1304 réponses à ce sujet

[Kabooooom]

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.

lol. I don't even know what to say to this.

[Han Shot First]

dreman9999 wrote...

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.

That doesn't fit the definition of genocide at all.

Lets pretend for a moment that we are capable of interstellar travel, and that we discover an Earth-like planet that harbors intelligent life. If our first astronaut ambassadors to that planet inadvertently carry Earth-born microbial life that survives the journey, and those microbes end up infecting and killing tens of thousands on that world, have our astronauts committed genocide?

No, they have not. In order to be genocide the spreading of the disease would to be deliberate.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 08 octobre 2012 - 05:48 .

[Xilizhra]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

I hate to have to point what I see as obvious here, but Destroy isn't necessarily "genocide" of the geth because the geth can already be dead.

Well, if your Shepard is an incompetent hack, yes.

[futurepixels]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

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.

OP is saying that destroying synthetics is not genocide because they are not alive in the same way that organics are.

[dreman9999]

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.

I don't blame them but that does not mean I have to live with them. I know a tiger only wants to eat me becasue it's hungry but that does not mean I have to lock myself in a cage with it.

[RiouHotaru]

wantedman dan wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

The purpose is killing all synthetic life because they are synthetic for the greater good of the galaxy. Ooh, a utilitarian perspective. That's different.

No, it is not. The purpose is to save the galaxy.

If there was a choice that destroyed the Reapers without killing synthetics, next to our Destroy, you'd be right. But there isn't. There's no distinction on consequences. There is only the reason for the action. And that reason is the saving of the galaxy.

You. Are. Essentializing. Far. Too. Much. 

Here's a better question:

Why do you care?  Why does it HAVE to be more than just "The Reapers have been destroyed"?  Why does it have to be "BUT IT'S GENOCIDE!"  Is there any reason we can't just have "The Reapers are dead, and the galaxy is saved!"

This is like the pre-EC arguments of doom and gloom and everyone starving to death.  Why do people feel the need to jump on these conclusions?

As for the other poster essentializing "too much"?  You're also over-generalizing.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

futurepixels wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

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.

OP is saying that destroying synthetics is not genocide because they are not alive in the same way that organics are.

And I am disagreeing with them. Synthetics are a different form of life, but life nonetheless.

[dreman9999]

Han Shot First wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

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.

That doesn't fit the definition of genocide at all.

Lets pretend for a moment that we are capable of interstellar travel, and that we discover an Earth-like planet that harbors intelligent life. If our first astronaut ambassadors to that planet inadvertently carry Earth-born microbial life that survives the journey, and those microbes end up infecting and killing tens of thousands on that world, have our astronauts committed genocide?

No, they have not. In order to be genocide the spreading of the disease would to be deliberate.

1. That the same thing that happen when the european came to america.

2.The only reason we pickdestory is the intent of killing the reaper dispite who else is killed with them. If you blow up a building full of innocent people to kill one person, it's still murder.

[Han Shot First]

Here is a question for all of those who maintain that Destroy is genocide:

If Control or Synthesis backfires, and the Reapers one day annihilate all life as they have done for eons, is Shepard guilty of genocide?

[RiouHotaru]

Fandango9641 wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Definitely genocide. Definitely.

Genocide: The deliberate and systematic extinction of a species.

So, actually, not at all.

So, the posting of dictionary definitions in lieu of actual debate now extends to undermining one's own argument does it? Splendid (and thanks)!

Because people are arguing about a word which is already clearly defined and being applied inappropriately.

Whether or not Destroy is ethical isn't the debate.  That'd be a reasonable topic.  What we have is people using a word to describe Destroy which doesn't work.  If you want to use a word to describe Destroy don't use genocide

[ObserverStatus]

Xilizhra wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...
I hate to have to point what I see as obvious here, but Destroy isn't necessarily "genocide" of the geth because the geth can already be dead.

Well, if your Shepard is an incompetent hack, yes.

On the  contrary, Shepard shoiuld feel obligated to defend his Quarian allies from the menace of coexistence with soulless automatons.  Many people in the game have argued that Shepard should not concern himself with this matter, because the Quarians created the Geth and should be held responsible, but I think that Shepard should love the sinner and hate the sin.  If the Quarians need help correcting the mistake of bringing robot intelligence into the galaxy , Shepard should be willing to help them for the good of all.

