Aller au contenu

Photo

Why would someone choose refuse? I will tell you why.


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
925 réponses à ce sujet

#626
BaladasDemnevanni

BaladasDemnevanni
  • Members
  • 2 127 messages

LiarasShield wrote...

Yet we have representatives and we still have the follow most of what the council wants from us and we still did make it with that reasoning at the very least old council or new shepard or the other person from hackett would at least get permission from the races representatives or from each races head leader


Really? When did we make it with this reasoning? We didn't ask the galaxy's opinion when were murdered/released the rachni. Or when we saved/sacrificed the Council. Likewise with the genophage and Collector Base. A million decisions right there where you had to make a call. And you didn't get a single opinion from anyone else on the matter.

Yet you think that, without consent, you have the right to doom the entire galaxy?

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 16 août 2012 - 05:13 .


#627
LiarasShield

LiarasShield
  • Members
  • 6 924 messages
Also You don't know the trigun way


About a person from this anime who mostly never killed anyone because their is usally always another way to do something



#628
BaladasDemnevanni

BaladasDemnevanni
  • Members
  • 2 127 messages

LiarasShield wrote...

Also You don't know the trigun way


About a person from this anime who mostly never killed anyone because their is usally always another way to do something


Trigun didn't fight the Reapers. Not to mention, Shepard by ME3 has already managed to fill graveyards.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 16 août 2012 - 05:14 .


#629
LiarasShield

LiarasShield
  • Members
  • 6 924 messages

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Yet we have representatives and we still have the follow most of what the council wants from us and we still did make it with that reasoning at the very least old council or new shepard or the other person from hackett would at least get permission from the races representatives or from each races head leader


Really? When did we make it with this reasoning? We didn't ask the galaxy's opinion when were murdered/released the rachni. Or when we saved/sacrificed the Council. Likewise with the genophage and Collector Base. A million decisions right there where you had to make a call. And you didn't get a single opinion from anyone else on the matter.

Yet you think that, without consent, you have the right to doom the entire galaxy?


Yet you don't have the right to alter everything or everyone without their permission I'd at least get the councils permission ^_^

#630
Pitznik

Pitznik
  • Members
  • 2 838 messages

3DandBeyond wrote...

Well, that's not a really good comparison to make.  The geth are not destruct mechanisms.  Given your situation, I have no choice because I can't do anything for you.  It's not the same.  I am not killing you-the bomb is. 

In ME3, what is certain is this in relation to the choices:
Nothing. 

That's not a basis to do anything the kid says.  A lot of people are fond of saying that Destroy proves the choices are not the kid's creation because he wouldn't offer it if they were.  But the reverse could be true.  The fact the kid offers Destroy means it could be a trap or something else.  Refusal merely refuses what could be seen as "his" choices, not using the crucible for what it was thought to be-a weapon.

In making a choice, Shepard is believing the kid.  If you think he's trustworthy you do it.  If you don't then no choice is reliable or necessarily valid.  That is all refusal is saying.  The consequences come after refusing the kid and the choices.

I know the ME3 situation is more complicated than that, but I asked with assumtpion that you know what choices really do, so your decision comes on morals alone - you know what destroy does, you know what refuse does. Because that is what LiarasShield is arguing about, that refusal is morally better choice.

LiaraShield, and what you would do in my roof and bomb example?

#631
LiarasShield

LiarasShield
  • Members
  • 6 924 messages
I'm a pacifist by nature their is always usually another way to save someone without ending someones life but I can't alter people or everything in order to save them it is pushing a line I can't cross

#632
BaladasDemnevanni

BaladasDemnevanni
  • Members
  • 2 127 messages

LiarasShield wrote...


Yet you don't have the right to alter everything or everyone without their permission I'd at least get the councils permission ^_^


Hey, like I said, anyone who doesn't like the new universe is free to die, much like the old one. That's not something you can say.

#633
robertthebard

robertthebard
  • Members
  • 6 108 messages

LiarasShield wrote...



