1304 réponses à ce sujet

[Aaleel]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Aaleel wrote...


People are not trying to rationalize responsibility.  Shepard did it, just like he/she flew the asteroid in the relay.  Shepard is responsible for thsose deaths and has to live with it.  People are saying that what they did does not constitute a heinous WAR CRIME.

and shepard turned hin/herself over to the authorities. shep does know that he commited a heavy crime and is willing to take the consequences.


the point is, that there are people here, who think that killing innocent is moraly acceptable, if a sh*tstorm reaches a certein intensity.

No Shepard turned his/herself in to avoid war with the Batarians because Hackett knew they would want blood.  Shepard afterwards never says anything about having committed a crime, and pretty much calls his/her situation nonsense at the beginning of the game.

[masster blaster]

Lord Aesir wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...
If you don't trust him at all, there's no reason to believe Destroy
won't kill EDI and the Geth while leaving the Reapers completely fine.

agreed.

That could be said about Synthesis too Lord.

I know, that's why I said I do put a certain degree of trust in the Catalyst.  Otherwise, we have no information to base any decisions on.

I'm also not certain its even capable of lying.

Are you for real?

It over through it's creators, and you don't think it can lie.

[Heimdall]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Kabooooom wrote...

You did not commit genocide on the citizens of whatever country you used it in, you just didn't I'm sorry. What you did was not a war crime.

This was analogous to using the atomic bombs. A similar situation, but no one can question the moral ramifications of that choice. Whether you call it genocide, or mass murder of innocents, or a war crime - whatever you want to call it, it doesn't matter. You are killing people to save a greater number of people.

The problem is, as Taboo pointed out and as I pointed out earlier in this discussion, people are trying to rationalize away responsibility. And that's kind of missing the point.

brought it to the point.

thats what i am trying to show.

everybody rationalizes things every day. We have to eat so we eat plants or meat. Either way, we are taking a life to preserve our own.

Extinction is hardly comparable

not extinction if the synthetic can be rebuilt.

The geth is dead, what it was is lost forever.  Don't dodge the issue.

[BatmanTurian]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Legion was willing to sacrifice his creators to save the Geth.

Why is it morally repulsive for organics to do the same? Why are you guys holding yourselves at a higher moral ground?

I think this whole thing has no real answer. we're bringing different viewpoints to it. I don't think there will ever be concensus on something like this.

[MegaSovereign]

Fandango9641 wrote...

So we all agree: Destroy is definitely genocide, Destroy Shep is a war criminal and Refuse is the only morally conscionable choice on offer. Splendid.

What a marvelous game!

Shepard isn't a war criminal. Quit being so narrow-minded. Jeez.

[Aaleel]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

Kabooooom wrote...

You did not commit genocide on the citizens of whatever country you used it in, you just didn't I'm sorry. What you did was not a war crime.

This was analogous to using the atomic bombs. A similar situation, but no one can question the moral ramifications of that choice. Whether you call it genocide, or mass murder of innocents, or a war crime - whatever you want to call it, it doesn't matter. You are killing people to save a greater number of people.

The problem is, as Taboo pointed out and as I pointed out earlier in this discussion, people are trying to rationalize away responsibility. And that's kind of missing the point.

People are not trying to rationalize responsibility.  Shepard did it, just like he/she flew the asteroid in the relay.  Shepard is responsible for thsose deaths and has to live with it.  People are saying that what they did does not constitute a heinous WAR CRIME.

Annihilating an entire sentient race, allies no less, is heinous no matter what way you spin it.  What your doing is rationalizing away just how bad it is through semantics.

No one said it wasn't bad.  Like I said in my other post Shepard did it and has to live with it.  But what Shepard did wasn't a crime.

When the reapers first came through Hackett sacrificed an entire fleet to allow the others to escape and live on to fight another day.  Judging by this thread Hackett committed a crime and murdered these people.

[Heimdall]

masster blaster wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...
If you don't trust him at all, there's no reason to believe Destroy
won't kill EDI and the Geth while leaving the Reapers completely fine.

agreed.

That could be said about Synthesis too Lord.

I know, that's why I said I do put a certain degree of trust in the Catalyst.  Otherwise, we have no information to base any decisions on.

I'm also not certain its even capable of lying.

Are you for real?

It over through it's creators, and you don't think it can lie.

