220 réponses à ce sujet

[Jadebaby]

Zaidra wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Please notice tat people defendin g refusal as a valid choice often defend them according to some universal principles, not to principles of that particular Shepard.

I see that most of the time. Almost all ending discussions carry the tone of what the poster thinks is the right thing to do rather than from the point of view of roleplaying a character who isn't them (something I usually don't bother with, at least on a first playthrough where I generally play as myself, or at least the ludicrously idealised version of myself who wouldn't be hiding under a table hoping the Reapers will go away). And quite frankly it's far more interesting and meaningful discussion that way.

That said I usually make the assumption that very Renegade Shepards aren't reflective of their player, but if you're arguing from the point of view of a character who isn't you then please say so otherwise I'll assume that you're stating your own views.

Agreed in full.

+1

Except I chose refuse because of how my Shepard felt, she even states why she chose it. Part of the quote is in my sig.

Just sayin'

[estebanus]

I don't really see this happening. As long as everyone doesn't have the same viewpoints, opinions and beliefs, conflict will always spark between individuals.

[HiddenInWar]

estebanus wrote...

I don't really see this happening. As long as everyone doesn't have the same viewpoints, opinions and beliefs, conflict will always spark between individuals.

[alsonamedbort]

Jade8aby88 wrote...


Except I chose refuse because of how my Shepard felt, she even states why she chose it. Part of the quote is in my sig.

Just sayin'

EVIL

http://www.dvdtimes....02.jpg_28112007

[Xamufam]

Not against what people chooses but against the ending as a whole. It's a Contrivance both the crucible & starbrat is.

[Zardoc]

Sure. As long as it is understood that only power hungry maniacs would pick Control (*cough* no offense *cough*). And I don't even want to start with people who chose Synthesis...

[Obeded the 2nd]

WELCOME TO THE INTERNETZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[inko1nsiderate]

Pitznik wrote...

inko1nsiderate wrote...

How does assuming the ingame decisions reflect your actual morality produce interesting and 'more full' discussion?  It always ends up as a moral judging fest where one side dismisses the other as 'evil' and 'immoral'. Instead of debating these topics in the abstract, people make it personal and make it 'us vs them'.  That strikes me as the opposite of a meaningful conversation.  A meaningful conversation is discussing the morality of the endings, but not necessarily making moral judgments about the person you are discussing it with.  And that is precisely the opposite of what does happen on the BSN and is what is happening in this thread.

Because there is a lot of more thought and experience behind them - it is easier to think "what I would do" than "what evil me would do". Of course there is judging involved, that is what morals are about. You can't debate morals in the abstract you have to assume some viewpoint. It becomes meaningful when you find some common ground with your opponent, something you both consider right or wrong, and you can evaluate the choice according to that common principle. Without this common principle, there is only enforcement. We all here come from similar background, we all are subject to similar law, so assuming there are some common principles isn't really unlikely.

But that isn't what happens.  It ends up just being a 'you're evil, and I won't listen to anything you say'.  If you can't deal with some level of abstraction in any debate then you can't actually have a debate.  Look at all of these threads.  How many times has productive conversation arisen because of people condemning the morality of those who play the game differently?  Almost never.  You have to engage in some good-faith bad-faith if you are ever going to have an interesting conversation about these things.  The second you deride your oponent as evil, the debate has gone off its rails.   You can use your own morality in a debate, and use your experience to argue it, but by making sweeping condemnations and refusing to accord your opponents with any semblance of moral character or respect is silly and is why BSN is, more often than not, a ****hole for intellectual discussion.

If you absolutely refuse to remove moral condemnation from a debate about philosophy, and thus refuse to engage on any level with ideas you disagree with, you can't have a debate as it inevitably becomes an inquistion against those you disagree with.

Modifié par inko1nsiderate, 22 août 2012 - 09:36 .

[Rick Lewis]

I don't mind other fans loving other endings. But this "destroy Ending is canon and fans that like other endings are idiots" attitude needs to stop.

[D24O]

 Sometimes I'm so appalled at the fighting that goes on.

[Pitznik]

inko1nsiderate wrote...


But that isn't what happens.  It ends up just being a 'you're evil, and I won't listen to anything you say'.  If you can't deal with some level of abstraction in any debate then you can't actually have a debate.  Look at all of these threads.  How many times has productive conversation arisen because of people condemning the morality of those who play the game differently?  Almost never.  You have to engage in some good-faith bad-faith if you are ever going to have an interesting conversation about these things.  The second you deride your oponent as evil, the debate has gone off its rails.   You can use your own morality in a debate, and use your experience to argue it, but by making sweeping condemnations and refusing to accord your opponents with any semblance of moral character or respect is silly and is why BSN is, more often than not, a ****hole for intellectual discussion.

If you absolutely refuse to remove moral condemnation from a debate about philosophy, and thus refuse to engage on any level with ideas you disagree with, you can't have a debate as it inevitably becomes an inquistion against those you disagree with.