If any one person tried to use the crucible in order to alter everything or everyone I would not kill them but I would knock them out or incapcitate them so that they can't do it

What happened to everybody's right to choose?  Isn't that why you're refusing, so that everyone has the right to choose?  So here we have your superior officer, going to take an action that you have already stated that you would prefer somebody else take, and you would deny him that right to choose?  This isn't a question about an ending this is a hypothetical question, framed around a hypothetical situation, and yet, the logic that you repeatedly use to justify your choice is out the window because given the right to choose, Anderson chose something you didn't approve of?

#634
Pitznik

Pitznik
  • Members
  • 2 838 messages

AresKeith wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

What good causes the Crucible (in Destroy): makes everyone alive free of the Reapers. What harm it causes: damages the technology, kills all the synthetic life.

How is this more harm than good?


because you cause Genocide of the Geth and EDI

There are more organics than Geth, even if we add EDI. So, again, how is it more harm than good?

Modifié par Pitznik, 16 août 2012 - 05:17 .


#635
LiarasShield

LiarasShield
  • Members
  • 6 924 messages

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...


Yet you don't have the right to alter everything or everyone without their permission I'd at least get the councils permission ^_^


Hey, like I said, anyone who doesn't like the new universe is free to die, much like the old one. That's not something you can say.


But your goal is to try to save people right so why would you want them to die!!!!?

#636
LiarasShield

LiarasShield
  • Members
  • 6 924 messages

robertthebard wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...



If any one person tried to use the crucible in order to alter everything or everyone I would not kill them but I would knock them out or incapcitate them so that they can't do it

What happened to everybody's right to choose?  Isn't that why you're refusing, so that everyone has the right to choose?  So here we have your superior officer, going to take an action that you have already stated that you would prefer somebody else take, and you would deny him that right to choose?  This isn't a question about an ending this is a hypothetical question, framed around a hypothetical situation, and yet, the logic that you repeatedly use to justify your choice is out the window because given the right to choose, Anderson chose something you didn't approve of?



hmm well it depends did the person hacket send get a vote from everybody and what choice they would want him or her to pick?

This also decides wether or not I knock him or her out

I already answered this question last page rob

Modifié par LiarasShield, 16 août 2012 - 05:20 .


#637
BaladasDemnevanni

BaladasDemnevanni
  • Members
  • 2 127 messages

LiarasShield wrote...

But your goal is to try to save people right so why would you want them to die!!!!?


Save who you can, the sea takes the rest.

-Kevin Costner, the Guardian.

#638
LiarasShield

LiarasShield
  • Members
  • 6 924 messages

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

But your goal is to try to save people right so why would you want them to die!!!!?


Save who you can, the sea takes the rest.

-Kevin Costner, the Guardian.



his sacrifice was meaningful in that movie from the wire breaking but the difference is that if you out of your way to save people why would you then tell them they can die even when I chose refuse I never said to all my allies they could die....

#639
Isichar

Isichar
  • Members
  • 10 125 messages

Pitznik wrote...

Isichar wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

who else than Isichar wants the best of the galaxy, has some great principle in mind, and is willing to sacrifice whole cycles of organic life to achieve it?


I have already stated that I think using the crucible would cause more harm then good. It comes down to what I think is best, its not about what I am willing to sacrifice but I hold no illusion that the odds of our cycle is slim. I did not sacrifice those peoples lives directly, just something they put their hopes in that was never a solution to anything.

I can't see the answer in here, so sorry, no points. Thank you for playing.

The answer is: the Catalyst.

What good causes the Crucible (in Destroy): makes everyone alive free of the Reapers. What harm it causes: damages the technology, kills all the synthetic life.

How is this more harm than good?


Because it is what the Catalyst wants :huh:

Honestly if you dont agree with the reasoning thats fine, but I am getting tired of the same comments over and over just for the sake of bashing.

