80611 réponses à ce sujet

[BatmanTurian]

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

magnetite wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

It's only in the Destroy option, which to me, b/c of the changes in EC, is morally wrong and contrary to ME theme of true sacrifice.

If people believe what the Catalyst is saying (eg. all your synthetic friends will die, you included because you're partly synthetic) then destroy may seem like a really bad choice.

The thing is do not trust the Catalyst. he's just a Reaper in disguise. A ghostly child from Earth which is one of the symptoms of indoctrination (ghostly prescences). He's trying to get you to pick anything *but* the destroy option based on his words. 

I know the IT argument for the Destory option. They no longer convince me b/c of what the EC has done. If you can somehow prove to me that the Decision Chamber does not contradict the narrative of the story and that it does not go against the ME theme of true sacrifice, then i might believe you.

Oh, I don't know, Anderson is shown doing it. Your whole crew agrees with it. You've been trying to do it (and doing it in the case of Sovereign) since ME1. This is just off the top of my head.

Yes, the goal is to destroy the Reapers, but Godbrat gives you that chance except on his terms, not yours. That is full blown compromise.

And yet he kills you anyway in Refuse. Yeah, makes total sense.

Better to die with my humanity intact, then let the Reapers turn me into cold blooded murderer like them.

You already are. You kill people all through Mass Effect. Doesn't even matter if it's in self-defense. If you're going to be a pacifist about it, you might as well be intellectually honest here.

[FreddyCast]

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

Sure, if Destroy was the only viable way of breaking free from indoctrination-induced dream, the Geth and EDI would be alive, but you would have compromised your ideals, b/c then it would show that Shepard would be willing to murder his own friends just to achieve victory. That's is not the real Shepard. Again, Shep said that if we allowed this war to turn on our friends then "war turns into murder". I am only keeping true to Shepard's ideals, that is why the Destroy option is wrong. Refusal is the only way to break free, that is my view of the IT.

Yes...
They have convinced you that using the crucible to destroy the reapers is wrong...

Let me give you a picture.
Using a mysterious gun can kill your enemy, but you don't know how to use this mysterious gun.
Then your enemy comes and tells you how this gun works, but the only way to kill him is if you put your friend who has absolutely no idea what's going on in front of him and kill him in order to kill your enemy.
I would never do that to a friend.

So you would just give up and let the enemy kill you. Okaayyy.

No, I would find another way, or i would die trying. Stop making it seem as if I don't want the Reapers dead. I want them NON-EXISTENT.

then you don't Refuse because you never leave the dream and they kill Shepard and everyone else.

My Shepard refuses and dies a hero. I don't want to have the blood of the Geth and EDI on my hands and be hailed as a false hero.

[BatmanTurian]

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

Sure, if Destroy was the only viable way of breaking free from indoctrination-induced dream, the Geth and EDI would be alive, but you would have compromised your ideals, b/c then it would show that Shepard would be willing to murder his own friends just to achieve victory. That's is not the real Shepard. Again, Shep said that if we allowed this war to turn on our friends then "war turns into murder". I am only keeping true to Shepard's ideals, that is why the Destroy option is wrong. Refusal is the only way to break free, that is my view of the IT.

Yes...
They have convinced you that using the crucible to destroy the reapers is wrong...

Let me give you a picture.
Using a mysterious gun can kill your enemy, but you don't know how to use this mysterious gun.
Then your enemy comes and tells you how this gun works, but the only way to kill him is if you put your friend who has absolutely no idea what's going on in front of him and kill him in order to kill your enemy.
I would never do that to a friend.

So you would just give up and let the enemy kill you. Okaayyy.

No, I would find another way, or i would die trying. Stop making it seem as if I don't want the Reapers dead. I want them NON-EXISTENT.

then you don't Refuse because you never leave the dream and they kill Shepard and everyone else.

My Shepard refuses and dies a hero. I don't want to have the blood of the Geth and EDI on my hands and be hailed as a false hero.

No, your Shepard dies a coward and dooms the entire cycle.

