lillitheris wrote...
memorysquid wrote...
Because my viewpoint is that if anyone in synthesis didn't like it, they could always suicide.
False dilemma. Choice isn’t Synthesis or Death.
lillitheris wrote...
LiarasShield wrote...
ATiBotka wrote...
So you let everyone die.
Yes better to die free then to become like the reapers and the catalyst
Killing everyone is monstrous, sorry. You’re just as bad as they are.
It is good we can destroy them instead.Isichar wrote...
lillitheris wrote...
LiarasShield wrote...
ATiBotka wrote...
So you let everyone die.
Yes better to die free then to become like the reapers and the catalyst
Killing everyone is monstrous, sorry. You’re just as bad as they are.
So is working with the reapers.
Pitznik wrote...
It is good we can destroy them instead.Isichar wrote...
lillitheris wrote...
LiarasShield wrote...
ATiBotka wrote...
So you let everyone die.
Yes better to die free then to become like the reapers and the catalyst
Killing everyone is monstrous, sorry. You’re just as bad as they are.
So is working with the reapers.
Yep, I'm so happy we didn't have to do any space battle or sh*t like that to deploy the Crucible. Many people could die.Isichar wrote...
Pitznik wrote...
It is good we can destroy them instead.Isichar wrote...
lillitheris wrote...
LiarasShield wrote...
ATiBotka wrote...
So you let everyone die.
Yes better to die free then to become like the reapers and the catalyst
Killing everyone is monstrous, sorry. You’re just as bad as they are.
So is working with the reapers.
With their permission of course.
Pitznik wrote...
Yep, I'm so happy we didn't have to do any space battle or sh*t like that to deploy the Crucible. Many people could die.
Modifié par Isichar, 15 août 2012 - 07:30 .
Many more, in fact, many more. We will honor and remember them in our Reaperless, free world, though. To the fallen!Isichar wrote...
Pitznik wrote...
Yep, I'm so happy we didn't have to do any space battle or sh*t like that to deploy the Crucible. Many people could die.
Well I am happy you got then ending you wanted then
Too bad EDI and the Geth had to die to get it.
Pitznik wrote...
Many more, in fact, many more. We will honor and remember them in our Reaperless, free world, though. To the fallen!Isichar wrote...
Pitznik wrote...
Yep, I'm so happy we didn't have to do any space battle or sh*t like that to deploy the Crucible. Many people could die.
Well I am happy you got then ending you wanted then
Too bad EDI and the Geth had to die to get it.
Modifié par Isichar, 15 août 2012 - 07:41 .
I believe the kid is telling me the truth. I don't believe he is right.Isichar wrote...
Let me ask you this, how can you justify killing those when you know the crucible could have been used to have saved even more lives? Surely if your willing to believe the catalyst is telling you the truth on how to destroy them, then you can't discount that the other options are viable too.
Pitznik wrote...
I believe the kid is telling me the truth. I don't believe he is right.Isichar wrote...
Let me ask you this, how can you justify killing those when you know the crucible could have been used to have saved even more lives? Surely if your willing to believe the catalyst is telling you the truth on how to destroy them, then you can't discount that the other options are viable too.
Synthesis requires acknowledging Catalyst's reasons, so it is out of the question - I also don't believe it will make everyone happy, even if I could accept it is technically possible. It doesn't make sense to me. When we get over the difference between synthetic and organic, we are still left with all the other problems people start wars about... and with Reapers free and alive, it could be a very big problem.
Control... yes, if Butch Shepard wouldn't be a vengeful, somewhat petty bastard he is, he could do it. But he is.
There is some risk to it, but is this risk worth the life of all the Geth and EDI - I will think about it when my Paragon Shepard gets there, if I will ever manage to make my mind about playing edited ME2 save or starting from ME1.
Modifié par Isichar, 15 août 2012 - 07:59 .
3DandBeyond wrote...
eye basher wrote...
Sometimes you have to fight evil with another kind of evil.
If you do that, evil always wins. If both sides are evil, then only evil can win.
It is not about beliefs and ideals. It is about fixing Catalyst's problem (tech singularity), and not my problem (Reapers). For synthesis I have to believe what his motivation is (that I do), that he is right (that I don't), and that it will somehow fix it (that I don't even understand). Too many leaps of faith, too big. I have only one chance, can't afford to waste it.Isichar wrote...
Pitznik wrote...
I believe the kid is telling me the truth. I don't believe he is right.Isichar wrote...
Let me ask you this, how can you justify killing those when you know the crucible could have been used to have saved even more lives? Surely if your willing to believe the catalyst is telling you the truth on how to destroy them, then you can't discount that the other options are viable too.
