dreman9999 wrote...
Control being a dictarshipis based on your shepard.El_Chala_Legalizado wrote...
Of course not...
And Control is not dictatorship and Synthesis doesn't destroy the natural order.
All desicions have something immoral on them, this leads to the real question:
Which of them is the one that you can stand more?
You did not thing the catalyst was being honest? Then why think he was telling the truth when he said the destory option destroyed the reaper?Han Shot First wrote...
wantedman dan wrote...
Han Shot First wrote...
In short, the destruction of the Geth and EDI neither meets the dictionary or legal definitions of genocide.
While completely ignoring that the consequences were completely intentional.
...except they weren't.
In fact Shepard doesn't even know that the Catalyst is being honest about the consequences. Without a player's foreknowledge of how the ending plays out, Shepard has no reason to trust the Catalyst or to suspect that the Catalyst was trying to do anything other than save itself and talk him out of Destroy.
It meets neither the dictionary or legal definitions of genocide.
Modifié par dreman9999, 08 octobre 2012 - 04:36 .
Yate wrote...
I've seen this view expressed in various places, and I wanted to set the record straight.
The Destroy ending is not genocide. The geth are not living things. They are machines that can be rebuilt. It's said as much by the catalyst.
If you sold Legion to Cerberus, a perfect copy of it is made by the geth. 'Death' is not the same for synthetics as it is for organics.
Even if you want to argue the geth are alive and have souls (they do not) their 'lives' are not the same as organic lives. If you delete a few of Legion's programs, it's central intelligence is not destroyed. It is a hivemind. Same is true for EDI, who uses the first-person only because it was designed to interface with humans. 'Death' for them is not permanent or absolute.
Destroy is not genocide. If the relays can be rebuilt, so can the geth.
dreman9999 wrote...
You did not thing the catalyst was being honest? They why think he was telling the truth when he saidthe destory option destroyed the reaper?Han Shot First wrote...
wantedman dan wrote...
Han Shot First wrote...
In short, the destruction of the Geth and EDI neither meets the dictionary or legal definitions of genocide.
While completely ignoring that the consequences were completely intentional.
...except they weren't.
In fact Shepard doesn't even know that the Catalyst is being honest about the consequences. Without a player's foreknowledge of how the ending plays out, Shepard has no reason to trust the Catalyst or to suspect that the Catalyst was trying to do anything other than save itself and talk him out of Destroy.
It meets neither the dictionary or legal definitions of genocide.
You knew what it would do. Picking it after you knew what it does makes it deliberate.
My canon Shep chose Synthesis for the lulzdreman9999 wrote...
Control being a dictarshipis based on your shepard.El_Chala_Legalizado wrote...
Of course not...
And Control is not dictatorship and Synthesis doesn't destroy the natural order.
All desicions have something immoral on them, this leads to the real question:
Which of them is the one that you can stand more?
Not like we didn't have that before with the council.wantedman dan wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Control being a dictarshipis based on your shepard.El_Chala_Legalizado wrote...
Of course not...
And Control is not dictatorship and Synthesis doesn't destroy the natural order.
All desicions have something immoral on them, this leads to the real question:
Which of them is the one that you can stand more?
It's authoritarianism either way.
wantedman dan wrote...
As the popular phrase goes, you may be entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
The fact is, you chose the option going in knowing--thinking, to satiate your argument--it will kill all synthetic life because it is synthetic. You are deliberately and systematically exterminating a nation, a race, a cultural group, because they'd be collateral damage.
dreman9999 wrote...
Not like we didn't have that before with the council.wantedman dan wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Control being a dictarshipis based on your shepard.El_Chala_Legalizado wrote...
Of course not...
And Control is not dictatorship and Synthesis doesn't destroy the natural order.
All desicions have something immoral on them, this leads to the real question:
Which of them is the one that you can stand more?
It's authoritarianism either way.
Han Shot First wrote...
Furthermore 'death' for EDI and the Geth is not the same thing as death for an organic. A machine can be rebuilt whereas for most organics (Shepard excluded) death is final. EDI in fact was destroyed once before while still a VI, and she retained memories of her time on Luna aftering being restored and upgraded to full A.I. status.
EDI wasn't destroyed on Luna, she was just shut down by destroying power conduits. Cerberus recovered her blue box and used Sovereign technology (somehow) to create the advanced AI that we know and love. And even if she was destroyed, her personality was not the same as that of the Luna AI, and if she was destroyed again it likewise would not be EDI that would return.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
RiouHotaru wrote...
wantedman dan wrote...