I don't think its ever had to.

The Leviathans gave it free reign to solve the problem they gave it.  It turned their own resources against them.  As far as its concerned, its only ever been following orders.

[BatmanTurian]

Fandango9641 wrote...

So we all agree: Destroy is definitely genocide, Destroy Shep is a war criminal and Refuse is the only morally conscionable choice on offer. Splendid.

What a marvelous game!

no we don't all agree.

[Rip504]

Lord Aesir wrote...

The geth is dead, what it was is lost forever.  Don't dodge the issue.

Then you should not dodge the issue of the Geth being considered synthetic.

If you rebuild the Geth,the are still synthetic Geth. Reaper AI and 300 years of experience is lost,but not the Geth species(if rebuilt).

[Cobretti ftw]

Of course it i s genocide. THis is pretty much clear. Its one of the major points in the franchise.

[BatmanTurian]

Lord Aesir wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Kabooooom wrote...

You did not commit genocide on the citizens of whatever country you used it in, you just didn't I'm sorry. What you did was not a war crime.

This was analogous to using the atomic bombs. A similar situation, but no one can question the moral ramifications of that choice. Whether you call it genocide, or mass murder of innocents, or a war crime - whatever you want to call it, it doesn't matter. You are killing people to save a greater number of people.

The problem is, as Taboo pointed out and as I pointed out earlier in this discussion, people are trying to rationalize away responsibility. And that's kind of missing the point.

brought it to the point.

thats what i am trying to show.

everybody rationalizes things every day. We have to eat so we eat plants or meat. Either way, we are taking a life to preserve our own.

Extinction is hardly comparable

not extinction if the synthetic can be rebuilt.

The geth is dead, what it was is lost forever.  Don't dodge the issue.

There's no dodging. The Quarians can rebuild them. They probably even still have the schematics. Whether they will or not is up to the Quarians, but if the two made peace it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the Quarians would rebuild them in honor of the sacrifice of the originals.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 08 octobre 2012 - 11:48 .

[Dr_Extrem]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Kabooooom wrote...

You did not commit genocide on the citizens of whatever country you used it in, you just didn't I'm sorry. What you did was not a war crime.

This was analogous to using the atomic bombs. A similar situation, but no one can question the moral ramifications of that choice. Whether you call it genocide, or mass murder of innocents, or a war crime - whatever you want to call it, it doesn't matter. You are killing people to save a greater number of people.

The problem is, as Taboo pointed out and as I pointed out earlier in this discussion, people are trying to rationalize away responsibility. And that's kind of missing the point.

brought it to the point.

thats what i am trying to show.

everybody rationalizes things every day. We have to eat so we eat plants or meat. Either way, we are taking a life to preserve our own.

Extinction is hardly comparable

not extinction if the synthetic can be rebuilt.

rebuild - yes ... will they be the same individual, sentient beings - no.

its like .. well we may whiped out that ethnical group because we are scum but we can clone them. a lost individual is irreplaceable. as stated in the game. if an ai like edi is tranfered to another quantum blue box, its personality is irretrievably lost.

[masster blaster]

Lord Aesir wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...
If you don't trust him at all, there's no reason to believe Destroy
won't kill EDI and the Geth while leaving the Reapers completely fine.

agreed.

That could be said about Synthesis too Lord.

I know, that's why I said I do put a certain degree of trust in the Catalyst.  Otherwise, we have no information to base any decisions on.

I'm also not certain its even capable of lying.

Are you for real?

It over through it's creators, and you don't think it can lie.

I don't think its ever had to.

The Leviathans gave it free reign to solve the problem they gave it.  It turned their own resources against them.  As far as its concerned, its only ever been following orders.

yet you don't think it can lie, just like Legion, and EDi lied a few times, and the Leader of the Reapers can't lie.

[masster blaster]

Okay you call Destroy Genocide, well

Control: Dictator Shepard.

Synthesis: galactic rape.

Refuse: worse than Destroy.

Modifié par masster blaster, 08 octobre 2012 - 11:50 .

[KotorEffect3]

Lord Aesir wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Kabooooom wrote...

You did not commit genocide on the citizens of whatever country you used it in, you just didn't I'm sorry. What you did was not a war crime.