[DaBigDragon]

ReggarBlane wrote...

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.)

Without knowing about the Intelligence (The Catalyst) controlling the Repears, then yes, I would see it as necessary to wipe them out. HOWEVER, we as the players (and Shepard) DOES find out  the crucial context and piece of information that the Intelligence (The Catalyst) is the one pulling the strings and making the Reapers harvest everything, not the Reapers themselves.

Therefore, destroying them would be completely unneccessary as they are not in control of their own actions. Same as if an animal or a human were being mind-controlled. If we had the choice to stop or change the one controlling them and make them stop, it would be preferable to outright killing the "tool" (animal/human/Reaper).

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Han Shot First wrote...

Here is a question for all of those who maintain that Destroy is genocide:

If Control or Synthesis backfires, and the Reapers one day annihilate all life as they have done for eons, is Shepard guilty of genocide?

No, because Shepard did not trigger it or intend for it to happen. Destroy, on the other hand, is the intentional genocide of the Reapers.

[Kabooooom]

Kabooooom 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.

lol. I don't even know what to say to this.

On second thought, I do know what to say to this. Despite the fact that you cannot define a soul, prove one exists, prove your God exists or any deity whatsoever, and prove how it is relevant to the discussion even if you could - I think you may have missed an important point of the ME games.

Throughout the series, ME forces you to question preconceived notions that you hold - especially anthropocentric ones. One of those notions is the human concept of religion, and how relative and objectively meaningless it is. Everyone has different beliefs - humans, asari, salarians, drell - and not one is more relevant than the other. Another concept is the relevance of synthetic life, and whether it has a "soul", and what constitutes a "soul". You are supposed to question the notion that only organic life can be bestowed with such an attribute, and you are supposed to question whether such a concept is even relevant in the first place (it isn't, in my opinion).

If, after all that, you still decide that the athropocentric view of the universe that some humans adhere to philosophically and theologically is correct, and if you still decide that synthetic life is soul-less/not-alive - then that is perfectly fine. That's called playing Renegade. But you should at least go through the questioning process at first.

That's what sets the ME games apart from other games - they aren't afraid to address issues like this.

You're too focused on morality and ethics to examine the question.

Ah, to the contrary - this topic, while interesting, is irreversibly linked to morality and ethics. You can't have a discussion about what does or does not constitute genocide without addressing morality and ethics. It's just not possible, definitions aside.

Modifié par Kabooooom, 08 octobre 2012 - 05:56 .

[dreman9999]

EntropicAngel wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

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.

Dude, what? You're getting the Reapers confused with synthetics.

I murdered the Reapers, yes. I committed genocide on the Reapers, sure. I can accept that. But not on synthetics

Reapers are synthetic. That's the only reason the destory optin works on them.My point is The only reason we picked destory is the intent of killing the reaper dispite who else is killed with them. If you blow up a building full of innocent people to kill one person, it's still murdering the other innocent people. 

[Subject M]

bobobo878 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...
I hate to have to point what I see as obvious here, but Destroy isn't necessarily "genocide" of the geth because the geth can already be dead.

Well, if your Shepard is an incompetent hack, yes.

On the  contrary, Shepard shoiuld feel obligated to defend his Quarian allies from the menace of coexistence with soulless automatons.  Many people in the game have argued that Shepard should not concern himself with this matter, because the Quarians created the Geth and should be held responsible, but I think that Shepard should love the sinner and hate the sin.  If the Quarians need help correcting the mistake of bringing robot intelligence into the galaxy , Shepard should be willing to help them for the good of all.

But its not possible to know if god gave them a soul or not.

[EricHVela]

An insect went extinct in California many years ago by Human intervention because it was devastating crops there.

That's genocide.

The question, though: Was it wrong?

[dreman9999]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Here is a question for all of those who maintain that Destroy is genocide:

If Control or Synthesis backfires, and the Reapers one day annihilate all life as they have done for eons, is Shepard guilty of genocide?

No, because Shepard did not trigger it or intend for it to happen. Destroy, on the other hand, is the intentional genocide of the Reapers.

If you blow up a building full of innocent people to kill one person, it's still murdering the other innocent people.