1304 réponses à ce sujet

[Bill Casey]

It's collateral genocide in a struggle against Robo-Cthulhu...
It's a horrible, terrifying, disgusting sacrifice...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 08 octobre 2012 - 07:53 .

[Samtheman63]

HiddenInWar wrote...

"Does this unit have a soul?"

That is the only sentence I need to refute that argument.

that doesnt refute anything without an answer, and the answer is no

[BatmanTurian]

Bill Casey wrote...

It's collateral genocide in a struggle against Robo-Cthulhu...
It's a horrible, terrifying, disgusting sacrifice...

But, it IS necessary for the common good. Ruthless calculus and everything. If you're not ready to do that in a war, then you don't even want to fight. You don't even want to win. You basically give up, like Saren.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 08 octobre 2012 - 08:01 .

[shodiswe]

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.

It would be if they knew they would kill those people. In Destroy you know you will kill them. Your senario depicts a misstake or accident that wasn't expected. Destroy is a known evil, the perpetrator accepts the cost, either through indifference or reasoning or mallicious illwill..

[dreman9999]

Samtheman63 wrote...

HiddenInWar wrote...

"Does this unit have a soul?"

That is the only sentence I need to refute that argument.

that doesnt refute anything without an answer, and the answer is no

The fact that it asks means yes.

[futurepixels]

dreman9999 wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...

HiddenInWar wrote...

"Does this unit have a soul?"

That is the only sentence I need to refute that argument.

that doesnt refute anything without an answer, and the answer is no

The fact that it asks means yes.

Not even close to true.  You can program any computer to ask if it has a soul.

Modifié par futurepixels, 08 octobre 2012 - 08:07 .

[Han Shot First]

shodiswe 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.

It would be if they knew they would kill those people. In Destroy you know you will kill them. Your senario depicts a misstake or accident that wasn't expected. Destroy is a known evil, the perpetrator accepts the cost, either through indifference or reasoning or mallicious illwill..

Known by whom?

Shepard has no foreknowledge of how the events of Mass Effect 3 will play out, even if the player does. All Shepard has is the word of a murderous, malfunctioning A.I. that has been responsible for the genocide of every space faring civilization that has ever existed in the Milky Way, and who is also responsible for the current attempt to annihilate your own species. Why should Shepard trust it?

Realistically, I don't think he would.

[Obadiah]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

It's collateral genocide in a struggle against Robo-Cthulhu...
It's a horrible, terrifying, disgusting sacrifice...

But, it IS necessary for the common good. Ruthless calculus and everything. If you're not ready to do that in a war, then you don't even want to fight. You don't even want to win. You basically give up, like Saren.

Pretty much. Glad this is just a choice in a video game and not one in real life.

I think every leader in the real world with access to WMDs does not consider their use Genocide, but rather part of the calculation of war.

*Shrug* or maybe they do consider it genocide, and have bigger concerns.

Modifié par Obadiah, 08 octobre 2012 - 08:11 .

[AmstradHero]

Just one thing: If Geth genocide requires members of the species to be individuals, and thus not be able to be perfectly recreated, how do those arguing this is not the case reconcile the vast difference in behaviour of Legion versus the recreated Legion if the original Legion dies in ME2?

Legion is not perfectly recreated, thus there is something unique and individual about the original Legion. This is made pretty explicit by the writers if you compare the interactions in ME3.

[dreman9999]

EntropicAngel wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

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

I'm not sure it is. By definition, you had no malice towards those people.

The problem one runs into is the worth of something--killing a building full of people for one person doesn't really have much worth, and is in fact nothing like the Reaper situation where the fate of the galaxy is at stake.

It does not matter if killing that one person does more good for the world you can ever imagine. The point is you had to kill innocents to kill that one person...It's murder.

[dreman9999]

Han Shot First wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...



You think a person must be convicted or trailed for it to be a murder?

Please, you not getting it. It would bea case he the poloit new the farmer was there, like how Shepard know destroy will effect all geth.
You're tryin gto use the case of ignoance but the fact remains Shepard was not ignorate that the geth and synthetic life would die off.

It meets neither the legal definition or murder, or the common moral definition of it. Murder is defined by all cultures as an intentional and unlawful killing of another human being. Intent is important.

As an example, if a person drove drunk tonight and accidentally killed someone in a car accident, they'll likely be charged with manslaughter rather than murder.

Ifyou know someone innocent is there near yoyr traget and you use a weapon that kills both of them in one shot...It's murder.

[dreman9999]

Han Shot First wrote...

shodiswe 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.

It would be if they knew they would kill those people. In Destroy you know you will kill them. Your senario depicts a misstake or accident that wasn't expected. Destroy is a known evil, the perpetrator accepts the cost, either through indifference or reasoning or mallicious illwill..

Known by whom?

Shepard has no foreknowledge of how the events of Mass Effect 3 will play out, even if the player does. All Shepard has is the word of a murderous, malfunctioning A.I. that has been responsible for the genocide of every space faring civilization that has ever existed in the Milky Way, and who is also responsible for the current attempt to annihilate your own species. Why should Shepard trust it?

Realistically, I don't think he would.

The moment he even pick destroy he is told what it do....He isnot doing this in ignorance.

[dreman9999]

futurepixels wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...

HiddenInWar wrote...

"Does this unit have a soul?"

That is the only sentence I need to refute that argument.

that doesnt refute anything without an answer, and the answer is no

The fact that it asks means yes.