This was analogous to using the atomic bombs. A similar situation, but no one can question the moral ramifications of that choice. Whether you call it genocide, or mass murder of innocents, or a war crime - whatever you want to call it, it doesn't matter. You are killing people to save a greater number of people.

The problem is, as Taboo pointed out and as I pointed out earlier in this discussion, people are trying to rationalize away responsibility. And that's kind of missing the point.

brought it to the point.

thats what i am trying to show.

everybody rationalizes things every day. We have to eat so we eat plants or meat. Either way, we are taking a life to preserve our own.

Extinction is hardly comparable

not extinction if the synthetic can be rebuilt.

The geth is dead, what it was is lost forever.  Don't dodge the issue.

In all fairness LA has a point here.  Maybe future geth can be built but the ones that died when the reapers were destroyed went down forever.  New geth maybe can be built but they won't be the same indivuduals from before.  And I am saying this as a guy that justifies using destroy.  Though I am willing to use destroy to kill the reapers I accept the consequences of what it does to the geth as well.  I don't like it but I won't deny what I did to them (even though in my mind it was justified although unfortunate)

[Han Shot First]

wantedman dan wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

I wasn't calling the Batarians collateral damage, I called the Geth collateral damage.  My point on the Batarians was that you didn't commit  genocide on the Batarians just because a large group of them died due to a choice you made.

...

You weren't killing Batarians because they were Batarians. You killed Geth because they were synthetic.

Better?

Except Shepard didn't.

Shepard killed the Reapers and the Geth died as collateral damage. The only scenario where Shepard can actually set out to destroy the Geth is during the Rannoch mission.

Now you're just factually incorrect.

We've been through this very argument before. Spin it all you'd like; fact is, you went in with the knowledge that the Crucible wouldn't discriminate should you choose destroy. Therefore, you willfully and deliberately chose to exterminate Geth alongside the Reapers because they were synthetic.

I may have, but Shepard didn't.

I know what the results of the four ending choices are. Shepard doesn't. You can't argue that Shepard has committed genocide and use as proof information that the player, but not Shepard, has access to. The only information that Shepard has to indicate that the Geth would be destroyed is the word of his arch enemy, whose minions had tried to kill him just minutes before. Shepard has no reason to trust the Catalyst, and even if he does, the Catalyst also states that death is not necessarily final for Synthetics.

Furthermore you're dead wrong when you state that Shepard chooses to destroy the Geth because they are synthetic. At no point during the endings is Shepard given motivations that indicate he or she has a desire to annihilate all Synthetics. You are assigning motives that just aren't there.

[BatmanTurian]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Kabooooom wrote...

You did not commit genocide on the citizens of whatever country you used it in, you just didn't I'm sorry. What you did was not a war crime.

This was analogous to using the atomic bombs. A similar situation, but no one can question the moral ramifications of that choice. Whether you call it genocide, or mass murder of innocents, or a war crime - whatever you want to call it, it doesn't matter. You are killing people to save a greater number of people.

The problem is, as Taboo pointed out and as I pointed out earlier in this discussion, people are trying to rationalize away responsibility. And that's kind of missing the point.

brought it to the point.

thats what i am trying to show.

everybody rationalizes things every day. We have to eat so we eat plants or meat. Either way, we are taking a life to preserve our own.

Extinction is hardly comparable

not extinction if the synthetic can be rebuilt.

rebuild - yes ... will they be the same individual, sentient beings - no.

its like .. well we may whiped out that ethnical group because we are scum but we can clone them. a lost individual is irreplaceable. as stated in the game. if an ai like edi is tranfered to another quantum blue box, its personality is irretrievably lost.

Fine, but the species is not extinct because they can still be rebuilt. the orginals are gone. But they can be brought back.

Just like Mammoths are extinct, but could possibly be brought back one day with genetic engineering.

[Heimdall]

Aaleel wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

Kabooooom wrote...

You did not commit genocide on the citizens of whatever country you used it in, you just didn't I'm sorry. What you did was not a war crime.

This was analogous to using the atomic bombs. A similar situation, but no one can question the moral ramifications of that choice. Whether you call it genocide, or mass murder of innocents, or a war crime - whatever you want to call it, it doesn't matter. You are killing people to save a greater number of people.

The problem is, as Taboo pointed out and as I pointed out earlier in this discussion, people are trying to rationalize away responsibility. And that's kind of missing the point.