There is no abstraction when it comes to morals. We all have to assume some system of values to even find the common ground. Easiest one for everyone to agree on is the base declaration for human rights. That is what usually happens. That is what people are denying.

[inko1nsiderate]

Pitznik wrote...

There is no abstraction when it comes to morals. We all have to assume some system of values to even find the common ground. Easiest one for everyone to agree on is the base declaration for human rights. That is what usually happens. That is what people are denying.

You are entirely missing the point (perhaps, on purpose?).  How can you have a productive debate if you say I'm akin to Hitler because I chose a particular ending in a video game?  If you can't separate out your personal feelings from how you debate (not entirely mind you, but to some extent you cannot debate as if everything is personal or make arguments out of emotions alone), then you aren't really debating.  The very foundation of debate is good-faith bad-faith.  You assume some basic humanity and intelligence in your opponent, assume some things your opponent believes for the sake of argument, and make a good-faith argument against something you may well suspect they're arguing in bad-faith.

If you can't do any of that, you aren't have a debate, you're having a yelling match.  If it were in real life, this kind of abject condemnation leads to punching, and can ultimately lead to war.  How is this a positive form of debate to promote?

Modifié par inko1nsiderate, 22 août 2012 - 10:00 .

[Pitznik]

inko1nsiderate wrote...

You are entirely missing the point (perhaps, on purpose?).  How can you have a productive debate if you say I'm akin to Hitler because I chose a particular ending in a video game?  If you can't separate out your personal feelings from how you debate, then you aren't really debating.  The very foundation of debate is good-faith bad-faith.  You assume some basic humanity and intelligence in your opponent, assume some things your opponent is arguing for the sake of argument, and make a good-faith argument against something you may well suspect they're arguing in bad-faith.

If you can't do any of that, you aren't have a debate, you're having a yelling match.  If it were in real life, this kind of abject condemnation leads to punching, and can ultimately lead to war.  How is this a positive form of debate to promote?

It is not about personal feeling, but about what is good according to commonly accepted moral system. I always assume positive feelings in my opponents, there wouldn't be any point to a debate in other case. I assume they come from the same place as I do, but they do it wrong (in my opinion). If I wouldn't assume good will in my opponents, I wouldn't bother to discuss (see LiaraShield's and HannahMontana's arguements in last refusal thread).

[inko1nsiderate]

Pitznik wrote...

It is not about personal feeling, but about what is good according to commonly accepted moral system. I always assume positive feelings in my opponents, there wouldn't be any point to a debate in other case. I assume they come from the same place as I do, but they do it wrong (in my opinion). If I wouldn't assume good will in my opponents, I wouldn't bother to discuss (see LiaraShield's and HannahMontana's arguements in last refusal thread).

The main point is this:  the argument about the morality (or lack thereof) presented in a video game ending is a distinct from an argument about an individual's morality.  This is particularly true, because it is a fictional setting.  Essentially, it is a thought experiment.  Coming at the issue from different angles can enhance the understanding of your own morality even if you are trying to craft an argument about the morality of synthesis you personally disagree with.  In other words, analyzing some fictional situation using a moral argument you don't agree with can illuminate the moral pitfalls of that line of justification for some hypothetical action, and this can lead to you being more vigilante against this kind of rationalization.  That is where the abstraction comes it, and it can have legitimate benefits and positive feedback for your own morality even if you are arguing for something you personally disagree with.

Another issue I have in this debate is that you are sweeping a whole lot of philisophical questions under the rug.  Let's say, for the sake of argument, there is some absolute morality.  Then there are questions of epsitmology.  Do we have complete knowledge of this set of morality? Can we?  If we have incomplete knowledge of morality, are we still behaving immorally, or is there room for good intentions and good-faith attempts to act in accordance of this absolute morality?  There are also questions of ontology, and then of course questions of whether or not this morality is self-consistent the way we enforce it (namely how do we descriminate between two arguments usingthe same system of morality that lead to contradictory courses of action).  Similar philisophical questions can arise, in principle, even if we loosen the assumption that there is an absolute morality. That is to say,  if we assume morality is socially agreed upon, or evolutionary based, or has some other less absolute basis or no basis at all we can still get these sorts of questions popping up.

Modifié par inko1nsiderate, 22 août 2012 - 10:44 .

[Versus Omnibus]

D24O wrote...

 Sometimes I'm so appalled at the fighting that goes on.

'Bout sums it up, doesn't it?

[Pitznik]

inko1nsiderate wrote...

The main point is this:  the argument about the morality (or lack thereof) presented in a video game ending is a distinct from an argument about an individual's morality.  This is particularly true, because it is a fictional setting.  Essentially, it is a thought experiment.  Coming at the issue from different angles can enhance the understanding of your own morality even if you are trying to craft an argument about the morality of synthesis you personally disagree with.  In other words, analyzing some fictional situation using a moral argument you don't agree with can illuminate the moral pitfalls of that line of justification for some hypothetical action, and this can lead to you being more vigilante against this kind of rationalization.  That is where the abstraction comes it, and it can have legitimate benefits and positive feedback for your own morality even if you are arguing for something you personally disagree with.