Synthesis requires acknowledging Catalyst's reasons, so it is out of the question - I also don't believe it will make everyone happy, even if I could accept it is technically possible. It doesn't make sense to me. When we get over the difference between synthetic and organic, we are still left with all the other problems people start wars about... and with Reapers free and alive, it could be a very big problem.
Control... yes, if Butch Shepard wouldn't be a vengeful, somewhat petty bastard he is, he could do it. But he is.
There is some risk to it, but is this risk worth the life of all the Geth and EDI - I will think about it when my Paragon Shepard gets there, if I will ever manage to make my mind about playing edited ME2 save or starting from ME1.
So even though it would save more lives, and arguably make more people happier then destroy you would still discount synthesis because it does not fit with Shepards personal beliefs? Isn't that the same as putting Shepards own beliefs and ideals ahead of what is actually best for the galaxy?
memorysquid wrote...
lillitheris wrote...
memorysquid wrote...
Because my viewpoint is that if anyone in synthesis didn't like it, they could always suicide.
False dilemma. Choice isn’t Synthesis or Death.
Not false; first, I picked synthesis and second, think it is, within the context of ME, the obviously optimal choice.
3DandBeyond wrote...
memorysquid wrote...
LiarasShield wrote...
You believe forcing a universal altering choice against others is right I do not we are at inpass
First off, it's impasse. Did you reject all the other universal altering choices Shepard made? Would you care if someone made an altering choice without your permission if it saved your life? If you would, keep that in mind if you are every rendered unconscious in an accident, because then the right thing to do would just be let anyone unconscious to die.
Well this is at the crux of many real world debates but it is often handled as such: If you specifically state you don't wish certain things be done to you, then your wishes should be honored. There are people in ME that don't want tech implants even so I daresay they have explicitly not given permission for things to be inserted into their bodies. So, it becomes a question of numbers which is the most debasing thing to do to all people. Value of the individual is non-existent at that point. If the majority of people have not given permission for you to enter their bodies, but you think you're saving their lives, it's ok to enter the bodies of those who you know don't want it. But people have always been about the individual mattering or else Shepard would never have existed in ME3. It was because of Shepard being Shepard that the galaxy had even a slim chance of anything. But if numbers were all that mattered, then Shepard would be rotting pieces on a cold planet.
Life at any cost is not always life worth living. And nowhere is there any indication that Shepard would know in refusing the choices that s/he was refusing the crucible's use until we are shown that.
Pitznik wrote...
It is not about beliefs and ideals. It is about fixing Catalyst's problem (tech singularity), and not my problem (Reapers). For synthesis I have to believe what his motivation is (that I do), that he is right (that I don't), and that it will somehow fix it (that I don't even understand). Too many leaps of faith, too big. I have only one chance, can't afford to waste it.Isichar wrote...
Pitznik wrote...
I believe the kid is telling me the truth. I don't believe he is right.Isichar wrote...
Let me ask you this, how can you justify killing those when you know the crucible could have been used to have saved even more lives? Surely if your willing to believe the catalyst is telling you the truth on how to destroy them, then you can't discount that the other options are viable too.
Synthesis requires acknowledging Catalyst's reasons, so it is out of the question - I also don't believe it will make everyone happy, even if I could accept it is technically possible. It doesn't make sense to me. When we get over the difference between synthetic and organic, we are still left with all the other problems people start wars about... and with Reapers free and alive, it could be a very big problem.
Control... yes, if Butch Shepard wouldn't be a vengeful, somewhat petty bastard he is, he could do it. But he is.
There is some risk to it, but is this risk worth the life of all the Geth and EDI - I will think about it when my Paragon Shepard gets there, if I will ever manage to make my mind about playing edited ME2 save or starting from ME1.
So even though it would save more lives, and arguably make more people happier then destroy you would still discount synthesis because it does not fit with Shepards personal beliefs? Isn't that the same as putting Shepards own beliefs and ideals ahead of what is actually best for the galaxy?
It is not about ideals. It is about fixing the problem in the safest way possible. Destroy is the only solution that makes the Reapers gone, so it is lowest risk, but highest price. I find Control to be almost equally good solution, since in theory you could just destroy the Reapers, or even suicide. But point of view changes heavily between Shepard standing in the Citadel and Reapard, so there is risk involved. Shepard who chooses control must have really unshakable faith in himself. Mine hadn't.Isichar wrote...
It is about beliefs and ideals. Whether you choose to believe the catalyst and to what extent, what you feel the ending goal is (Example: destroy the reapers, make the galaxy a better place), what your willing to sacrafice to get what you wanted.
