1304 réponses à ce sujet

[Hanako Ikezawa]

EntropicAngel wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

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

Look up just a tad, just responded to dreman.

I saw that, and at least you accept that Destroy is genocide of Reapers.

[ObserverStatus]

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.

A big thank you to our loving creator for a life relatively free of harassment by robots would probably be a good place to start.

[wantedman dan]

EntropicAngel wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

You are wrong and you are bastardizing the definition of it through your various dodges and weavings.

Please show me how I'm doing so.

1) Your complete disregard of the relativistic nature of cause and effect in this situation.
2) You semantically dance back and forth between "purpose," "cause and effect," among other various terms.
3) Because of your semantic dance, your reasonings shift.

[Han Shot First]

dreman9999 wrote...

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.

And in cases of accidental infection via trade and the like, it isn't genocide.

Now stories of blankets that had covered smallpox victims being intentionally distributed to natives is another story. That is biological warfare, and genocide.

dreman9999 wrote...

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.

Not really a good anology to the Geth being taken out in the destruction of the Reapers.

The destruction of the Geth is more like bombing a legitimate military target (lets say, a tank) and shrapnel from that explosion happening to kill some farmer who was on his way to the market. The intent wasn't to kill the farmer.

[Subject M]

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?

Genocide, just like murder usually requires intent. Performing an action that you understand will likely cause the death associated with these crimes. If you release a murderer from prison and he continues to murder, one could argue that you have made these murders possible, but you are not a murderer yourself because the murderer continued.

Modifié par Subject M, 08 octobre 2012 - 05:58 .

[dreman9999]

EntropicAngel wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

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

Exactly. And, to go further, I personally would argue that it isn't really ethical.

But I would say it is definitely not genocide.

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

[TheBlackBaron]

Not living. Not genocide.

It's that simple.

[RiouHotaru]

Subject M 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?

Genocide, just like murder usually requires intent. Performing an action that you understand will likely cause the death associated with these crimes. If you release a murderer from prison and he continues to murder, one could argue that you have made these murders possible, but you are not a murderer yourself because the murderer continued.

That's called "accessory" and makes you JUST as liable.

[Kabooooom]

A big thank you to our loving creator for a life relatively free of harassment by robots would probably be a good place to start.

Ah, yes, and may the Flying Spaghetti Monster caress you to sleep with his noodly appendages as well, my brother. Ramen.

[C9316]

Destroy is only genocide to the Reapers, but come now is anyone really crying over their death?

[dreman9999]

Han Shot First wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

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.

And in cases of accidental infection via trade and the like, it isn't genocide.

Now stories of blankets that had covered smallpox victims being intentionally distributed to natives is another story. That is biological warfare, and genocide.

dreman9999 wrote...

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.

Not really a good anology to the Geth being taken out in the destruction of the Reapers.

The destruction of the Geth is more like bombing a legitimate military target (lets say, a tank) and shrapnel from that explosion happening to kill some farmer who was on his way to the market. The intent wasn't to kill the farmer.

2. Yes it is. Even you example is th esame case. Your still murdered thefarmer.

[ObserverStatus]

If Chinese workers protesting Japan's purchase of the Kurihara family's rock collection were to burn down a Foxconn factory, would that be genocide? Of course not. Siri may be able to converse with creatures of God in a sophisticated manner, but she still isn't a real person.

[Subject M]

ReggarBlane wrote...

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?

No it was not genocide because genocide (as the law is written today) referes to populations and groups of humans.

[Kabooooom]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Not living. Not genocide.

It's that simple.

Define "life". Not simple.

Siri may be able to converse with creatures of God in a sophisticated manner, but she still isn't a real person.

a) Siri isn't an AI. She isn't even a VI, by the definitions laid out in the lore.

Okay, I'll bite on to your bizarre religious argument since you seem to be persistent with it: if humans created synthetics, and your god created humans, then are synthetics not by extension creatures of your god?

Modifié par Kabooooom, 08 octobre 2012 - 06:04 .

[futurepixels]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

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.

Synthetics are simulated life, not true organic life.  They should not be considered alive in the same way that organics are alive.

[Subject M]

dreman9999 wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

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

Exactly. And, to go further, I personally would argue that it isn't really ethical.

But I would say it is definitely not genocide.

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

True, if you know that they are there and what blowing up that building will likely doo to them.

[dreman9999]

EntropicAngel wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

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. 

The intent of killing the reapers doesn't matter when talking about the normal synthetics. They are two different...eh, "problems" for lack of a better word.

But destroys effect all synthetic no matter what. It doesnot matter if you only intend to kill a portion of them.....You still murdered them.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

C9316 wrote...

Destroy is only genocide to the Reapers, but come now is anyone really crying over their death?

I am. That's why I choose Synthesis: everyone, Reapers included, benefit. 

[EricHVela]

dreman9999 wrote...

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. 

We need more information:
Why did that person want to kill one person? Was it to save millions?
Why did they blow up a building? Was there no other way?

Whether they wanted to kill those other or had no other choice changes things.

Does it still fit the technical definition of murder? Yes. Could someone convict that person of war crimes? Yes.

Was it wrong? Depends on the answers that we do not have and on personal beliefs.

[Subject M]

dreman9999 wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

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. 

The intent of killing the reapers doesn't matter when talking about the normal synthetics. They are two different...eh, "problems" for lack of a better word.

But destroys effect all synthetic no matter what. It doesnot matter if you only intend to kill a portion of them.....You still murdered them.

If murder is defined so that it applies to synthetics, yes.

[wantedman dan]

RiouHotaru wrote...

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.

Because the writers wrote the story in such a way that would lead a rational consumer to believe such.

There is no "need" to do such, only a reaction to the given stimuli.

I'm simply being charitable to the relativistic nature of the interpretations here; you cannot say the same.

[OblivionDawn]

If it has sentience, it is a living, thinking thing, that's capable of self-preservation.

Destroy is genocide.

[dreman9999]

Subject M wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

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

Exactly. And, to go further, I personally would argue that it isn't really ethical.

But I would say it is definitely not genocide.

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

True, if you know that they are there and what blowing up that building will likely doo to them.

In the case of destroy, you well know that it will effectall synthetic life. So it's a case that you know innocents are there and what blowing up a building will do to them.