As the popular phrase goes, you may be entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
The fact is, you chose the option going in knowing--thinking, to satiate your argument--it will kill all synthetic life because it is synthetic. You are deliberately and systematically exterminating a nation, a race, a cultural group, because they'd be collateral damage.
Untrue. The Catalyst tells you all synthetic life will be destroyed, but doesn't specify who, merely that the blast will not discriminate. Hell, even in the original endings it points out the Geth are likely to be destroyed as well. But Shepard doesn't intend for the Geth to be wiped out. Again, the geth dying isn't something Shepard intended to have happen.
Modifié par wantedman dan, 08 octobre 2012 - 04:38 .
True...But it's up to your Shepard how to use them. It a case of if a being should have that much power, only the possiblity all life will be force undera rule. My shepard would only step in when need and slowly have the race have full control. Then when they can handle themselves.....Decommistionall the reapers and put myself in a cloned organic body.wantedman dan wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Not like we didn't have that before with the council.wantedman dan wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Control being a dictarshipis based on your shepard.El_Chala_Legalizado wrote...
Of course not...
And Control is not dictatorship and Synthesis doesn't destroy the natural order.
All desicions have something immoral on them, this leads to the real question:
Which of them is the one that you can stand more?
It's authoritarianism either way.
At least the council didn't have at its disposal a fleet of thousands of hyperadvanced space-Cthulus.
Modifié par dreman9999, 08 octobre 2012 - 04:42 .
wantedman dan wrote...
As the popular phrase goes, you may be entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
The fact is, you chose the option going in knowing--thinking, to satiate your argument--it will kill all synthetic life because it is synthetic. You are deliberately and systematically exterminating a nation, a race, a cultural group, because they'd be collateral damage.
1. All synthetic life means all synthetic life. We don't need spacifics if it's going to effect all of it.RiouHotaru wrote...
wantedman dan wrote...
As the popular phrase goes, you may be entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
The fact is, you chose the option going in knowing--thinking, to satiate your argument--it will kill all synthetic life because it is synthetic. You are deliberately and systematically exterminating a nation, a race, a cultural group, because they'd be collateral damage.
Untrue. The Catalyst tells you all synthetic life will be destroyed, but doesn't specify who, merely that the blast will not discriminate. Hell, even in the original endings it points out the Geth are likely to be destroyed as well. But Shepard doesn't intend for the Geth to be wiped out. Again, the geth dying isn't something Shepard intended to have happen.
RiouHotaru wrote...
It doesn't matter. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself. The only thing that matters is intent and deliberation. Shepard didn't intend to kill the Geth. The Reapers are the only thing Shepard intends to destroy. That the Geth die as a result as well is unfortunate collateral.
JPR1964 wrote...
wantedman dan wrote...
As the popular phrase goes, you may be entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
The fact is, you chose the option going in knowing--thinking, to satiate your argument--it will kill all synthetic life because it is synthetic. You are deliberately and systematically exterminating a nation, a race, a cultural group, because they'd be collateral damage.
Exactly my thoughts : stop lying to yourself... It's ok if you choose Destroy because you think Sheppard can survive or because you don't like Geth, or because you find the two others options so repulsive... Not a problem...
Not your fault, not the players fault if you think that there is no better ending : it's Bioware fault, and their so-called "hard choice"...
But a little honesty goes a long way : you choose destroy, and with that you destroy not just the Reapers, the only remnants of ancient races, but the "recently" new born Geth and EDI...
Personnaly I'm not blaming the players for choosing destroy, I'm blaming BW for giving us such pitiful choices...
JPR out!
wantedman dan wrote...
Han Shot First wrote...
wantedman dan wrote...
Han Shot First wrote...
In short, the destruction of the Geth and EDI neither meets the dictionary or legal definitions of genocide.
While completely ignoring that the consequences were completely intentional.
...except they weren't.
In fact Shepard doesn't even know that the Catalyst is being honest about the consequences. Without a player's foreknowledge of how the ending plays out, Shepard has no reason to trust the Catalyst or to suspect that the Catalyst was trying to do anything other than save itself and talk him out of Destroy.
It meets neither the dictionary or legal definitions of genocide.
As the popular phrase goes, you may be entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
The fact is, you chose the option going in knowing--thinking, to satiate your argument--it will kill all synthetic life because it is synthetic. You are deliberately and systematically exterminating a nation, a race, a cultural group, even though they'd be collateral damage.
dreman9999 wrote...
You know what it does before you choose it...
Choosing it after knowing what it does makes it deliberate
dreman9999 wrote...
2. All his memories, beleifs and persona are still there. It's not a case of a mind wipe. It the same brain with the same info working in an improved body.
