357 réponses à ce sujet

[The Angry One]

Ah yes, when all else fails, attempt to spark a flame war. Stay classy, pro-enders.

[AresKeith]

Blueprotoss wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

shepdog77 wrote...

*pokes head in thread*

*notices angry one spouting nonsense*

*slowly backs out*

don't know what your talking about, she's awesome lol

Nonsense supporting nonsense won't work even when its sarcasm.

why are you stalking me

[Solaxe]

The Angry One wrote...


And YET AGAIN you ignore the fact that it's agenda continues after it's death because YOU KILLED THE SYNTHETICS FOR IT. 

U mad?

Killing the synthetics in Destroy is Catalyst's fault according to your nonsense logic.  Also I didn't kill synthetics to kill the synthetics themselves, I killed them because they would die anyway. Organics made peace with synthetics (Geth, EDI). They will live knowing that synthetics can be trusted.  So it's agenda doesn't continue, and your argument is invalid. 

 

The Angry One wrote...

That you think of the Catalyst as a human, with human motivations.

No I don't? I actually think he's quite logical, even if this logic means genocide.

Modifié par Solaxe, 22 août 2012 - 08:26 .

[saracen16]

The Angry One wrote...

You have everyone's implicit permission to resist and stop the Reapers. That's destroy or refuse.

Actually, you have everyone's implicit permission to stop the Reapers at any cost with the Crucible. Destroy ends their threat once and for all. Control and Synthesis changes the playing ground and renders them almost irrelevant. Refuse means you capitulate to the Reapers and allow the cycle to continue. In other words, you are no better than Saren or the Illusive Man.

I don't agree with sacrificing EDI and the Geth, but EDI herself stated that she would sooner die than serve the Reapers. Think about that the next time you listen to her spout the glories of synthesis.

What EDI says is "I would rather risk non-functionality with the crew of the Normandy than risk it alone." She also says that she won't let the Reapers stop her, not that she wants to destroy the Reapers. That's assuming that Synthesis means serving the Reapers, which, by the way, is what Saren and those indoctrinated Prothean fools did when they sold out the rest of civilization to the Reapers. You're repeating your headcanon of "Synthesis is indoctrination" when, clearly, there is no clue.

"I win buttons?" More like "Serve us" buttons. One and all. Choose your method of surrender.

Yes, destroying the Catalyst and the Reapers is definitely serving them, and replacing the Catalyst entirely is definitely serving the Reapers. Hell, even synthesis is serving teh Reapers because, well, DNA! In all due seriousness, all of these endings stop the Cycle, and therefore stop the Reapers. You last claimed that the cycle "continues somewhat" in another thread, but nowhere is this truer than in Refusal.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

The Angry One wrote...

How does this change the fact that everything the Catalyst has done has been due to it's faulty logic, and any solution it comes up with built on this faulty logic, whether it's the cycle of genocide or synthesis, will also be faulty?

Because even a broken AI can be right thrice a day.

Association fallacy. "It's what he thinks, so..."

You're projecting.

Whatchu talkin' 'bout, Willis?

And I can prove you wrong about the "thinks only of the positive" part very easily. He tried several things before the Reapers became his solution, and they didn't work out, so he scrapped them. He would have to have seen some kind of negative in his original methods to ditch them.

Or it scrapped them because they didn't work at all.

Not working towards the objective being a negative. Thank you for agreeing with me.

He also says that his creators were forced against their will, but it was the only solution. That concedes that them being forced is a negative, because he has to justify it with the next statement.

It acknoledges the negative impact, but it doesn't sit down and think about it. It simply says it's necesarry, moves on and thinks only of the positive.

So acknowledging entails no thinking? That's news to me.

Unless you don't think that calling someone's actions cowardly (opinion, not fact), arrogant, and suggests that said person isn't capable of anything else ... is an insult... then I'm afraid it already has become true. Sorry!

Well thank you for listing the things you have done. I'm not sure why this is relevant.

LOL that was you. And as usual, you respond by just making **** up.

Unless you have *any* kind of evidence. Do you??

[The Angry One]

Solaxe wrote...
U mad?

Killing the synthetics in Destroy is Catalyst's fault according to your nonsense logic. 

It's in line with the Catalyst's logic and agenda. Synthetics are the threat.

Also I didn't kill synthetics to kill the synthetics, I killed them because they would die anyway.

Why? Because the Catalyst says so?
The Crucible doesn't discriminate? Then why does it discriminate in control and synthesis?

Organics made peace with synthetics (Geth, EDI). They will live knowing that synthetics can be trusted.  So it's agenda doesn't continue, and your argument is invalid.