You asked who else was willing to sacrifice an entire cycle... let me ask you this, if you see the firing of the crucible as been nothing as destructive not only future cycles but equally your own, then why would you fire it? Because theres a chance it could work? Because I place no more value in that chance then I do conventional warfare.

You don't seem to get that I don't see using the crucible as been a solution to saving my cycle regardless, you may disagree but that does not change things. When I say sacrifice I meant I know exactly what will happen as a result of my actions, I know we will most definitely die, but the alternative is no better.

Do you really not understand that? You don't have to agree with the logic or agree with my reasoning as you clearly don't but you should at least be able to understand that theres a difference between how we view the results of using the crucible.

#640
LiarasShield

LiarasShield
  • Members
  • 6 924 messages

Isichar wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Isichar wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

who else than Isichar wants the best of the galaxy, has some great principle in mind, and is willing to sacrifice whole cycles of organic life to achieve it?


I have already stated that I think using the crucible would cause more harm then good. It comes down to what I think is best, its not about what I am willing to sacrifice but I hold no illusion that the odds of our cycle is slim. I did not sacrifice those peoples lives directly, just something they put their hopes in that was never a solution to anything.

I can't see the answer in here, so sorry, no points. Thank you for playing.

The answer is: the Catalyst.

What good causes the Crucible (in Destroy): makes everyone alive free of the Reapers. What harm it causes: damages the technology, kills all the synthetic life.

How is this more harm than good?


Because it is what the Catalyst wants :huh:

Honestly if you dont agree with the reasoning thats fine, but I am getting tired of the same comments over and over just for the sake of bashing.

You asked who else was willing to sacrifice an entire cycle... let me ask you this, if you see the firing of the crucible as been nothing as destructive not only future cycles but equally your own, then why would you fire it? Because theres a chance it could work? Because I place no more value in that chance then I do conventional warfare.

You don't seem to get that I don't see using the crucible as been a solution to saving my cycle regardless, you may disagree but that does not change things. When I say sacrifice I meant I know exactly what will happen as a result of my actions, I know we will most definitely die, but the alternative is no better.

Do you really not understand that? You don't have to agree with the logic or agree with my reasoning as you clearly don't but you should at least be able to understand that theres a difference between how we view the results of using the crucible.


They won't understand us no matter how hard or how much we try to explain

#641
AresKeith

AresKeith
  • Members
  • 34 128 messages

Pitznik wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

What good causes the Crucible (in Destroy): makes everyone alive free of the Reapers. What harm it causes: damages the technology, kills all the synthetic life.

How is this more harm than good?


because you cause Genocide of the Geth and EDI

There are more organics than Geth, even if we add EDI. So, again, how is it more harm than good?


also the fact you prove the Starbrat right about Synthetics being the true evil

#642
BaladasDemnevanni

BaladasDemnevanni
  • Members
  • 2 127 messages

LiarasShield wrote...

his sacrifice was meaningful in that movie from the wire breaking but the difference is that if you out of your way to save people why would you then tell them they can die even when I chose refuse I never said to all my allies they could die....


No, you just ensured it would happen, whether you said it or not. You knew what would happen in a conventional war against the Reapers. And you chose to lose anyway.

#643
Pitznik

Pitznik
  • Members
  • 2 838 messages

Isichar wrote...

Because it is what the Catalyst wants :huh:

Honestly if you dont agree with the reasoning thats fine, but I am getting tired of the same comments over and over just for the sake of bashing.

You asked who else was willing to sacrifice an entire cycle... let me ask you this, if you see the firing of the crucible as been nothing as destructive not only future cycles but equally your own, then why would you fire it? Because theres a chance it could work? Because I place no more value in that chance then I do conventional warfare.

You don't seem to get that I don't see using the crucible as been a solution to saving my cycle regardless, you may disagree but that does not change things. When I say sacrifice I meant I know exactly what will happen as a result of my actions, I know we will most definitely die, but the alternative is no better.

Do you really not understand that? You don't have to agree with the logic or agree with my reasoning as you clearly don't but you should at least be able to understand that theres a difference between how we view the results of using the crucible.

