1304 réponses à ce sujet

[DaBigDragon]

Well, that's your opinion and I respectfully disagree with it.

I see the Reapers and Geth as life. A different form of life, yes, but life nonetheless. They deserve to live and have the same rights as you or me.

[Dr_Extrem]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

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.

What's so hard about "the purpose must be"?

Why do people feel compelled to circumvent definitions?

Ah, never mind. I know why.

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 96 - 1946

Genocide is a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups, as homicide is the denial of the right to live of individual human beings; such denial of the right of existence shocks the conscience of mankind, ... and is contrary to moral law and to the spirit and aims of the United Nations. ...

Vahakn Dadrian 1975

Genocide is the successful attempt by a dominant group, vested with formal authority and/or with preponderant access to the overall resources of power, to reduce by coercion or lethal violence the number of a minority group whose ultimate extermination is held desirable and useful and whose respective vulnerability is a major factor contributing to the decision for genocide. (A Typology of Genocide)

shepard intents to destroy synthetic life and willingly accepts the destruction geth and edi as colleteral danage.

[dreman9999]

EntropicAngel wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Murder can be done with out malice.

That's an utterly meaningless statement, by itelf. Please, show what you mean.

So a person hired to kill some one or hit and run accidents where some one is killed by a car are never considered murder?

[EricHVela]

dreman9999 wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Kabooooom wrote...

Except not. Just in case you didn't see my post immediately before you on the page before, consider this analogy:

You are driving down the street with your children in the backseat and accidentally hit a person because you swerve to avoid colliding with another car, and kill them. You unintentionally killed that person.

Now consider this:

You are driving down the street with your children in the backseat and realize that you will collide with another car at a speed so great that all of you will likely die, and you can avoid the collision - but only if you deliberately run down the innocent pedestrian. You choose to do so to save yourself, your children, and the driver of the other car. You intentionally killed that person.

It is exactly the same situation here.

You intentionally killed the person, yes. However, your purpose was not to kill that person. You did not kill them because you wanted to. You killed them to avoid a greater cost at another place and time.

Miriam-Webster, murder:

the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

Miriam-Webster, manslaughter:

the unlawful killing of a human being without express or implied malice

What you're describing is manslaughter.

Not murder.

Genocide = murder.

Destroy is not genocide.

Murder can be done with out malice.

By legal definition, no. It is not murder without expressed or implied malice.

How one defines malice is a different matter. One could say that choosing to kill one person to save others is sentencing that one person to die for no wrongdoings of that one person.

Whether that is malicious or not is up to the individual to decide. Is it "I want to kill you to save these people." or "I don't want to kill you to save these people but I must."? That depends on how you roleplay.

[wantedman dan]

EntropicAngel wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

You had plenty of time before making the decision to weigh the consequences. Try again.

Who said anything about the time you had to weigh out the consequences? Malice is the operative word.

Try again.

I didn't know you could commit to killing an entire race without some form of malice.

Desiring to cause harm definitely fits into the situation, here. Your intentions might be good, but your actions speak otherwise.

[dreman9999]

DaBigDragon wrote...

Well, that's your opinion and I respectfully disagree with it.

I see the Reapers and Geth as life. A different form of life, yes, but life nonetheless. They deserve to live and have the same rights as you or me.

The reapers want to force there beleif on us. That enough to allow their deaths.

[Han Shot First]

[quote]wantedman dan wrote...

[quote]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. [/quote]

Irrelevant. You are informed of the consequences of your action before the action is committed. Thus, you are making an informed decision.[/quote]

It is entirely relevent considering the debate is not whether the player has committed genocide, but whether or not Shepard has. The player of course has killed nothing except pixels and 1s and 0s in a video game. Thus the only thing relevent to this discussion is Shepard's actions and what Shepard knew prior to that decision, and not what the player may have known thanks to having read spoilers or having multiple playthroughs. 

As for Shepard and the Catalyst...

Why should Shepard trust everything it says? It is an enemy entity, and such it is just as likely from Shepard's point of view, that it is trying to decieve.


[quote]wantedman dan wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...

You are making the mistake of imposing your own foreknowledge of events onto a character that wouldn't have foreknowledge in the story.[/quote]

No, you are making the error of completely disregarding the discussion you have with the Catalyst.[/quote]

No, you're imposing your own foreknowledge of events onto Shepard.

Shepard has no idea whether or not the Catalyst is being honest. In fact as an entity that is Shepard's enemy, he has no particular reason to trust anything it says.


[quote]wantedman dan wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...


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.[/quote]

The intent is there. You are not understanding this. You are making an informed decision--you are aware of the notion that destroy will destroy all synthetic life--thus you are intentionally accepting the consequences. Handwaving that away won't help you.[/quote]

Again, you are making the mistake of giving Shepard knowledge that only the player has access to. You are failing to understand that the player and Shepard are not one and the same.