Not even close to true.  You can program any computer to ask if it has a soul.

But not to ask it on it;s own accored. No programing prompt the geth to ask or even think about that question...It did it on it's own.

The fact that it asked, on it's own accord, means yes.

[BatmanTurian]

Obadiah wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

It's collateral genocide in a struggle against Robo-Cthulhu...
It's a horrible, terrifying, disgusting sacrifice...

But, it IS necessary for the common good. Ruthless calculus and everything. If you're not ready to do that in a war, then you don't even want to fight. You don't even want to win. You basically give up, like Saren.

Pretty much. Glad this is just a choice in a video game and not one in real life.

I think every leader in the real world with access to WMDs does not consider their use Genocide, but rather part of the calculation of war.

*Shrug* or maybe they do consider it genocide, and have bigger concerns.

It's unfortunate, I agree. But when you're in a struggle for life and death and it's you or the other guy that wants to kill you, then the two choices are give up or fight back and kill the other person. Survival instincts say to kill the other person. Our higher intellect and morals say to try to make peace. Sometimes that is impossible and of course the stakes are raised when your enemy is deceitful and is willing to stab you in the back as you hug him in peace.

WMD's are just a deterrent in this day and age. Basically, it's a really huge guy with a chaingun standing outside the front of your house patting the chaingun so everyone knows that messing with you is not a good idea.

[RiouHotaru]

Han Shot First wrote...

Known by whom?

Shepard has no foreknowledge of how the events of Mass Effect 3 will play out, even if the player does. All Shepard has is the word of a murderous, malfunctioning A.I. that has been responsible for the genocide of every space faring civilization that has ever existed in the Milky Way, and who is also responsible for the current attempt to annihilate your own species. Why should Shepard trust it?

Realistically, I don't think he would.

Well, and even if you don't consider the Catalyst an enemy, he only states "All synthetics will be targeted."  Which isn't the same as "They will absolutely be wiped the hell out."

And while ethically, Destroy is rather monstrous, I doubt anyone will actually try to put Shepard on trial for it.

[Samtheman63]

dreman9999 wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...

HiddenInWar wrote...

"Does this unit have a soul?"

That is the only sentence I need to refute that argument.

that doesnt refute anything without an answer, and the answer is no

The fact that it asks means yes.

no, it doesn't

[dreman9999]

Samtheman63 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...

HiddenInWar wrote...

"Does this unit have a soul?"

That is the only sentence I need to refute that argument.

that doesnt refute anything without an answer, and the answer is no

The fact that it asks means yes.

no, it doesn't

Yes it does. It asked it on it's own. That means it's sentiant. It's alive.

[BatmanTurian]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Known by whom?

Shepard has no foreknowledge of how the events of Mass Effect 3 will play out, even if the player does. All Shepard has is the word of a murderous, malfunctioning A.I. that has been responsible for the genocide of every space faring civilization that has ever existed in the Milky Way, and who is also responsible for the current attempt to annihilate your own species. Why should Shepard trust it?

Realistically, I don't think he would.

Well, and even if you don't consider the Catalyst an enemy, he only states "All synthetics will be targeted."  Which isn't the same as "They will absolutely be wiped the hell out."

And while ethically, Destroy is rather monstrous, I doubt anyone will actually try to put Shepard on trial for it.

This. More like there would be parades, talk shows, medals, awards, banquets, interviews, and retirement on that nice beach. Shepard would be a hero, not a despised genocidal maniac. Even so, Shepard has more blood on his hands then just the Geth and EDI. All those people you killed throughout the games, you murdered them too in cold blood to protect yourself and your team mates.

No Shepard is really a saint. All of them kill for money and to further their own agenda. If we really want to go shades of grey, then no, Shepard is not an angel. Shepard is bathing in the blood and cooling liquid of thousands of organic and synthetic enemies.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 08 octobre 2012 - 08:26 .

[futurepixels]

dreman9999 wrote...

futurepixels wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...

HiddenInWar wrote...

"Does this unit have a soul?"

That is the only sentence I need to refute that argument.

that doesnt refute anything without an answer, and the answer is no

The fact that it asks means yes.

Not even close to true.  You can program any computer to ask if it has a soul.

But not to ask it on it;s own accored. No programing prompt the geth to ask or even think about that question...It did it on it's own.

The fact that it asked, on it's own accord, means yes.

Still not true.  The Geth could only be asking that because they learn that their creators believe they have a soul, and are just curious if they do as well.  It doesn't mean they have one. 

[Han Shot First]

dreman9999 wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Shepard has no foreknowledge of how the events of Mass Effect 3 will play out, even if the player does. All Shepard has is the word of a murderous, malfunctioning A.I. that has been responsible for the genocide of every space faring civilization that has ever existed in the Milky Way, and who is also responsible for the current attempt to annihilate your own species. Why should Shepard trust it?

Realistically, I don't think he would.

The moment he even pick destroy he is told what it do....He isnot doing this in ignorance.

Again, by an enemy entity that is responsible for innumerable acts of genocide as well as the current attempt to destroy your own species. Its minions, only mere moments before, had tried to kill Shepard. Shepard has no reason whatsoever to trust anything it says.

But even if Shepard does take a leap of faith and trusts the Catalyst, the Catalyst also states that Synthetics can be rebuilt. In other words, death for a Synthetic is not really death at all.

No matter which way you look at it, Destroy is not genocide.