So it all is down to your denial about chance of conventional victory? Again? Whole topic? 21 pages?

You could just say so - I disagree with 0% of conentional victory, I see it higher, and I rather stick with my 2% than with great unknown. That makes sense.

#644
LiarasShield

LiarasShield
  • Members
  • 6 924 messages

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

his sacrifice was meaningful in that movie from the wire breaking but the difference is that if you out of your way to save people why would you then tell them they can die even when I chose refuse I never said to all my allies they could die....


No, you just ensured it would happen, whether you said it or not. You knew what would happen in a conventional war against the Reapers. And you chose to lose anyway.


Again wrong and actually I always believed shepard could accomplish the impossiable from defeating soverign and destroying the collectors at the collector base

And with a mixture of cains and thanix cannons on every ship it could be possiable hell to me it made it even more possiable for conventional victory not only from us kicking the **** out of indoctrinated forces with regular n7 troops but seeing shepard take the reaper down on rannoch and then singel handedly taking out the 2 reapers on earth

No I'm not on your bandwagon of saying conventional victory is impossiable but that arguement is for another thread

#645
BaladasDemnevanni

BaladasDemnevanni
  • Members
  • 2 127 messages

Isichar wrote...
Because it is what the Catalyst wants :huh:

Honestly if you dont agree with the reasoning thats fine, but I am getting tired of the same comments over and over just for the sake of bashing. 


Which isn't a problem if you could also outline for us an argument for why anyone should care what the Catalyst wants. Let's say hypothetically we could beat the Reapers conventionally. If the Catalyst told you "I want you guys to kill us", is that suddenly a basis for not saving the Cycle?

What the Catalyst wants has no basis for the morality of Synthesis, Control, or Destroy.

Ex: Genocide isn't wrong because Hitler our enemy, proposed genocide. It's wrong because it involves wanton slaughter of an entire group of people.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 16 août 2012 - 05:34 .


#646
Dharvy

Dharvy
  • Members
  • 741 messages

Isichar wrote...

Dharvy wrote...

If you're refusing because of ignorance and distrust I can understand that. If you're saying I couldn't trust the catalyst and I didn't know what would happened and I didn't want to make a mistake and speed up the reaping and I thought it was some kind of elaborate trap I can understand that line of thinking. I can understand refuse based on them thoughts.

But the simple fact is we are all fighting a hopeless battle in that we are all going to die and we can only choose how we are going to die, fighting, running, or lying down. The Crucible is glimmer of hope that'll we make it out of this battle alive. Scared maybe, dirty maybe, damaged maybe, but alive. Do you go down the path of hope? Well you built the thing so you're at least making it reality choice.

Now onto what the catalyst wants. Its already reaping, and its been doing it for thousands of cycles. Now it specifically tells you that if you refuse the cycle would continue. Now since its been reaping for all these years I guess reaping is also what it wants to a certain degree. So you effectively have 4 options that the catalyst wants and now you just must choose what do you want?

So I ask you, what do you want? And what are you willing to sacrifice to get it?


I want what is best for the galaxy. Not best for just organics, synthetics, the catalyst, Shepard or any specific group or person, but what is best for the growth of the galaxy as a whole, this is something worth sacrificing an entire cycle for.

Yes I know that sounds absolutely crazy, and I will do my best to explain (Although there are others who can and have worded it much better then me)

Life continues with or without the reapers interaction, and it is always changing. The reapers are like a child stuck on the final fight of a game without any chance to win, they just click reload over and over again and change nothing, their existance alone impedes on the natural evolution of the galaxy in every possible way, and has caused nothing but suffering for both organics and synthetics. Its solution was terrible, no other way to put it. And once the reapers are gone, the problem it was created to fix will still exist, unchanged.