[FreddyCast]

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

magnetite wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

It's only in the Destroy option, which to me, b/c of the changes in EC, is morally wrong and contrary to ME theme of true sacrifice.

If people believe what the Catalyst is saying (eg. all your synthetic friends will die, you included because you're partly synthetic) then destroy may seem like a really bad choice.

The thing is do not trust the Catalyst. he's just a Reaper in disguise. A ghostly child from Earth which is one of the symptoms of indoctrination (ghostly prescences). He's trying to get you to pick anything *but* the destroy option based on his words. 

I know the IT argument for the Destory option. They no longer convince me b/c of what the EC has done. If you can somehow prove to me that the Decision Chamber does not contradict the narrative of the story and that it does not go against the ME theme of true sacrifice, then i might believe you.

Oh, I don't know, Anderson is shown doing it. Your whole crew agrees with it. You've been trying to do it (and doing it in the case of Sovereign) since ME1. This is just off the top of my head.

Yes, the goal is to destroy the Reapers, but Godbrat gives you that chance except on his terms, not yours. That is full blown compromise.

And yet he kills you anyway in Refuse. Yeah, makes total sense.

Better to die with my humanity intact, then let the Reapers turn me into cold blooded murderer like them.

You already are. You kill people all through Mass Effect. Doesn't even matter if it's in self-defense. If you're going to be a pacifist about it, you might as well be intellectually honest here.

I don't play as a renegade. I kill in self-defense and in matters of war. Killing in war is not murder if your cause is just. Killing the innocent, in this case the Geth and EDI, is murder.

[BatmanTurian]

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

You already are. You kill people all through Mass Effect. Doesn't even matter if it's in self-defense. If you're going to be a pacifist about it, you might as well be intellectually honest here.

I don't play as a renegade. I kill in self-defense and in matters of war. Killing in war is not murder if your cause is just. Killing the innocent, in this case the Geth and EDI, is murder.

Now, you're just being a a hypocrite.

[FreddyCast]

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

Sure, if Destroy was the only viable way of breaking free from indoctrination-induced dream, the Geth and EDI would be alive, but you would have compromised your ideals, b/c then it would show that Shepard would be willing to murder his own friends just to achieve victory. That's is not the real Shepard. Again, Shep said that if we allowed this war to turn on our friends then "war turns into murder". I am only keeping true to Shepard's ideals, that is why the Destroy option is wrong. Refusal is the only way to break free, that is my view of the IT.

Yes...
They have convinced you that using the crucible to destroy the reapers is wrong...

Let me give you a picture.
Using a mysterious gun can kill your enemy, but you don't know how to use this mysterious gun.
Then your enemy comes and tells you how this gun works, but the only way to kill him is if you put your friend who has absolutely no idea what's going on in front of him and kill him in order to kill your enemy.
I would never do that to a friend.

So you would just give up and let the enemy kill you. Okaayyy.

No, I would find another way, or i would die trying. Stop making it seem as if I don't want the Reapers dead. I want them NON-EXISTENT.

then you don't Refuse because you never leave the dream and they kill Shepard and everyone else.

My Shepard refuses and dies a hero. I don't want to have the blood of the Geth and EDI on my hands and be hailed as a false hero.

No, your Shepard dies a coward and dooms the entire cycle.

It might seem that way now, but maybe later BW will change that. Till then call me a coward, my Shep's conscience is clean.

[FreddyCast]

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

You already are. You kill people all through Mass Effect. Doesn't even matter if it's in self-defense. If you're going to be a pacifist about it, you might as well be intellectually honest here.

I don't play as a renegade. I kill in self-defense and in matters of war. Killing in war is not murder if your cause is just. Killing the innocent, in this case the Geth and EDI, is murder.

Now, you're just being a a hypocrite.

Now you're just being ignorant, not knowing the difference between killing and murdering.

[BleedingUranium]

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

magnetite wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

It's only in the Destroy option, which to me, b/c of the changes in EC, is morally wrong and contrary to ME theme of true sacrifice.

If people believe what the Catalyst is saying (eg. all your synthetic friends will die, you included because you're partly synthetic) then destroy may seem like a really bad choice.

