of a life that's important. 

So you actually sidestepped the question that was "what makes altering DNA construction a crime against nature, as compared to other methods of altering genetic structure".  It's the second time that you have actually avoided the question.

You're the one that said that altering the way that DNA currently works is a crime against nature.  I'm trying to figure out why altering its building blocks is different from altering its structure, or using artificial means to repair it.

[Bill Casey]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

No, the indoctrination theory is far-fetched and not a reasonable explanation.

No, "The Decision chamber is real" is far fetched and unreasonable...
Nothing past that point resembles reality...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 29 juillet 2012 - 06:46 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Bill Casey wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

No, the indoctrination theory is far-fetched and not a reasonable explanation.

No, "The Decision chamber is real" is far fetched and unreasonable...
Nothing past that point resembles reality...

No, that's just wishful thinking on your part. You WANT it to not be real, because you hate it. The sad truth however, is that Mac Walters thinks his ending is genius and he loves it, no matter how horrible we think it is.

The ending is real, it's just badly written and obviously rushed. The indoctrination theory is wishful thinking, a fancy handwave to make way for a new ending which doesn't suck.

What you REALLY wish for is a completely new ending, but you know that's not gonna happen, so you cling on the last bit of hope you have left: the indoctrination theory, a silly theory created as a handwave to obsecure the ridiculousness of the current ending and to make way for a new ending that doesn't suck.

[Bill Casey]

No I do not want a new ending...
I want this ending...

It's perfect...
Worthy of David Lynch or Christopher Nolan...
It's beyond brilliant...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 29 juillet 2012 - 07:16 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Bill Casey wrote...

No I do not want a new ending...
I want this ending...

It's perfect...
Worthy of David Lynch or Christopher Nolan...
It's beyond brilliant...

Uhu, that's why you want a new ending through an indoctrination handwave, right?

Also, I find your comment incredibly insulting . I find it unbelievable how you can insult David Lynch and Christopher Nolan to such a degree. Don't you have any dignity?

[Jadebaby]

Krunjar wrote...

The color of his eyes?

Really?

Come up with a better criticism. There could be any number of 10,000 plausible explanations of which perhaps indoctrination is there somewhere if that's your head cannon but honestly this criticism is weak.

Also all those people unwilling to act against nature. Go leave your homes throw off your clothes and possessions and live in a forest somewhere and catch and eat raw rabbits for your food. While your at it pin some passing women down and force yourself apon them. Because that's how humans act according to your vaunted "nature".

Why is it all the pro enders that always come across as such dicks... Guess someone has never heard of Outkast....

pirate1802 wrote...

Oh so that is the reasoning. Now I think I understand. But another doubt. Doesn't the starchild say clearly that you are going to lose if you don't use the crucible? Yes you don't have to believe him but doesn't other people say pretty much the same thing throughout the game?

Also, having chosen refusal once, you know what it does, why would your other Shepards pick it? Or do you not like to metagame?

Actually it's destroy for my canon, refuse for the rest. This is to allow my canon Shep to get "implications" while all my other Sheps choose refuse to illustrate how incomplete this game feels. Plus, that speech, c'mon... Awesome!

iamweaver wrote...

I was just reacting to the whole overuse of the "crime against nature" line by many and in many RL situations. I was sure that it would annoy some folks, but I was feeling combative when I posted it .

But the whole idea that "organics must be allowed to evolve naturally" is just bunk. The moment that genetic alteration can fix hereditary diseases, I sure as heck hope that we don't refuse to use them, stating that they are "crimes against nature".

There's nothing magically pure or special about "natural" genetic mutation and drift. It's just what happens to organics by the forces around it, without the application of intelligence.

Regardless of what Synthesis does or doesn't do. I do not believe it's right for a single individual to change the life of another without their consent. The Catalyst contradicts this whole idea by saying "it cannot be.. forced"..

Well gee, if Shepard isn't "forcing" it upon the galaxy, then I might have to recheck my definition of force.

All I'm saying, is there'd be a LOT of scarred people from this, and c'mon.. Letting the Reapers live?

If you pick Synthesis, you are a tool.

[elegolas1]

No one disputes that the eyes resemble TIM's or Saren's eyes right?

Why would Bioware do this, if not to suggest to the player that by picking control or synthesis is surcoming to Reaper influence?