Okay, if you want to follow this line of thought - when new synthetics are created, they will eventually realise that there were old synthetics, who were killed to save the hides of the organics.

The cycle will continue. The Catalyst itself smugly tells you this.

 

No I don't? I actually think he's quite logical, even if this logic means genocide.

First of all, that has nothing to do with what I said, secondly. Logical. The Catalyst? 

....

HAHAHAHAHA.

[ghost9191]

wait did i miss a argument that committing genocide , let's say 15 times is somehow better than committing it once?

although i agree wiht 98% of what TheAngryOne says, just not that not that it matter, my opinion isn't important enough

and i just mean that i don't find refuse as a viable option, just because it kinda allows the reapers to continue on , well at least for your cycle, i would just prefer to say f**k them and blow em up but that is just me, short sighted i suppose

Modifié par ghost9191, 22 août 2012 - 08:31 .

[Blueprotoss]

The Angry One wrote...

Ah yes, when all else fails, attempt to spark a flame war. Stay classy, pro-enders.

Yet you tried and failed.

[The Angry One]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Because even a broken AI can be right thrice a day.

Except it's not.

Whatchu talkin' 'bout, Willis?

That you know the Catalyst is full of crap and so you expect every argument about it to follow this line of thought.

Not working towards the objective being a negative. Thank you for agreeing with me.

Or just not being viable.

So acknowledging entails no thinking? That's news to me.

Yes, and I just explained why. It knows that it's creators did not approve. It doesn't stop to think why.

LOL that was you. And as usual, you respond by just making **** up.

Sure it was.

Unless you have *any* kind of evidence. Do you??

Oh, let's see. How about every thread you post in? Do you think people are unaware of your actions?

[saracen16]

The Angry One wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

WTF?

You don't stop a criminal to stop his logic, you do it to simply stop the criminal.

How does this change the fact that everything the Catalyst has done has been due to it's faulty logic, and any solution it comes up with built on this faulty logic, whether it's the cycle of genocide or synthesis, will also be faulty?

Only the Crucible is NOT built on the Catalyst. Its solutions are imposed on it by the Crucible. But refusal is the most faulty: it is a decision made by a meer organic mind on idealist principles against the real and devastating inevitability that is coming to destroy him and everyone else he loves.

Association fallacy. "It's what he thinks, so..."

You're projecting.
All I was talking about was the point of view of the Catalyst.

This has been your argument from the beginning: because the Catalyst.

And I can prove you wrong about the "thinks only of the positive" part very easily. He tried several things before the Reapers became his solution, and they didn't work out, so he scrapped them. He would have to have seen some kind of negative in his original methods to ditch them.

Or it scrapped them because they didn't work at all.

"We have tried a similar solution in the past, but it did not work. The organics were not ready." He gives a reason. Shepard's cycle, however, is full of examples of people integrating with technology: biotic implants, haptic interface prostheses, genetic engineering, ocular implants in soldiers.

He also says that his creators were forced against their will, but it was the only solution. That concedes that them being forced is a negative, because he has to justify it with the next statement.

It acknoledges the negative impact, but it doesn't sit down and think about it. It simply says it's necesarry, moves on and thinks only of the positive.
For example. It states they didn't approve. It doesn't stop to think about why. No, it's the only solution and that's that.

That's the Creators' fault for not placing the correct shackles in place, not the Catalyst. It runs through its solutions one by one and tries them out. It has yet to see a failure in the Reaper solution to preserve organic and synthetic life in the long run, compared to the others it has tried but failed for the reasons such as the one it stated above.

Unless you don't think that calling someone's actions cowardly (opinion, not fact), arrogant, and suggests that said person isn't capable of anything else ... is an insult... then I'm afraid it already has become true. Sorry!

Well thank you for listing the things you have done. I'm not sure why this is relevant.

Because you ascribe opinions and expect us to believe them as fact without proof.

[The Angry One]

saracen16 wrote...

Actually, you have everyone's implicit permission to stop the Reapers at any cost with the Crucible. Destroy ends their threat once and for all. Control and Synthesis changes the playing ground and renders them almost irrelevant. Refuse means you capitulate to the Reapers and allow the cycle to continue. In other words, you are no better than Saren or the Illusive Man.

Nobody knows what the Crucible does. They assume it will stop the Reapers. They don't know the price it entails and didn't agree to that.

Refuse is the opposite of capitulation. You speak to me of headcanon while outright lying about the nature of refuse? Please. All the options the Catalyst present are designed to suit the Catalyst. Not us.

What EDI says is "I would rather risk non-functionality with the crew of the Normandy than risk it alone." She also says that she won't let the Reapers stop her, not that she wants to destroy the Reapers. That's assuming that Synthesis means serving the Reapers, which, by the way, is what Saren and those indoctrinated Prothean fools did when they sold out the rest of civilization to the Reapers. You're repeating your headcanon of "Synthesis is indoctrination" when, clearly, there is no clue.