The thing is do not trust the Catalyst. he's just a Reaper in disguise. A ghostly child from Earth which is one of the symptoms of indoctrination (ghostly prescences). He's trying to get you to pick anything *but* the destroy option based on his words. 

I know the IT argument for the Destory option. They no longer convince me b/c of what the EC has done. If you can somehow prove to me that the Decision Chamber does not contradict the narrative of the story and that it does not go against the ME theme of true sacrifice, then i might believe you.

Oh, I don't know, Anderson is shown doing it. Your whole crew agrees with it. You've been trying to do it (and doing it in the case of Sovereign) since ME1. This is just off the top of my head.

Yes, the goal is to destroy the Reapers, but Godbrat gives you that chance except on his terms, not yours. That is full blown compromise.

But he doesn't give you the gun! It was always there! He discourages you from using it!

I think the basis of your problem is that you disagree with most of our, and Mass Effect itself's view of what sacrifice is. You're saying that it's not sacrifice if you "press the button" as it were. What we, and the game, is saying is that it doesn't matter how they die.

The Geth and EDI are willing to die to defeat the Reapers. The Geth and EDI die to defeat the Reapers. Nothing else matters.

[BatmanTurian]

FreddyCast wrote...

It might seem that way now, but maybe later BW will change that. Till then call me a coward, my Shep's conscience is clean.

Fine, but the evidence isn't in your favor at the moment. So you can't absolutely say it will happen.

All anyone knows is the breath scene in High EMS Destroy, which implies waking up. This does not happen in the other episodes. If it's added to Refuse or Refuse is changed, sure, I'll apologize. But as of right now, Refuse is just being a wishy washy coward who couldn't make a choice and Starbinger says " Well, crap. I broke him. Oh wells, continue the cycle anyways."

[BatmanTurian]

BleedingUranium wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

magnetite wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

It's only in the Destroy option, which to me, b/c of the changes in EC, is morally wrong and contrary to ME theme of true sacrifice.

If people believe what the Catalyst is saying (eg. all your synthetic friends will die, you included because you're partly synthetic) then destroy may seem like a really bad choice.

The thing is do not trust the Catalyst. he's just a Reaper in disguise. A ghostly child from Earth which is one of the symptoms of indoctrination (ghostly prescences). He's trying to get you to pick anything *but* the destroy option based on his words. 

I know the IT argument for the Destory option. They no longer convince me b/c of what the EC has done. If you can somehow prove to me that the Decision Chamber does not contradict the narrative of the story and that it does not go against the ME theme of true sacrifice, then i might believe you.

Oh, I don't know, Anderson is shown doing it. Your whole crew agrees with it. You've been trying to do it (and doing it in the case of Sovereign) since ME1. This is just off the top of my head.

Yes, the goal is to destroy the Reapers, but Godbrat gives you that chance except on his terms, not yours. That is full blown compromise.

But he doesn't give you the gun! It was always there! He discourages you from using it!

I think the basis of your problem is that you disagree with most of our, and Mass Effect itself's view of what sacrifice is. You're saying that it's not sacrifice if you "press the button" as it were. What we, and the game, is saying is that it doesn't matter how they die.

The Geth and EDI are willing to die to defeat the Reapers. The Geth and EDI die to defeat the Reapers. Nothing else matters.

Except they don't, because the decision only really affects Shepard.. but yeah.

[FreddyCast]

BleedingUranium wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

magnetite wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

It's only in the Destroy option, which to me, b/c of the changes in EC, is morally wrong and contrary to ME theme of true sacrifice.

If people believe what the Catalyst is saying (eg. all your synthetic friends will die, you included because you're partly synthetic) then destroy may seem like a really bad choice.

The thing is do not trust the Catalyst. he's just a Reaper in disguise. A ghostly child from Earth which is one of the symptoms of indoctrination (ghostly prescences). He's trying to get you to pick anything *but* the destroy option based on his words. 

I know the IT argument for the Destory option. They no longer convince me b/c of what the EC has done. If you can somehow prove to me that the Decision Chamber does not contradict the narrative of the story and that it does not go against the ME theme of true sacrifice, then i might believe you.

