1304 réponses à ce sujet

[Kabooooom]

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.

Pretty much this. I choose Destroy knowing exactly what it is and the moral implications/consequences associated with it. I do it anyways, because the other two choices, in my opinion, are compromising with the Reapers. Not only that, but the Reapers themselves are an abomination. And not only that, but Destroy allows organic and synthetic life to follow their own path, at their own will.

Morality is not black and white - and there should be no illusion that this choice is morally questionable. But so are all the choices. You can't really say "the end justifies the means" here, but that doesn't even really matter. It just comes down to what you feel is more important, and destroying the Reapers is more important to me.

Genocide: The deliberate and systematic extinction of a species. So actually not at all.

You knew what the consequences of Destroy would be before you chose it, because the Catalyst straight up tells you. I accept that, and don't care - I still choose Destroy anyways despite the fact that I fully view the Geth and EDI as sentient and alive. I would make the same choice if it killed all Salarians, or Asari, and yes - even all humans.

Modifié par Kabooooom, 08 octobre 2012 - 05:03 .

[RiouHotaru]

The point I'm making is that for reasons I cannot fathom, people are using words to demonize the endings which simply do not apply.

I cannot spell this out any clearer, and it's been spelled out as clear as crystal:

"By the 21st century definition of the word, Destroy is NOT 'genocide'."

The dictionary does not support your assertion. But that's fine, if it makes it easier to hate the endings, then go ahead and keep using the word. But you're applying it incorrectly.

Modifié par RiouHotaru, 08 octobre 2012 - 04:54 .

[dreman9999]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Definitely genocide. Definitely.

Genocide: The deliberate and systematic extinction of a species.

So, actually, not at all.

The moment you learn that destory kills off all synthetic life and you choose the option any way make it deliberate.

[dreman9999]

RiouHotaru wrote...

The point I'm making is that for reasons I cannot fathom, people are using words words to demonize the endings which simply do not apply.

I cannot spell this out any clearer, and it's been spelled out as clear as crystal:

"By the 21st century definition of the word, Destroy is NOT 'genocide'."

The dictionary does not support your assertion. But that's fine, if it makes it easier to hate the endings, then go ahead and keep using the word. But you're applying it incorrectly.

The moment you learn that destory kills off all synthetic life and you choose the option any way make it deliberate.

[O Dubhghaill]

Of course, you are also committing genocide by picking synthesis - not only of organics, but also synthetics. Genocide is not merely an act of 'mass murder', it is also the destruction of a way of living. By altering the basis on which life is built, you are re-creating life, and in the process, destroying it. Once you 'overwrite' something on such a basic level, you are removing it from its own state-of-being. You have re-ordered the universe. Destroy removes only unfit things from the universe; these things (reapers) have reached an evolutionary bottleneck - they cannot adapt to the universe around them and are still slaves to old compunctions that have become redundant in the face of organic evolution (as the catalyst says). The 'death' of EDI and the Geth cannot be proven, and in fact, one feels it is left hanging there as a possibility only to ensure that not everybody chooses destroy.

[RiouHotaru]

No it's not. You're simply told the blast will not discriminate. You're not given an absolute certainty. The Catalyst tells you that YOU (Shepard) will probably die as well, being partly synthetic.

So is Shepard committing suicide as well?

(protip: that's a loaded, sarcastic, and rhetorical question)

Modifié par RiouHotaru, 08 octobre 2012 - 04:58 .

[wantedman dan]

RiouHotaru wrote...

The point I'm making is that for reasons I cannot fathom, people are using words to demonize the endings which simply do not apply.

I cannot spell this out any clearer, and it's been spelled out as clear as crystal:

"By the 21st century definition of the word, Destroy is NOT 'genocide'."

The dictionary does not support your assertion. But that's fine, if it makes it easier to hate the endings, then go ahead and keep using the word. But you're applying it incorrectly.

All that logic and evidence that reinforces your claim really makes this post worth reading.

[dreman9999]

EntropicAngel wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The moment you learn that destory kills off all synthetic life and you choose the option any way make it deliberate.

Actually, not.

You're having trouble distinguishing the difference between cause and effect.

In genocide, the desire for the extinction of the species is the cause.

In ME, the salvation of the galaxy is the cause. The extinction of a species is the effect.

That makes it a case of genocide caused by double effect. Not a case where it's not a genocide.

[dreman9999]

RiouHotaru wrote...

No it's not. You're simply told the blast will not discriminate. You're not given an absolute certainty. The Catalyst tells you that YOU (Shepard) will probably die as well, being partly synthetic.

So is Shepard committing suicide as well?

(protip: that's a loaded, sarcastic, and rhetorical question)

The catalyst literaly said it will kill all synthetic life. 

"But be warned the crucible will not discrimiate. ALL SYNTHETICS WILL BE TARGETED."

[wantedman dan]

EntropicAngel wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The moment you learn that destory kills off all synthetic life and you choose the option any way make it deliberate.

Actually, not.

You're having trouble distinguishing the difference between cause and effect.

In genocide, the desire for the extinction of the species is the cause.

In ME, the salvation of the galaxy is the cause. The extinction of a species is the effect.

The distinction isn't as black and white as you're contending.

[RiouHotaru]

wantedman dan wrote...

All that logic and evidence that reinforces your claim really makes this post worth reading.

Sarcasm aside, the dictionary is pretty darn good evidence.  I'll break it down, despite the fact I know you're trolling me with that post:

You: "Destroy is genocide because Shepard is informed."

Dictionary: "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial
or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing
serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately
inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about
its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended
to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring
children of the group to another group."

Me: "Does Shepard's choice fit this definition?"

Comparison of Destroy to the legal definition?  No.



Now, no one is saying that ethically, what Shepard did was good and clean.  Of course morally it's ambiguous.  But it's clearly NOT "genocide".