If you go back and play Mass Effect 1, does Shepard know beforehand that Eden Prime is going to be attacked by Geth led by a rogue Spectre, or that Reaper indoctrination is behind it all? No, he doesn't. He also doesn't know the events of Mass Effect 3 play out, even if the player does.




[quote]wantedman dan wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...

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.[/quote]


Your hypotheticals do not amuse me.
Justify and spin all you'd like: you've committed an atrocity of war.[/quote]

I've committed an atrocity? Forgive me for not being heartbroken over pixels and a few 1s and 0s.

Besides the fact that you're still confusing the player and the protagonist for being one and the same, when they are not, Shepards actions meet neither the legal or dictionary definitions of genocide. Your arguments have no substance.



[quote]dreman9999 wrote...

The catalyst flatly told your Shepard what it does before your Shepard choosed it. If he did not beleviethat it would kill all synthetic life...Why did he believie it would stop the reaper ?[/quote]

Shepard has no reason to believe anything the Catalyst says. But he also doesn't have much of choice except to pick one of the three choices presented by the Catalyst and hope for the best. The EC presents a fourth option, but chosing not to use the Superweapon and fight conventionally, when conventional victory is simply not possible, is really no option at all.

But if you want to view the Catalyst as being both truthful and infallible in everything it says, it also tells Shepard (in the EC) that Synthetics can be rebuilt. No matter which angle you view the endings from, Destroy isn't genocide.



[quote]dreman9999 wrote...

[quote]Han Shot First wrote...

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.[/quote]
EDI was shut down not destoryed. To fully kill AI's you have todestroy it's data. In the destory choice...EDI's data and the geth data are gone.[/quote]

EDI was destroyed.

Shepard didn't go in and unplug her, he blew up the servers she was housed on.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 08 octobre 2012 - 05:41 .

[dreman9999]

wantedman dan wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

You had plenty of time before making the decision to weigh the consequences. Try again.

Who said anything about the time you had to weigh out the consequences? Malice is the operative word.

Try again.

I didn't know you could commit to killing an entire race without some form of malice.

Desiring to cause harm definitely fits into the situation, here. Your intentions might be good, but your actions speak otherwise.

That's a case of doulbe effect. The genocideis a byproduct of it. It still a genocide but you not morally wrong to do it.

[futurepixels]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

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

Reapers are synthetics too.

[EricHVela]

dreman9999 wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Murder can be done with out malice.

That's an utterly meaningless statement, by itelf. Please, show what you mean.

So a person hired to kill some one or hit and run accidents where some one is killed by a car are never considered murder?

The person left another to die for their own sake. A hitman kills for gain. There is malice in both cases.

[EricHVela]

EntropicAngel wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

So a person hired to kill some one or hit and run accidents where some one is killed by a car are never considered murder?

A person hired to kill someone fits squarely, smack-dab in the middle of "maliceaforethought."

And, LOL. You said it yourself: "accident." That is manslaugher, or some close equivalent (I can't claim to know a great deal of similar types of ending of human life). Not murder at all.

Hit-and-run is a murder charge in many places, but as I mentioned just now, it's due to the malicious intent to save oneself at the cost of another. EDIT: At the cost of another that was not threatening the life of the person leaving the scene.

Modifié par ReggarBlane, 08 octobre 2012 - 05:43 .

[Hanako Ikezawa]

DaBigDragon wrote...

I see the Reapers and Geth as life. A different form of life, yes, but life nonetheless. They deserve to live and have the same rights as you or me.

I agree with you, DaBigDragon.

[Kabooooom]

What you're describing is manslaughter. Not murder. Genocide is murder.

What you're describing, and apparently rationalizing, is mass manslaughter. To differentiate that and genocide is more than just splitting hairs, it's like splitting atoms. It's like if you are in charge of the button that launches all nukes in the world, and you accidentally sit on it while eating a ham-sandwich, and cause the entire human race to go extinct (except you, because you're nice and safe in your little bunker).

What, are you gonna sit back and say "oh...****...well, it was an accident...so no big deal." and still sleep well at night?

And actually, even THAT is a crappy analogy, because it would be more like deliberately pushing the button, WHILE knowing the consequences, just because you reason that the benefit in the long run would be greater overall.

[DaBigDragon]

dreman9999 wrote...

DaBigDragon wrote...

Well, that's your opinion and I respectfully disagree with it.

I see the Reapers and Geth as life. A different form of life, yes, but life nonetheless. They deserve to live and have the same rights as you or me.

The reapers want to force there beleif on us. That enough to allow their deaths.

