181 réponses à ce sujet

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Endorlf wrote...

It puzzles me that some people will use the worst possible interpretation for Synthesis to demonize it. Opinionated buzzwords like brainwashing, rape, and indoctrination are being thrown around as if they're fact.

There should be a jump-to-conclusions mat for synthesis.

[Jostle]

Endorlf wrote...

It puzzles me that some people will use the worst possible interpretation for Synthesis to demonize it. Opinionated buzzwords like brainwashing, rape, and indoctrination are being thrown around as if they're fact.

So, you're saying that synthesis is consensual? 

[Endorlf]

Jostle wrote...

Endorlf wrote...

It puzzles me that some people will use the worst possible interpretation for Synthesis to demonize it. Opinionated buzzwords like brainwashing, rape, and indoctrination are being thrown around as if they're fact.

So, you're saying that synthesis is consensual? 

I don't know why you add words to my post. I never said it was consensual, nor did I even imply it. However, neither Control nor Destroy are entirely consensual either.

[Jostle]

Endorlf wrote...


I don't know why you add words to my post. I never said it was consensual, nor did I even imply it. However, neither Control nor Destroy are entirely consensual either.

I didn't mean to offend, I'm just trying to follow the thought process. So it's not consensual, but it's not rape (in the sense that it is a forced violation, not sexual). I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just honestly cannot see why one could think that. Why is this the case?


EDIT: Regarding Control and Destroy, I agree. Control seems to work as benevolently as you imagine it would, leaving plenty of room for tyranny. Destroy is obviously a form of genocide, however temporary or arbitrary.

Modifié par Jostle, 11 août 2012 - 06:28 .

[PsyrenY]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

ATiBotka wrote...

You're not alone OP.

I'm stealing that sig.

[PsyrenY]

Jostle wrote...

Endorlf wrote...


I don't know why you add words to my post. I never said it was consensual, nor did I even imply it. However, neither Control nor Destroy are entirely consensual either.

I didn't mean to offend, I'm just trying to follow the thought process. So it's not consensual, but it's not rape (in the sense that it is a forced violation, not sexual). I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just honestly cannot see why one could think that. Why is this the case?

None of them are rape, as none of them are sexual. I assume you know what sex is?

[saracen16]

Mike 9987 wrote...

why synthesis is bad:

Room 405, babe... (shakes keys)

[PsyrenY]

^

I lol'd hard

[Jostle]

Optimystic_X wrote...

None of them are rape, as none of them are sexual. I assume you know what sex is?

I do. I said not sexual. As in rape meaning a forced violation. Synthesis is not a forced violation?

[PsyrenY]

Jostle wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

None of them are rape, as none of them are sexual. I assume you know what sex is?

I do. I said not sexual. As in rape meaning a forced violation. Synthesis is not a forced violation?

And Refusal isn't? You force everyone to be goo. So why get mad at Synthesis?

Control: you force everyone to accept your rule of the god-machines. I'm sure the Batarians would love the idea of a human becoming the super AI if they knew. Did anyone get to vote on that?

Destroy: Genocide isn't a violation?

[jstme]

Good for you, OP. I hate this option though - it removes all organic life (from lower to upper forms) from the Galaxy. But i have no negative feelings for those that choose this oprion.
Maybe a bit for those who decided to write it in science fiction narrative .

[Taboo]

Actually we had someone who was assaulted by their father come in and tell us what the legal definition of violation of consent was.

Synthesis did so.

[psrz]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Jostle wrote...

Endorlf wrote...


I don't know why you add words to my post. I never said it was consensual, nor did I even imply it. However, neither Control nor Destroy are entirely consensual either.

I didn't mean to offend, I'm just trying to follow the thought process. So it's not consensual, but it's not rape (in the sense that it is a forced violation, not sexual). I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just honestly cannot see why one could think that. Why is this the case?

None of them are rape, as none of them are sexual. I assume you know what sex is?

In a blink of an eye, billions, maybe trillions of lifes, without any knowledge of what's happening,  have their entire bodies transformed at a molecular level and their DNAs restructured with Reaper crap at StarBrat's whim. If you don't see that as a violation (not a sexual one), well , you have a problem.
Hell, you give me a tattoo in my arm without my explicit consent and I beat the **** out of you

[Jostle]

Optimystic_X wrote...


And Refusal isn't? You force everyone to be goo. So why get mad at Synthesis?

Control: you force everyone to accept your rule of the god-machines. I'm sure the Batarians would love the idea of a human becoming the super AI if they knew. Did anyone get to vote on that?

Destroy: Genocide isn't a violation?

I didn't say the other endings didn't come with a violation, as expressed in an above post. This is not a defense of synthesis. Again, I'm trying to follow the thought process. It was claimed that "rape" is an inappropriate word to use to decribe synthesis. I just don't see how one could think that, and if I'm not thinking about it the right way, I would love an explanation.

[kicsimalac]

Wait. So genocide is better than forcing your will to others. I think the geth didn't want to die. They made an alliance with the Reapers so they don't get wiped out by the quarians. And it is pretty ironic if you made peace between the geth and the quarians. "Organics and synthetics don't have to destroy each other" Kills all machines anyway.