That you could even trust the Catalyst enough to believe he was telling the truth about destroy is a small compromise on its own, since there is nothing the Catalyst says that you can initially disprove.
You felt the reapers were a threat that had to be ended no matter what the cost and anything other then the complete destruction would not be worth the risk, and you sacraficed others willingly to do it.
Yep, but there is no Catalyst anymore, just Reapard. And there is no Shepard anymore too. Would it work? Maybe, maybe not. Another risk.lillitheris wrote...
^ Actually, you don’t only have a single chance. With Control, all the infrastructure to recreate the Crucible remains.
Pitznik wrote...
It is not about ideals. It is about fixing the problem in the safest way possible. Destroy is the only solution that makes the Reapers gone, so it is lowest risk, but highest price. I find Control to be almost equally good solution, since in theory you could just destroy the Reapers, or even suicide. But point of view changes heavily between Shepard standing in the Citadel and Reapard, so there is risk involved. Shepard who chooses control must have really unshakable faith in himself. Mine hadn't.Isichar wrote...
It is about beliefs and ideals. Whether you choose to believe the catalyst and to what extent, what you feel the ending goal is (Example: destroy the reapers, make the galaxy a better place), what your willing to sacrafice to get what you wanted.
That you could even trust the Catalyst enough to believe he was telling the truth about destroy is a small compromise on its own, since there is nothing the Catalyst says that you can initially disprove.
You felt the reapers were a threat that had to be ended no matter what the cost and anything other then the complete destruction would not be worth the risk, and you sacraficed others willingly to do it.
Modifié par Isichar, 15 août 2012 - 08:30 .
Of course they are a threat. They can do a better job at harvesting, that is all. Galaxy is huge as hell, but 50,000 is a long time. Also, what does even mean "long term threat"? I don't want to destroy the Reapers to have them gone, I want to destroy the Reapers to protect what I care about - my galaxy, my Alliance, my Earth, my people. Even if the next cycle could eventually win (and I have nothing to base it on), I don't really care. I don't have any cosmic goals like the Catalyst, I have very real, immediate goal.Isichar wrote...
The reapers are no longer a long term threat regardless of what you do at this point though. As I said earlier in this thread the reapers proved they could not properly complete a cycle when information from different cycles began to get passed down.
Isichar wrote...
Pitznik wrote...
Many more, in fact, many more. We will honor and remember them in our Reaperless, free world, though. To the fallen!Isichar wrote...
Pitznik wrote...
Yep, I'm so happy we didn't have to do any space battle or sh*t like that to deploy the Crucible. Many people could die.
Well I am happy you got then ending you wanted then
Too bad EDI and the Geth had to die to get it.
Let me ask you this, how can you justify killing those when you know the crucible could have been used to have saved even more lives? Surely if your willing to believe the catalyst is telling you the truth on how to destroy them, then you can't discount that the other options are viable too.
SeptimusMagistos wrote...
However, I would argue that I do in fact have permission to implant whatever I deem necessary into anyone.
Pitznik wrote...
Of course they are a threat. They can do a better job at harvesting, that is all. Galaxy is huge as hell, but 50,000 is a long time. Also, what does even mean "long term threat"? I don't want to destroy the Reapers to have them gone, I want to destroy the Reapers to protect what I care about - my galaxy, my Alliance, my Earth, my people. Even if the next cycle could eventually win (and I have nothing to base it on), I don't really care. I don't have any cosmic goals like the Catalyst, I have very real, immediate goal.Isichar wrote...
The reapers are no longer a long term threat regardless of what you do at this point though. As I said earlier in this thread the reapers proved they could not properly complete a cycle when information from different cycles began to get passed down.
Modifié par Isichar, 15 août 2012 - 08:54 .
Both Destroy and Control can't be even considered to be better than Harvest.Isichar wrote...
When I say longterm I mean the Reaper threat is not a viable solution even by the Catalysts standards. It realizes this when Shepard activates the Crucible although I believe this began long before the cycle even started. The Catalyst realizes this and uses the crucible as its saving throw, it is even honest about that. It basically tells you it has killed trillions for a cause that it can not even sustain. Just think of the amount of people that suffered due to the catalysts goals and actions, even moreso then the problem he was trying to fixed ever could and then you are given the chance to justify its existence by firing the crucible. All the crucible options fit with his goals, you know theres a risk to even firing the crucible but your willing to take it still. For me that risk is much, much greater and not a path I a will knowingly walk down.
Modifié par Pitznik, 15 août 2012 - 09:09 .
Retour en haut