[Kabooooom]

No it's not. You're simply told the blast will not discriminate. You're not given an absolute certainty. The Catalyst tells you that YOU (Shepard) will probably die as well, being partly synthetic.

In the original ending, the Catalyst specifically tells you "doing this will kill both the Geth and EDI". In the EC cut, Bioware partially retconned this by leaving it much more vague in the way you describe. This was to appease the people that were complaining about that ending, despite the fact that it is quite clear that the Geth and EDI are still destroyed.

So, it was originally with absolute certainty. It still pretty much is, but the Catalyst/Bioware just sugarcoats it a little so you can stomach it easier.

[RiouHotaru]

dreman9999 wrote...

"But be warned the crucible will not discrimiate. ALL SYNTHETICS WILL BE TARGETED."

"Will be targeted."

That's not the same was "Will absolutely be destroyed without question or doubt."

It means the blast will target them with the intent of destroying them.  Whether it actually SUCCEEDS is another matter entirely.

[wantedman dan]

RiouHotaru wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

All that logic and evidence that reinforces your claim really makes this post worth reading.

Sarcasm aside, the dictionary is pretty darn good evidence.  I'll break it down, despite the fact I know you're trolling me with that post:

You: "Destroy is genocide because Shepard is informed."

Dictionary: "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial
or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing
serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately
inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about
its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended
to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring
children of the group to another group."

Me: "Does Shepard's choice fit this definition?"

Comparison of Destroy to the legal definition?  No.



Now, no one is saying that ethically, what Shepard did was good and clean.  Of course morally it's ambiguous.  But it's clearly NOT "genocide".

Poor thing. The dictionary can't agree with both of us. You are fulfilling that definition by deliberately killing them to save the galaxy.

That's what you're missing.

[Dr_Extrem]

EntropicAngel wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The moment you learn that destory kills off all synthetic life and you choose the option any way make it deliberate.

Actually, not.

You're having trouble distinguishing the difference between cause and effect.

In genocide, the desire for the extinction of the species is the cause.

In ME, the salvation of the galaxy is the cause. The extinction of a species is the effect.

shepard may not desire the eventual outcome from the decision but he/she carelessly accepts it.

that is enough ... "i dont want to kill all synthetic life but i still do it." the choice to do it, was yours and therefore, it is genocide.

the geth are a sentient lifeform. every geth program has self awareness of its place in time and space. therefore it is sentient life.

killing a sentient lifeform even only as "collateral damage", is genocide. the possibility that shepard may (or may not) dies in the progress is unimportant.

[Kabooooom]

RiouHotaru wrote...

That's not the same was "Will absolutely be destroyed without question or doubt."

It means the blast will target them with the intent of destroying them.  Whether it actually SUCCEEDS is another matter entirely.

Dude. 3:00 - "You can wipe out all synthetic life if you want, including the Geth"

You can't get much more absolute and clear than that.

As I said, Bioware partially retconned this in the extended cut, but it is clear that the Geth/EDI are still destroyed. The Catalyst dialog is just changed slightly to appease people.

For it to be genocide, the intended purpose must be the extinction of the species.

I deliberately cause the extinction of the Geth when I choose Destroy. I intend to do so, so that I can wipe out the Reapers. It would be the same if it caused all humans to go extinct. I would be willfully causing their extinction, just so I can wipe out the Reapers.

For it to conform to that definition, the following would have to be true: "I did not intend to kill all Geth". You did intend to kill all Geth, just as you intended to kill the Reapers. It isn't even really "collateral damage". It is fully intentional, and a direct consequence of your actions.

I still choose Destroy despite that, and I fully accept the moral implications of that choice. I don't understand why other people seem to beat around the bush when addressing it.

Modifié par Kabooooom, 08 octobre 2012 - 05:15 .

[wantedman dan]

EntropicAngel wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
That makes it a case of genocide caused by double effect. Not a case where it's not a genocide.

Nope, still wrong.

For it to be genocide, the intended purpose must be the extinction of the species.

The definition itself proves you incorrect.

Which you completely intend to, in order to save the galaxy.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

So which ending is canon? The original or the EC?

That will determine if this is genocide or not.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Regardless of the Geth or not, Destroy is genocide because you are killing the entire Reaper race.

[Kabooooom]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

So which ending is canon? The original or the EC?

That will determine if this is genocide or not.

Both. The EC just elaborates on the original. Although the Catalyst sugarcoats what he tells you, this is just because people complained about the Geth being destroyed. It is so you can headcanon their survival, if you want. But the ending is still crystal clear - they are destroyed, and so is EDI.

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Regardless of the Geth or not, Destroy is genocide because you are killing the entire Reaper race.

And since each Reaper is itself a race - a nation - then you are really doing it a thousand times over.

And that's still okay. That's the point of the ending - it isn't supposed to make you feel comfortable, now that you suddenly understand an existential truth about the Reapers.

Modifié par Kabooooom, 08 octobre 2012 - 05:18 .

[dreman9999]

EntropicAngel wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
That makes it a case of genocide caused by double effect. Not a case where it's not a genocide.

Nope, still wrong.

For it to be genocide, the intended purpose must be the extinction of the species.

The definition itself proves you incorrect.

It's intend perpose is the extinction of a species. It's made to target synthetics.

Modifié par dreman9999, 08 octobre 2012 - 05:18 .

[Kabooooom]

Why do people feel compelled to circumvent definitions?

They aren't circumventing definitions. By definition, it must be intentional. Did you intend to kill the Geth? Hell yes you did. Did you intend to kill the Reapers? Absolutely. Both were fully intentional. If anything, you are circumventing the definition of "intentional".

Modifié par Kabooooom, 08 octobre 2012 - 05:21 .