Oh, I don't know, Anderson is shown doing it. Your whole crew agrees with it. You've been trying to do it (and doing it in the case of Sovereign) since ME1. This is just off the top of my head.

Yes, the goal is to destroy the Reapers, but Godbrat gives you that chance except on his terms, not yours. That is full blown compromise.

But he doesn't give you the gun! It was always there! He discourages you from using it!

I think the basis of your problem is that you disagree with most of our, and Mass Effect itself's view of what sacrifice is. You're saying that it's not sacrifice if you "press the button" as it were. What we, and the game, is saying is that it doesn't matter how they die.

The Geth and EDI are willing to die to defeat the Reapers. The Geth and EDI die to defeat the Reapers. Nothing else matters.

Then you have no idea what the Geth and EDI want. The Geth want to die fighting for their future. EDi wants to die fighting for Joker. You take that away if you choose destroy b/c YOU are deciding their fate. Everyone should choose their own fate, as Shep said.

[BatmanTurian]

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

You already are. You kill people all through Mass Effect. Doesn't even matter if it's in self-defense. If you're going to be a pacifist about it, you might as well be intellectually honest here.

I don't play as a renegade. I kill in self-defense and in matters of war. Killing in war is not murder if your cause is just. Killing the innocent, in this case the Geth and EDI, is murder.

Now, you're just being a a hypocrite.

Now you're just being ignorant, not knowing the difference between killing and murdering.

There is no difference. Ending lives or existence is the same either way. You think the only difference is intent.

You're still killing people in war, which is still murder because you had the intent to kill them and by your definition, that's still wrong. War is murder for survival. Let's not beat around the bush here and pretend it's some kind of awesome, purely-good action.

[BleedingUranium]

BatmanTurian wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

magnetite wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

It's only in the Destroy option, which to me, b/c of the changes in EC, is morally wrong and contrary to ME theme of true sacrifice.

If people believe what the Catalyst is saying (eg. all your synthetic friends will die, you included because you're partly synthetic) then destroy may seem like a really bad choice.

The thing is do not trust the Catalyst. he's just a Reaper in disguise. A ghostly child from Earth which is one of the symptoms of indoctrination (ghostly prescences). He's trying to get you to pick anything *but* the destroy option based on his words. 

I know the IT argument for the Destory option. They no longer convince me b/c of what the EC has done. If you can somehow prove to me that the Decision Chamber does not contradict the narrative of the story and that it does not go against the ME theme of true sacrifice, then i might believe you.

Oh, I don't know, Anderson is shown doing it. Your whole crew agrees with it. You've been trying to do it (and doing it in the case of Sovereign) since ME1. This is just off the top of my head.

Yes, the goal is to destroy the Reapers, but Godbrat gives you that chance except on his terms, not yours. That is full blown compromise.

But he doesn't give you the gun! It was always there! He discourages you from using it!

I think the basis of your problem is that you disagree with most of our, and Mass Effect itself's view of what sacrifice is. You're saying that it's not sacrifice if you "press the button" as it were. What we, and the game, is saying is that it doesn't matter how they die.

The Geth and EDI are willing to die to defeat the Reapers. The Geth and EDI die to defeat the Reapers. Nothing else matters.

Except they don't, because the decision only really affects Shepard.. but yeah.

I know, but Shepard doesn't. I was writing it from that perspective.

[BatmanTurian]

BleedingUranium wrote...

I know, but Shepard doesn't. I was writing it from that perspective.

fair enough.

[FreddyCast]

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

It might seem that way now, but maybe later BW will change that. Till then call me a coward, my Shep's conscience is clean.

Fine, but the evidence isn't in your favor at the moment. So you can't absolutely say it will happen.

All anyone knows is the breath scene in High EMS Destroy, which implies waking up. This does not happen in the other episodes. If it's added to Refuse or Refuse is changed, sure, I'll apologize. But as of right now, Refuse is just being a wishy washy coward who couldn't make a choice and Starbinger says " Well, crap. I broke him. Oh wells, continue the cycle anyways."