No, I'm going by the facts of the trilogy, and how inconsistent the synthesis ending is with them.
Synthesis being indoctrination is merely an interpretation to explain the inconsistency, but the inconsistency is there.

Yes, destroying the Catalyst and the Reapers is definitely serving them, and replacing the Catalyst entirely is definitely serving the Reapers. Hell, even synthesis is serving teh Reapers because, well, DNA! In all due seriousness, all of these endings stop the Cycle, and therefore stop the Reapers. You last claimed that the cycle "continues somewhat" in another thread, but nowhere is this truer than in Refusal.

It's serving the Catalyst's agenda. That is all that matters. You again focus on the immediate tangibles, and assuming the Catalyst is out for self-preservation without looking at the bigger picture.

[ghost9191]

funny considering morals are different depending on the person. what is morally right for one may be wrong for another., legion made a good argument about it. anywho just throwing that out there

[Mike 9987]

I agree. I would rather this not happen:

[MegaSovereign]

The Angry One wrote...

Okay, if you want to follow this line of thought - when new synthetics are created, they will eventually realise that there were old synthetics, who were killed to save the hides of the organics.

That's not even the full story. You're forgetting the part about the synthetic devils that started the conflict in the first place, AKA the Reapers.

There is no logical reason as to why new synthetics would start conflict with organics because of what had to be done in the past in order to save the galaxy.

The cycle will continue. The Catalyst itself smugly tells you this.

Only because the Catalyst actually believes it will happen. That doesn't necessarily mean it will.

Besides, you usually argue that the Catalyst should not be trusted.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 22 août 2012 - 08:37 .

[The Angry One]

[quote]saracen16 wrote...

Only the Crucible is NOT built on the Catalyst. Its solutions are imposed on it by the Crucible.[/quote]

It tried synthesis before. It flat out says this.
Why would an organic design synthesis? Why wouldn't they tell anyone? How does the Crucible force the Catalyst to do anything if nobody has ever encountered it?

But refusal is the most faulty: it is a decision made by a meer organic mind on idealist principles against the real and devastating inevitability that is coming to destroy him and everyone else he loves.[/quote]

By that logic, Shepard should've surrended in ME1.

[quote]This has been your argument from the beginning: because the Catalyst.[/quote]

Irrelevant. What I was saying had nothing to do with anything by association. Quit making things up.

[quote]"We have tried a similar solution in the past, but it did not work. The organics were not ready." He gives a reason. Shepard's cycle, however, is full of examples of people integrating with technology: biotic implants, haptic interface prostheses, genetic engineering, ocular implants in soldiers.[/quote]

I debunked this ridiculous nonsense in another topic already. Long story short:
Javik's cycle had the Zha'til. Your ENTIRE point is moot.

[quote]That's the Creators' fault for not placing the correct shackles in place, not the Catalyst. It runs through its solutions one by one and tries them out. It has yet to see a failure in the Reaper solution to preserve organic and synthetic life in the long run, compared to the others it has tried but failed for the reasons such as the one it stated above.[/quote]

Headcanon.

[quote]Because you ascribe opinions and expect us to believe them as fact without proof.
[/quote]

You mean like you just did?
This thread is a project-a-thon I swear.

[quote]MegaSovereign wrote...

That's
not even the full story. You're forgetting the part about the synthetic
devils that started the conflict in the first place, AKA the Reapers.

There
is no logical reason as to why new synthetics would start conflict with
organics because of what had to be done in the past in order to save
the galaxy.[/quote]

No, that is the full story. To them. Organics were in danger, so they sacrificed the synthetics to be safe.
Look at EDI's reaction if you side with the Quarians at Rannoch. Now multiply that.


[quote]Only because the Catalyst actually believes it will happen. That doesn't necessarily mean it will.

Besides, you usually argue that the Catalyst should not be trusted.

[/quote]

It can't be trusted when it has reason to lie. It is a liar, but it is also confident in it's agenda. Why would it lie about this? Even if it is wrong, you are still accepting it's price. Accepting the future it wishes to hand to you. Accepting it's control.

Modifié par The Angry One, 22 août 2012 - 08:44 .

[shepdog77]

@ The Angry One

Since you blocked me I'll have to reply to your message here. It's impossible to argue with you civilly because you believe your opinions to be cold hard facts. It would be more productive to discuss the endings with a boiling tea kettle.

Modifié par shepdog77, 22 août 2012 - 08:39 .