Modifié par Han Shot First, 08 octobre 2012 - 04:45 .
Intent is a case of double effect. What makes it deliberate is the fact you knew what it did before picking it.... You did do a genocide, that is a fact....It just your notevil for doing it ecasue of the extremes of the events on hand.RiouHotaru wrote...
It doesn't matter. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself. The only thing that matters is intent and deliberation. Shepard didn't intend to kill the Geth. The Reapers are the only thing Shepard intends to destroy. That the Geth die as a result as well is unfortunate collateral.
wantedman dan wrote...
I'm sure that ethical law is universal. Kant would be proud of your complete and utter obliviousness to the consequences of an action.
You chose destroy, knowing full well you would destroy the Geth and EDI in doing so because they are synthetic. You are deliberately and systematically eradicating synthetic life because it is synthetic. You are committing genocide by picking destroy.
Let me break down the logic for you: 1 + 1 = 2
Modifié par RiouHotaru, 08 octobre 2012 - 04:49 .
Guest_Fandango_*
Han Shot First wrote...
The player and Shepard are not one and the same. What the player knows is not the same thing as what Shepard knows.
You are making the mistake of imposing your own foreknowledge of events onto a character that wouldn't have foreknowledge in the story.
Destroy does not meet either the dictionary or legal definitions of genocide, because the intent is not there. Likewise Shepard does not even know that the weapon will destroy the Geth, until he actually he uses it. In fact he has no reason to trust anything the Catalyst says.
Finally, death is final for an organic (Shepard being an exception) while it is not for synthetics. Hardware can be rebuilt and code rewritten. Death for EDI and the Geth may only be a temporary state.
"What you (the player) may or may not know, is not the same as what Shepard knows.Han Shot First wrote...
wantedman dan wrote...
Han Shot First wrote...
wantedman dan wrote...
Han Shot First wrote...
In short, the destruction of the Geth and EDI neither meets the dictionary or legal definitions of genocide.
While completely ignoring that the consequences were completely intentional.
...except they weren't.
In fact Shepard doesn't even know that the Catalyst is being honest about the consequences. Without a player's foreknowledge of how the ending plays out, Shepard has no reason to trust the Catalyst or to suspect that the Catalyst was trying to do anything other than save itself and talk him out of Destroy.
It meets neither the dictionary or legal definitions of genocide.
As the popular phrase goes, you may be entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
The fact is, you chose the option going in knowing--thinking, to satiate your argument--it will kill all synthetic life because it is synthetic. You are deliberately and systematically exterminating a nation, a race, a cultural group, even though they'd be collateral damage.
The player and Shepard are not one and the same. What the player knows is not the same thing as what Shepard knows.
As an example, if I were to go back and play Mass Effect 1 I would know from the opening credits that Eden Prime is going to be attacked by a rogue Spectre, and that rogue Spectre is just an indoctrinated pawn of the Reapers. Shepard however, knows none of those things.
You are making the mistake of imposing your own foreknowledge of events onto a character that wouldn't have foreknowledge in the story.
Destroy does not meet either the dictionary or legal definitions of genocide, because the intent is not there. Likewise Shepard does not even know that the weapon will destroy the Geth, until he actually he uses it. In fact he has no reason to trust anything the Catalyst says.
Finally, death is final for an organic (Shepard being an exception) while it is not for synthetics. Hardware can be rebuilt and code rewritten. Death for EDI and the Geth may only be a temporary state.What you (the player) may or may not know, is not the same as what Shepard knows.dreman9999 wrote...
You know what it does before you choose it...
Choosing it after knowing what it does makes it deliberate
Even if the player has read spoilers or has played through the game multiple times, Shepard has no way of knowing whether or not the Catalyst is being truthful or trying to deceive. The fact of the matter is that Shepard does not even know if the Crucible will work, or what the consequences will be, until he activates the weapon.dreman9999 wrote...
2. All his memories, beleifs and persona are still there. It's not a case of a mind wipe. It the same brain with the same info working in an improved body.
If that is your definition for Shepard still being Shepard, EDI also retains her memories from her time on Luna.
Thus, EDI is still EDI after being destroyed and rebuilt.
RiouHotaru wrote...
Whether ethical law is universal or not is outside the scope of this argument. By the standard, encyclopedic definition of "genocide", what Shepard did was NOT genocide. Hefty and sizeable collateral damage, but NOT genocide.
And while were at it, here's the encyclopedic definition of "eugenics" (the word the anti-synthesis crowd is SO fond of touting):
"The study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)."
Looks like both crowds need to find new words.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Fandango9641 wrote...
Definitely genocide. Definitely.
Retour en haut