I do not claim it to be absolute, it is merely my view, only BW can make the decision.
I am well content as an ITer to be a "wishy washy coward", since I believe I am sticking true to Shep's ideals.

[FreddyCast]

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

You already are. You kill people all through Mass Effect. Doesn't even matter if it's in self-defense. If you're going to be a pacifist about it, you might as well be intellectually honest here.

I don't play as a renegade. I kill in self-defense and in matters of war. Killing in war is not murder if your cause is just. Killing the innocent, in this case the Geth and EDI, is murder.

Now, you're just being a a hypocrite.

Now you're just being ignorant, not knowing the difference between killing and murdering.

There is no difference. Ending lives or existence is the same either way. You think the only difference is intent.

You're still killing people in war, which is still murder because you had the intent to kill them and by your definition, that's still wrong. War is murder for survival. Let's not beat around the bush here and pretend it's some kind of awesome, purely-good action.

War is never a good thing. It is only done by neccessity because of a fallen and violent world. Those who kill to defend the weak and protect the rights of others are not murderers. Murder by definition is killing the innocent.

[BatmanTurian]

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

It might seem that way now, but maybe later BW will change that. Till then call me a coward, my Shep's conscience is clean.

Fine, but the evidence isn't in your favor at the moment. So you can't absolutely say it will happen.

All anyone knows is the breath scene in High EMS Destroy, which implies waking up. This does not happen in the other episodes. If it's added to Refuse or Refuse is changed, sure, I'll apologize. But as of right now, Refuse is just being a wishy washy coward who couldn't make a choice and Starbinger says " Well, crap. I broke him. Oh wells, continue the cycle anyways."

I do not claim it to be absolute, it is merely my view, only BW can make the decision.
I am well content as an ITer to be a "wishy washy coward", since I believe I am sticking true to Shep's ideals.

Well, I can't argue with the cardboard cutout of Refusal Shep that you present, so I don't even know what to say. You seem deeply misguided to me.

[BatmanTurian]

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

You already are. You kill people all through Mass Effect. Doesn't even matter if it's in self-defense. If you're going to be a pacifist about it, you might as well be intellectually honest here.

I don't play as a renegade. I kill in self-defense and in matters of war. Killing in war is not murder if your cause is just. Killing the innocent, in this case the Geth and EDI, is murder.

Now, you're just being a a hypocrite.

Now you're just being ignorant, not knowing the difference between killing and murdering.

There is no difference. Ending lives or existence is the same either way. You think the only difference is intent.

You're still killing people in war, which is still murder because you had the intent to kill them and by your definition, that's still wrong. War is murder for survival. Let's not beat around the bush here and pretend it's some kind of awesome, purely-good action.

War is never a good thing. It is only done by neccessity because of a fallen and violent world. Those who kill to defend the weak and protect the rights of others are not murderers. Murder by definition is killing the innocent.

Semantics. Killing is killing. Ending life is ending life. Doesn't matter what " cause" you're doing it for. There is no good killing or bad killing. Killing is just killing.
(not that I'm a pacifist by any means)

[FreddyCast]

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

It might seem that way now, but maybe later BW will change that. Till then call me a coward, my Shep's conscience is clean.

Fine, but the evidence isn't in your favor at the moment. So you can't absolutely say it will happen.

All anyone knows is the breath scene in High EMS Destroy, which implies waking up. This does not happen in the other episodes. If it's added to Refuse or Refuse is changed, sure, I'll apologize. But as of right now, Refuse is just being a wishy washy coward who couldn't make a choice and Starbinger says " Well, crap. I broke him. Oh wells, continue the cycle anyways."

I do not claim it to be absolute, it is merely my view, only BW can make the decision.
I am well content as an ITer to be a "wishy washy coward", since I believe I am sticking true to Shep's ideals.

Well, I can't argue with the cardboard cutout of Refusal Shep that you present, so I don't even know what to say. You seem deeply misguided to me.

And you seem to be a zealot to me. Just respect my view, just as I respect, though disagree, with yours.