[ghost9191]

youtu.be/jr063whzIBE

found it, bout 20secs behind the line i was looking for

[Abraham_uk]

I used to be an amazing dancer.
Then I got a dose of Shepard's DNA.



(Please don't ruin this joke by explaining how scientifically inept that statement was).

[Solaxe]

The Angry One wrote...


It's in line with the Catalyst's logic and agenda. Synthetics are the threat.

But we know they aren't

The Angry One wrote...
Why? Because the Catalyst says so?
The Crucible doesn't discriminate? Then why does it discriminate in control and synthesis?

Dunno, ask BioWare why endings have so many plotholes.

 

The Angry One wrote...
Okay, if you want to follow this line of thought - when new synthetics are created, they will eventually realise that there were old synthetics, who were killed to save the hides of the organics.  

and old synthetics died, so the new synthetics could live. Those old synthetics will be remembered as a heroes. New synthetics will know that their "ancestors" died in order to stop the biggest threat this Galaxy has ever known. Also, if new synthetics live with organics in peace, what's the problem? Synthetics don't seek revenge like organics do. And there would be no reason to seek revenge for anything.

The Angry One wrote...
The cycle will continue. The Catalyst itself smugly tells you this.

" Why? Because the Catalyst says so?"

The Angry One wrote...
First of all, that has nothing to do with what I said,

.. I just quoted you.

The Angry One wrote...


secondly. Logical. The Catalyst? 

....

HAHAHAHAHA.

"Synthetics and organics always fight with each other. I must find a solution" - It's a logic. Good or bad, it's a logic.

I "hahahaha" at your nonsense replies.

Modifié par Solaxe, 22 août 2012 - 08:41 .

[MegaSovereign]

Abraham_uk wrote...

I used to be an amazing dancer.
Then I got a dose of Shepard's DNA.



(Please don't ruin this joke by explaining how scientifically inept that statement was).

I  can enhance this joke.

With Synthesis.

[saracen16]

Mike 9987 wrote...

I agree. I would rather this not happen:

Room 405, babe. (Shakes keys).

[D24O]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Abraham_uk wrote...

I used to be an amazing dancer.
Then I got a dose of Shepard's DNA.



(Please don't ruin this joke by explaining how scientifically inept that statement was).

I  can enhance this joke.

With Synthesis.

But... will it synthesize?

[Abraham_uk]

D24O wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Abraham_uk wrote...

I used to be an amazing dancer.
Then I got a dose of Shepard's DNA.



(Please don't ruin this joke by explaining how scientifically inept that statement was).

I can enhance this joke.

With Synthesis.

But... will it synthesize?

Thanks to Synthesis, EDI's mind was open to a whole world of possibilities.
She descovered so many "trully" interesting things that she forgot to recycle Normandy's oxygen.

Modifié par Abraham_uk, 22 août 2012 - 08:45 .

[The Angry One]

Solaxe wrote...

But we know they aren't

So why do you accept murdering them?

Dunno, ask BioWare why endings have so many plotholes.

Then don't sit here and claim the endings are viable.

and old synthetics died, so the new synthetics could live. Those old synthetics will be remembered as a heroes. New synthetics will know that their "ancestors" died in order to stop the biggest threat this Galaxy has ever known. Also, if new synthetics live with organics in peace, what's the problem? Synthetics don't seek revenge like organics do. And there would be no reason to seek revenge for anything.

Heroes? Heroes fight. These were victims. They had no say. They were sacrificed by organics to keep organics safe. Do you honestly think the Geth would've been okay with this?

Synthetics don't seek revenge, but in this case they'll see societies that will sacrifice their kind for their own survival.

" Why? Because the Catalyst says so?"

It doesn't contradict itself on this one now, does it.

.. I just quoted you.

You quoted me and said something irrelevant, yes.

"Synthetics and organics always fight with each other. I must find a solution" - It's a logic. Good or bad, it's a logic.

I "hahahaha" at your nonsense replies.

Using bad logic is not being logical.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

The Angry One wrote...

Solaxe wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

I dunno how you define free will, but having someone synthesize you, without your permission is not it.

Do you have Geth and EDI permission to kill them in destroy?

Do you have Galaxy's permission to become a supreme ruler in control?

Do you have Galaxy's permission to betray them despite of "I win" buttons in refusal?

Don't be a hypocrite

You have everyone's implicit permission to resist and stop the Reapers. That's destroy or refuse.
I don't agree with sacrificing EDI and the Geth, but EDI herself stated that she would sooner die than serve the Reapers. Think about that the next time you listen to her spout the glories of synthesis.

"I win buttons?" More like "Serve us" buttons. One and all. Choose your method of surrender.

This, anything else makes you a ****ty human and an even worse solider.