That is what I am doing. It is still wrong. There is no abstraction in assuming someone's wrong interpretation. There is no such thing as an abstract morality.

inko1nsiderate wrote...

Another issue I have in this debate is that you are sweeping a whole lot of philisophical questions under the rug.  Let's say, for the sake of argument, there is some absolute morality.  Then there are questions of epsitmology.  Do we have complete knowledge of this set of morality? Can we?  If we have incomplete knowledge of morality, are we still behaving immorally, or is there room for good intentions and good-faith attempts to act in accordance of this absolute morality?  There are also questions of ontology, and then of course questions of whether or not this morality is self-consistent the way we enforce it (namely how do we descriminate between two arguments usingthe same system of morality that lead to contradictory courses of action).  Similar philisophical questions can arise, in principle, even if we loosen the assumption that there is an absolute morality. That is to say,  if we assume morality is socially agreed upon, or evolutionary based, or has some other less absolute basis or no basis at all we can still get these sorts of questions popping up.

I don't know of an absolute morality. As far as I know, it is always on particular case basis. I'm afraid I'm not intelligent enough and not sober enough to discuss absolutes. Perhaps alanc9 or what's his name is can discuss that with you.

[CronoDragoon]

But then forums would be boring...

[Mathias]

Ah yes the age old "It's my opinion so i'm not wrong" cop out.

[RadicalDisconnect]

inko1nsiderate wrote...

But that isn't what happens.  It ends up just being a 'you're evil, and I won't listen to anything you say'.  If you can't deal with some level of abstraction in any debate then you can't actually have a debate.  Look at all of these threads.  How many times has productive conversation arisen because of people condemning the morality of those who play the game differently?  Almost never.  You have to engage in some good-faith bad-faith if you are ever going to have an interesting conversation about these things.  The second you deride your oponent as evil, the debate has gone off its rails.   You can use your own morality in a debate, and use your experience to argue it, but by making sweeping condemnations and refusing to accord your opponents with any semblance of moral character or respect is silly and is why BSN is, more often than not, a ****hole for intellectual discussion.

If you absolutely refuse to remove moral condemnation from a debate about philosophy, and thus refuse to engage on any level with ideas you disagree with, you can't have a debate as it inevitably becomes an inquistion against those you disagree with.

You nailed it right there.

[Versus Omnibus]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Ah yes the age old "It's my opinion so i'm not wrong" cop out.

Both sides are guilty of this. The sad part is people are literally dehumanizing others for said opinions with little to no facts to back them up.

[BatmanPWNS]

We need synthesis in the BSN forum to merge all the ending fans so we can truly understand each other and live in a idealistic peaceful forum.

[Versus Omnibus]

BatmanPWNS wrote...

We need synthesis in the BSN forum to merge all the ending fans so we can truly understand each other and live in a idealistic peaceful forum.

Does this prove IT?

[Reorte]

Versus Omnibus wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Ah yes the age old "It's my opinion so i'm not wrong" cop out.

Both sides are guilty of this. The sad part is people are literally dehumanizing others for said opinions with little to no facts to back them up.

What are facts when it comes to matters of morality? There's no absolute objective way of measuring it, the universe doesn't care, so ultimately it is "only" opinion that someone who goes around torturing people for fun is sick.

[RadicalDisconnect]

BatmanPWNS wrote...

We need synthesis in the BSN forum to merge all the ending fans so we can truly understand each other and live in a idealistic peaceful forum.

Why, thank you for missing the point.

You know, there's quite a difference between disagreement and mudslinging. Just throwing that out there. 

[LiarasShield]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

So is the universe ares but if commander shepard can do it so can we!

Shepard didn't save the universe. Hell she couldn't even save the galaxy. Damn Reaper compromises

Also, Liara's mine, don't even try it!

Why do you have no chance? Because you're just an ordinary shield. Whereas I'm her KaiLeng Reaper IFF plotshield.

unbreakable

Just like our bond

Guess we'd being going to war over liara then trust me my heavy plot armour shielding is the best in the galaxy no way you can take me lol ^_-

Well since I'm a lover and not a fighter.

Maybe I will seduce you, hence proving to Liara that your love in only skin-deep.

Liara (as an information broker) will honour me for my tactics to get the "truth" out of you....

flame on

You may try jade but I'm a pretty devoted person so I'm sure I'll win ^_-


But yes each different individual choosing a ending that they feel fits their shepard and that is fine I think everyone should be entitled to their own choice and be able to end their shepards story the way they wanted to

But trying to force your views or alter other people into your way of thinking when that is not how they feel may be pushing the line a bit far

Modifié par LiarasShield, 23 août 2012 - 12:39 .