Now it has a new solution, and asks you to choose between sacrificing yourself, or your allys for a cause I don't even agree with, and it uses my motives to do so. To the catalyst even his own destruction and the ability to continue on with our cycles lives is nothing more then a means to an end. And as I have said earlier his goals go beyond simply disagreeing with. It would rather make the universe a static place then risk the chance that synthetics and organics may end up killing each other, and even believes that a husk is a higher form of life despite having no free will.

Others say it is worth the risk to stop the threat, but the reaper threat goes beyond trying to save one specific cycle or group of people for me. If Sacrificing one cycle meant the next would have a chance, and the galaxy would be a better place for it then my Shepard would have done so (and did)

Its not a fun choice to be made but it is one I feel is important. The Catalyst is a poison to the galaxy, its goals are imposed on the natural evolution and because of it there has been more suffering then the problem it was trying to stop could ever cause. And it does not feel sympathy or regret for it, even at the end of its own cycle, it will stay true to the same goal and motivation that led to the start of the cycles.

For me I see the reaper cycle failing before mass effect 1 even started, and I wanted it to fail, not only because I personally don't agree with it, but because it must fail. The crucible may stop the reapers, you may be aloud to continue your lives and eat those yummy grilled cheese sandwiches but you did exactly what the catalyst did, you imposed your will on something that should not have been messed with in the first place. An action can't simply be judged by the immediate effects it has on the people around you, theres more to it then that.

I look at the reapers entire existance, the effect they have had on the galaxy and believe that anything that fits in line with those goals, will only end up causing the same thing.

I want the galaxy to move forward without the influence of the reapers, and you already know what I will sacrifice for that.


You know what, I love this response. And you know why because though you hate or dislike or disagree with the catalyst you have essentially became it or aligned your thinking alongside it so parrellel that if you just look to the side instead of forward you just may see it alongside you.

Let ty to explain. You see, the catalyst in its own way wants 

what is best for the growth of the galaxy as a whole, this is something worth sacrificing an entire cycle for.

  That is why its reaping because it feels that the inevitable synthetic conflict is not good for the continued growth of the galaxy if it ends in organics being extinct.

Now you mention its new solutions. Are you not willing to sacrifice this entire cycle, (refuse, your solution to the cycle) a means to and end where the galaxy will some how get to some point where the reapers no longer have influence? Now if the next couple of cycles don't use the crucible, it may well be a fierce battle with many casualties and the end result may not be any better than the casualties or influence or scarring this cycles entails with just doing something as horrific as destroy.

You see the reality is there's no getting away from the reapers influence this cycle or the next. A cycle have to first defeat the reapers and are therefore subjugated to its influence before its able continue. You're are essentially doing the same thing its doing playing "final fight of a game without any chance to win, they just click reload over and over again and change nothing," you're changing nothing, the influence continues, the scarring continues, the damage continues, the deaths continue, you just effectively hit the reload button. The only thing is you can't hit it again because youre gone.

So I ask another question what is your hope for the next cycle against the reapers that would make them a more viable cycle to continue once the Reapers are defeated versus this one?

#647
BaladasDemnevanni

BaladasDemnevanni
  • Members
  • 2 127 messages

LiarasShield wrote...

Again wrong and actually I always believed shepard could accomplish the impossiable from defeating soverign and destroying the collectors at the collector base

And with a mixture of cains and thanix cannons on every ship it could be possiable hell to me it made it even more possiable for conventional victory not only from us kicking the **** out of indoctrinated forces with regular n7 troops but seeing shepard take the reaper down on rannoch and then singel handedly taking out the 2 reapers on earth

No I'm not on your bandwagon of saying conventional victory is impossiable but that arguement is for another thread


Which is fine in a version of Mass Effect 3 where Shepard is able to argue with Hackett and everyone else "Yes, we can kill the Reapers". But I don't have that version. Instead, you let them risk everything they had on the naivety of the Crucible, not knowing what it could do, when (apparently) Shepard believed that conventional victory was possible the entire time. You're about as naive as it gets.

#648
Isichar

Isichar
  • Members
  • 10 125 messages

Pitznik wrote...