[Rixatrix]

BleedingUranium wrote...
I think the basis of your problem is that you disagree with most of our, and Mass Effect itself's view of what sacrifice is. You're saying that it's not sacrifice if you "press the button" as it were. What we, and the game, is saying is that it doesn't matter how they die.

The Geth and EDI are willing to die to defeat the Reapers. The Geth and EDI die to defeat the Reapers. Nothing else matters.

I've been reading this discussion for the past few pages, and there is some support for this.  After all, the Systems Alliance's maxim is "He who tries to defend everything defends nothing." Plenty of people have died in Mass Effect as sacrifices for the mission/greater good.  Some of them you can prevent and some you can't.

Ashley/Kaidan on Virmire
The entire Bahak system
Grunt vs. the Rachni (even if it's a fakeout)
Mordin on Tuchanka
Thane on the Citadel

There are more, I'm sure.  And people who have joined the war ready to lay down their lives to destroy the Reapers have made their peace with dying for the cause.  Is it cruel and heartless to send A to their deaths to save B and C?  Inarguably yes.  But is it justifiable?

Hackett, in ME3, knowingly sends one fleet to their deaths to save two others to keep the Reapers busy so that the other two fleets can escape.  That fleet didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the fight, but they were ready to die so that others could fight the Reapers.

Just some food for thought.

Modifié par BlueMoonSeraphim, 16 octobre 2012 - 06:37 .

[FreddyCast]

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

You already are. You kill people all through Mass Effect. Doesn't even matter if it's in self-defense. If you're going to be a pacifist about it, you might as well be intellectually honest here.

I don't play as a renegade. I kill in self-defense and in matters of war. Killing in war is not murder if your cause is just. Killing the innocent, in this case the Geth and EDI, is murder.

Now, you're just being a a hypocrite.

Now you're just being ignorant, not knowing the difference between killing and murdering.

There is no difference. Ending lives or existence is the same either way. You think the only difference is intent.

You're still killing people in war, which is still murder because you had the intent to kill them and by your definition, that's still wrong. War is murder for survival. Let's not beat around the bush here and pretend it's some kind of awesome, purely-good action.

War is never a good thing. It is only done by neccessity because of a fallen and violent world. Those who kill to defend the weak and protect the rights of others are not murderers. Murder by definition is killing the innocent.

Semantics. Killing is killing. Ending life is ending life. Doesn't matter what " cause" you're doing it for. There is no good killing or bad killing. Killing is just killing.
(not that I'm a pacifist by any means)

I never said killing is good, but murder is certainly bad and not tolerated in any society.

[BatmanTurian]

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

It might seem that way now, but maybe later BW will change that. Till then call me a coward, my Shep's conscience is clean.

Fine, but the evidence isn't in your favor at the moment. So you can't absolutely say it will happen.

All anyone knows is the breath scene in High EMS Destroy, which implies waking up. This does not happen in the other episodes. If it's added to Refuse or Refuse is changed, sure, I'll apologize. But as of right now, Refuse is just being a wishy washy coward who couldn't make a choice and Starbinger says " Well, crap. I broke him. Oh wells, continue the cycle anyways."

I do not claim it to be absolute, it is merely my view, only BW can make the decision.
I am well content as an ITer to be a "wishy washy coward", since I believe I am sticking true to Shep's ideals.

Well, I can't argue with the cardboard cutout of Refusal Shep that you present, so I don't even know what to say. You seem deeply misguided to me.

And you seem to be a zealot to me. Just respect my view, just as I respect, though disagree, with yours.

It's hard for me to respect yours, when you seem to have been eager. before I came in. to attack those who do not agree with you. And using nonsensical arguments to boot. Actually, it's still nonsensical, but nevermind that.

[BatmanTurian]

BlueMoonSeraphim wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...
I think the basis of your problem is that you disagree with most of our, and Mass Effect itself's view of what sacrifice is. You're saying that it's not sacrifice if you "press the button" as it were. What we, and the game, is saying is that it doesn't matter how they die.

The Geth and EDI are willing to die to defeat the Reapers. The Geth and EDI die to defeat the Reapers. Nothing else matters.