You cannot blame the Reapers, they are being controlled by the Intelligence (The Catalyst) created by the Leviathans.

Why doom the Reapers to death if they are not choosing to do what they do?

If you or me were somehow being mind-controlled and were forced to kill people, would it be our fault and would we deserve to die for it? I don't think so.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

futurepixels wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

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

Reapers are synthetics too.

I know, and choosing to wipe them out is genocide.

[ObserverStatus]

I would argue that when Tali confirmed that "that unit had a soul" she was dead wrong, the Geth were not created by God, and only God can give a creature a soul. If you insulted Edi, she might act as though you have hurt its feelings, but only as part of its programming. In truth, synthetics can't feel thinks like pain sadness or love.

[dreman9999]

EntropicAngel wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

So a person hired to kill some one or hit and run accidents where some one is killed by a car are never considered murder?

A person hired to kill someone fits squarely, smack-dab in the middle of "maliceaforethought."

And, LOL. You said it yourself: "accident." That is manslaugher, or some close equivalent (I can't claim to know a great deal of similar types of ending of human life). Not murder at all.

Then that would be the same case as genocide any way. The reason you picked it is based on MALICE...it's to kil the reapers.

[shodiswe]

Iconoclaste wrote...

NasChoka wrote...

This! Saying they are not alive is just some kind of racism.

step 1 you say they are only stupid machines and their life is  worth less than the life of a human/asari...
step 2 you betray and kill them all
how do call it if not genocide? if you are tough 'the end justifies the means'- kind of guys ...then why don't you admit it? 

how can the geth be rebuild in they are DEAD? Is there a secret backup file the beam does not hit? Does that mean the reapers can be rebuild too?

maybe you can build new geth like you could clone a human but it's not the same person/geth

Shepard was dead at the beginning of ME2, yet he was "revived" by Cerberus. What makes you think this would be impossible to do with synthetics?

First off, it would probably be very cost prohibitive to do that to billions of Geth... Secondly, Shepards brain was said to have been keept fairly intact. We don't know the extent of the dmg done to Geth storage and processing... Most computers have probably beeen scrubbed by that pulse and almsot all data lost.
Most of the repairds needed after destroy was probably restoring programming to computerized devices.

Who knows... Maybe restoring just one Geth will allow that Geth to reproduce... maybe?... But how do you know it got properly restored? Secondly how would it and it's "ofspring" react to having it's whole specis annihilated... I guess you don't have to tell it there would have been alternatives, and that you did all you could for them. Least now they are alive...

Then in the next ME game you get to play one of those future geth that uncovers the horrible truth behind the "Destroy" ending.....

[dreman9999]

bobobo878 wrote...

I would argue that when Tali confirmed that "that unit had a soul" she was dead wrong, the Geth were not created by God, and only God can give a creature a soul. If you insulted Edi, she might act as though you have hurt its feelings, but only as part of its programming. In truth, synthetics can't feel thinks like pain sadness or love.

....Please, that can be counted by the fact the a god can easily intend for life to be made for the things he made.
As, with the issue of which god....The quarians don't have the same beleif as we do not any other race.

[EricHVela]

DaBigDragon wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

DaBigDragon wrote...

Well, that's your opinion and I respectfully disagree with it.

I see the Reapers and Geth as life. A different form of life, yes, but life nonetheless. They deserve to live and have the same rights as you or me.

The reapers want to force there beleif on us. That enough to allow their deaths.

You cannot blame the Reapers, they are being controlled by the Intelligence (The Catalyst) created by the Leviathans.

Why doom the Reapers to death if they are not choosing to do what they do?

If you or me were somehow being mind-controlled and were forced to kill people, would it be our fault and would we deserve to die for it? I don't think so.

Is it "deserve" or "necessary"? If a vicious animal is killing livestock and kills a child, too, it is necessary to remove the animal. Often, the only option is to hunt the thing rather than capture it.

I don't think it is a matter of whether they deserve it. I think it's a matter of necessity. (Whether it is necessary is up to interpretation as well.)

[Hanako Ikezawa]

EntropicAngel wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

I didn't know you could commit to killing an entire race without some form of malice.

Desiring to cause harm definitely fits into the situation, here. Your intentions might be good, but your actions speak otherwise.

Reggerblane said it perfectly. It comes down to what one feels for things like "desiring to cause harm" or more specifically desire.

I don't desire to kill synthetics. But I must kill the Reapers. I have no choice in the matter. They must die.

I am bound to choose the choice that results in the death of synthetics, regardless of whether I "deisre" to harm them or not.

And, to use the Webster definition for desire--

to long or hope for :[/b] exhibit or feel desire for

You're wrong again. No one's "longing for" or "hoping for" harm to synthetics.

But you are longing for the death of the Reapers, which makes Destroy genocide.