[PsyrenY]

Jostle wrote...

I didn't say the other endings didn't come with a violation, as expressed in an above post. This is not a defense of synthesis. Again, I'm trying to follow the thought process. It was claimed that "rape" is an inappropriate word to use to decribe synthesis. I just don't see how one could think that, and if I'm not thinking about it the right way, I would love an explanation.

"Rape" is a very specific kind of violation. Applying it to any action that requires circumventing the will of another is fallacious. Does your boss rape you when he fires you against your will? Does the court rape you if they order you to undergo a psychiatric evaluation? Do your parents rape you when you're grounded? It makes no sense.

[Big I]

The only positive difference between Synthesis and Control is that in Synthesis people now know when EDI wants a hug. That's it. Everything else (Reapers helping to rebuild etc) would happen regardless, because AI Shepard explicitly states that his or her goal is to help the galaxy.


If anything Control is the better option because the robot zombies are put down instead of becoming self aware and realising they're horribly twisted mockeries of pre-existing organic species, and of course not forcing everyone in the galaxy (including anti-AIs like Javik or pre-spaceflight species like the yahg) to become a cyborg whether they want to or not.

[Jostle]

Optimystic_X wrote...


"Rape" is a very specific kind of violation. Applying it to any action that requires circumventing the will of another is fallacious. Does your boss rape you when he fires you against your will? Does the court rape you if they order you to undergo a psychiatric evaluation? Do your parents rape you when you're grounded? It makes no sense.

Perhaps it's a problem of inference then. I don't think "rape" is very specific. I wouldn't count any of the examples you gave as rape. I think I would count synthesis. They are quite different.

The question still stands, though. Do some proponents of synthesis consider it a negative violation for some, and it is just a necessity, or is it generally considered as something that is 100% positive, and not negative even on a case-by-case basis?

[PsyrenY]

Control could be the better choice indeed. Certainly I have no inherent issues with it. In fact, I hope that Control is the canon ending should they make a sequel.

But that doesn't mean I trust GodShepard to stay totally benevolent for eons upon eons. To not favor humanity just a smidge, and say, step in if they were about to be wiped out by something or other. Even if that's what was supposed to happen.

[PsyrenY]

Jostle wrote...

The question still stands, though. Do some proponents of synthesis consider it a negative violation for some, and it is just a necessity, or is it generally considered as something that is 100% positive, and not negative even on a case-by-case basis?

I think the unilateral and global application of Synthesis is its biggest drawback. But I think it is worth the price, especially considering that (a) the other endings are just as unilateral, and ( I think the tech singularity is truly a threat, based on my conversations with Legion.

[Jostle]

Optimystic_X wrote...


I think the unilateral and global application of Synthesis is its biggest drawback. But I think it is worth the price, especially considering that (a) the other endings are just as unilateral, and ( I think the tech singularity is truly a threat, based on my conversations with Legion.

OK, question answered. Thank you. I suppose, given the context of the endings as-is, it's just as likely to weigh the potential negatives of Destroy, Control, or Synthesis more than others based on opinion. As long as no one is claiming any have no negatives, I don't take issue with that line of thought.

[legion999]

Optimystic_X wrote...

And Refusal isn't? You force everyone to be goo. So why get mad at Synthesis?

Control: you force everyone to accept your rule of the god-machines. I'm sure the Batarians would love the idea of a human becoming the super AI if they knew. Did anyone get to vote on that?

Destroy: Genocide isn't a violation?

No you don't. Not even close.

You have a point with the last two though but that's more Bioware BS.

[clennon8]

Nyoka wrote...

Regular destroyers don't think killing the geth and EDI is a good thing. Controllers have to deal with their own words about humanity not being ready to hold that power.

What's different and scary about synthesis is its proponents would do it given the chance even without reapers, even without any threat in sight. They think it's a good thing to do to people and all living beings. Spine-chiling creepy if you ask me.

Yup.  Let's face it, we're all weirdos.  But this ^ is what makes Synthesists the weirdest of all.

[Paranoidal nemesis]

I can't decide if I hate synthesis or am intrigued by it.  I would kill for a DLC that takes place after the events of the synthesis ending, that features Shepard, but without the new DNA (its a fan fic/dlc wish I've been kicking around in my head).

One of the reasons synthesis bugs me is because, despite EDI saying that "We will remember," I think Shepard will be forgotten by everyone he helped to "up lift," including his LI.  I'm basising my belief on a concept called, "The Sentience Quotient."  With everyone becoming a higher life form, almost devine like, how could they relate to any of the people that died before Synthesis?  That would kinda be like anyone of us weeping for the Neanderthals that died so we could evolve.  Synthesis would create this astronamical gap in the sentience quotient that would make any sort of rememberance, or interaction, meaningless.  Basicly with everyone that came before, becoming an inferior life form, how and why would anyone, and could anyone "uplifted" possibly care or relate to anyone who came before?  Even your LI.

Ofcourse, this is all just my opinion.