I've been reading this discussion for the past few pages, and there is some support for this.  After all, the Systems Alliance's maxim is "He who tries to defend everything defends nothing." Plenty of people have died in Mass Effect as sacrifices for the mission/greater good.  Some of them you can prevent and some you can't.

Ashley/Kaidan on Virmire
The entire Bahak system
Grunt vs. the Rachni (even if it's a fakeout)
Mordin on Tuchanka
Thane on the Citadel

There are more, I'm sure.  And people who have joined the war ready to lay down their lives to destroy the Reapers have made their peace with dying for the cause.  Is it cruel and heartless to send A to their deaths to save B and C?  Inarguably yes.  But is it justifiable?

Hackett, in ME3, knowingly sends one fleet to their deaths to save two others to keep the Reapers busy so that the other two fleets can escape.  That fleet didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the fight, but they were ready to die so that others could fight the Reapers.

Just some food for thought.

He's saying the difference is that EDI and the Geth didn't have Shepard phone them in and ask if it was cool with them. Even though they never actually die. And it's a hallucination.

[FreddyCast]

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

It might seem that way now, but maybe later BW will change that. Till then call me a coward, my Shep's conscience is clean.

Fine, but the evidence isn't in your favor at the moment. So you can't absolutely say it will happen.

All anyone knows is the breath scene in High EMS Destroy, which implies waking up. This does not happen in the other episodes. If it's added to Refuse or Refuse is changed, sure, I'll apologize. But as of right now, Refuse is just being a wishy washy coward who couldn't make a choice and Starbinger says " Well, crap. I broke him. Oh wells, continue the cycle anyways."

I do not claim it to be absolute, it is merely my view, only BW can make the decision.
I am well content as an ITer to be a "wishy washy coward", since I believe I am sticking true to Shep's ideals.

Well, I can't argue with the cardboard cutout of Refusal Shep that you present, so I don't even know what to say. You seem deeply misguided to me.

And you seem to be a zealot to me. Just respect my view, just as I respect, though disagree, with yours.

It's hard for me to respect yours, when you seem to have been eager. before I came in. to attack those who do not agree with you. And using nonsensical arguments to boot. Actually, it's still nonsensical, but nevermind that.

I was not here to preach to you all. It came up and I wanted to give my view on it and defended it. The past argument's for the destroy option are no longer logical for me to accept b/c of the changes made in EC. I've held this view ever since the EC came out and it's relfected in my IT vids. Including those on the first post of this forum.
You may disagree with me, but I am just as supportive of the IT as you are.

[BatmanTurian]

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

FreddyCast wrote...

It might seem that way now, but maybe later BW will change that. Till then call me a coward, my Shep's conscience is clean.

Fine, but the evidence isn't in your favor at the moment. So you can't absolutely say it will happen.

All anyone knows is the breath scene in High EMS Destroy, which implies waking up. This does not happen in the other episodes. If it's added to Refuse or Refuse is changed, sure, I'll apologize. But as of right now, Refuse is just being a wishy washy coward who couldn't make a choice and Starbinger says " Well, crap. I broke him. Oh wells, continue the cycle anyways."

I do not claim it to be absolute, it is merely my view, only BW can make the decision.
I am well content as an ITer to be a "wishy washy coward", since I believe I am sticking true to Shep's ideals.

Well, I can't argue with the cardboard cutout of Refusal Shep that you present, so I don't even know what to say. You seem deeply misguided to me.

And you seem to be a zealot to me. Just respect my view, just as I respect, though disagree, with yours.

It's hard for me to respect yours, when you seem to have been eager. before I came in. to attack those who do not agree with you. And using nonsensical arguments to boot. Actually, it's still nonsensical, but nevermind that.

I was not here to preach to you all. It came up and I wanted to give my view on it and defended it. The past argument's for the destroy option are no longer logical for me to accept b/c of the changes made in EC. I've held this view ever since the EC came out and it's relfected in my IT vids. Including those on the first post of this forum.
You may disagree with me, but I am just as supportive of the IT as you are.

Fine. We'll just drop it then.