So it all is down to your denial about chance of conventional victory? Again? Whole topic? 21 pages?

You could just say so - I disagree with 0% of conentional victory, I see it higher, and I rather stick with my 2% than with great unknown. That makes sense.


My denial of conventional victory?

And here I just said I know we are screwed conventionally.

What part of I dont believe in conventional victory is so hard for you to grasp. I said I dont believe the crucible is any more likely to work then conventional victory, which as you stated is about 0% chance.

#649
LiarasShield

LiarasShield
  • Members
  • 6 924 messages
You believe and feel conventional victory is impossiable you think refusers are evil because they're willing to not alter everyone else and die free with their believes then become someone elses in order to maybe save the galaxy it is still a big maybe


Again you're no better then anyone else here and maybe just maybe I have more hope then you do ^_^

Modifié par LiarasShield, 16 août 2012 - 05:34 .


#650
3DandBeyond

3DandBeyond
  • Members
  • 7 579 messages

Pitznik wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Well, that's not a really good comparison to make.  The geth are not destruct mechanisms.  Given your situation, I have no choice because I can't do anything for you.  It's not the same.  I am not killing you-the bomb is. 

In ME3, what is certain is this in relation to the choices:
Nothing. 

That's not a basis to do anything the kid says.  A lot of people are fond of saying that Destroy proves the choices are not the kid's creation because he wouldn't offer it if they were.  But the reverse could be true.  The fact the kid offers Destroy means it could be a trap or something else.  Refusal merely refuses what could be seen as "his" choices, not using the crucible for what it was thought to be-a weapon.

In making a choice, Shepard is believing the kid.  If you think he's trustworthy you do it.  If you don't then no choice is reliable or necessarily valid.  That is all refusal is saying.  The consequences come after refusing the kid and the choices.

I know the ME3 situation is more complicated than that, but I asked with assumtpion that you know what choices really do, so your decision comes on morals alone - you know what destroy does, you know what refuse does. Because that is what LiarasShield is arguing about, that refusal is morally better choice.

LiaraShield, and what you would do in my roof and bomb example?


But your example is not based on morality at all.  If you have a bomb strapped to you that no one can get off of you, what do you expect someone to do about it?  There's no morality there.  Are people supposed to hug you and suicide in sympathy?  The geth don't have a bomb strapped to them.  They have a gun pointed to their head and you are given the choice to pull the trigger or not.  If you pull it, you committed the act.  If your foe pulls another trigger they committed the act.  You are putting it down to numbers and I don't think it purely is about numbers.  But it's not only that Shepard can commit an immoral act, but it sets up a new rule in the galaxy of just what is acceptable.  It does the genophage one better.  The genophage was a form of genocide, but it prevented births.  Why wouldn't people then think it's now ok to just out and out kill whole races that threaten the lives of others?  If you can devalue one group of people even for the sake of others, you devalue life in general.  It's worse when it's based on uncertainty.

It's why a hundred men will work to find and save one person and risk their lives in order to do that.  Because one life is dear.  But what you are saying is it's ok to throw away the geth based on what your enemy says.  And not knowing that refusal will shut off the crucible.

Put it this way.  What if Shepard refused and the crucible didn't shut off but refusal caused a fault in the kid's programming and shut him down.  This is actually a very real scenario that many of us asked for repeatedly prior to the EC.  Some even saw it as the one way that IT if true would be shaken off-the only way to rehabilitate Shepard from IT.  But, mostly this was what people wanted in a refuse or shoot the kid ending.  So say that it did that-it shut off just the kid and it weakened the reapers so that they were still formidable but they could be fought?  Or it leaves the crucible as a device that will weaken them?  I do believe a lot of people thought they might have done that when they saw refuse and they could shoot the kid.  They were surprised that refuse or shooting basically just was a galaxy dies action.

What happened is BW only saw or determined that people wanted to refuse and/or shoot him and they ignored the rest of it.