People are not trying to rationalize responsibility.  Shepard did it, just like he/she flew the asteroid in the relay.  Shepard is responsible for thsose deaths and has to live with it.  People are saying that what they did does not constitute a heinous WAR CRIME.

Annihilating an entire sentient race, allies no less, is heinous no matter what way you spin it.  What your doing is rationalizing away just how bad it is through semantics.

No one said it wasn't bad.  Like I said in my other post Shepard did it and has to live with it.  But what Shepard did wasn't a crime.

When the reapers first came through Hackett sacrificed an entire fleet to allow the others to escape and live on to fight another day.  Judging by this thread Hackett committed a crime and murdered these people.

You use the word crime as if it has some meaning beyond a legally recognized wrongdoing.  An atrocity does not require legal recognition to be an atrocity.

I'd say the difference is that Hackett didn't point a gun at that fleet and fire, nor was that fleet the entirety of a species.

All of which is beside the point, because, through Shepard's knowing and deliberate action, a friendly sentient race that had only begun to explore its potential as individual thinking beings was made extinct.

[BatmanTurian]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Kabooooom wrote...

You did not commit genocide on the citizens of whatever country you used it in, you just didn't I'm sorry. What you did was not a war crime.

This was analogous to using the atomic bombs. A similar situation, but no one can question the moral ramifications of that choice. Whether you call it genocide, or mass murder of innocents, or a war crime - whatever you want to call it, it doesn't matter. You are killing people to save a greater number of people.

The problem is, as Taboo pointed out and as I pointed out earlier in this discussion, people are trying to rationalize away responsibility. And that's kind of missing the point.

brought it to the point.

thats what i am trying to show.

everybody rationalizes things every day. We have to eat so we eat plants or meat. Either way, we are taking a life to preserve our own.

Extinction is hardly comparable

not extinction if the synthetic can be rebuilt.

The geth is dead, what it was is lost forever.  Don't dodge the issue.

In all fairness LA has a point here.  Maybe future geth can be built but the ones that died when the reapers were destroyed went down forever.  New geth maybe can be built but they won't be the same indivuduals from before.  And I am saying this as a guy that justifies using destroy.  Though I am willing to use destroy to kill the reapers I accept the consequences of what it does to the geth as well.  I don't like it but I won't deny what I did to them (even though in my mind it was justified although unfortunate)

That's fine. but the fact remains they can be rebuilt. Navel gazing and being emo does not change this fact.

[Heimdall]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Kabooooom wrote...

You did not commit genocide on the citizens of whatever country you used it in, you just didn't I'm sorry. What you did was not a war crime.

This was analogous to using the atomic bombs. A similar situation, but no one can question the moral ramifications of that choice. Whether you call it genocide, or mass murder of innocents, or a war crime - whatever you want to call it, it doesn't matter. You are killing people to save a greater number of people.

The problem is, as Taboo pointed out and as I pointed out earlier in this discussion, people are trying to rationalize away responsibility. And that's kind of missing the point.

brought it to the point.

thats what i am trying to show.

everybody rationalizes things every day. We have to eat so we eat plants or meat. Either way, we are taking a life to preserve our own.

Extinction is hardly comparable

not extinction if the synthetic can be rebuilt.

rebuild - yes ... will they be the same individual, sentient beings - no.

its like .. well we may whiped out that ethnical group because we are scum but we can clone them. a lost individual is irreplaceable. as stated in the game. if an ai like edi is tranfered to another quantum blue box, its personality is irretrievably lost.

Fine, but the species is not extinct because they can still be rebuilt. the orginals are gone. But they can be brought back.

Just like Mammoths are extinct, but could possibly be brought back one day with genetic engineering.

I believe that would just make them temporarily extinct, not not extinct. (That wasn't an argument, just an observation)

[Dr_Extrem]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Kabooooom wrote...

You did not commit genocide on the citizens of whatever country you used it in, you just didn't I'm sorry. What you did was not a war crime.

This was analogous to using the atomic bombs. A similar situation, but no one can question the moral ramifications of that choice. Whether you call it genocide, or mass murder of innocents, or a war crime - whatever you want to call it, it doesn't matter. You are killing people to save a greater number of people.

The problem is, as Taboo pointed out and as I pointed out earlier in this discussion, people are trying to rationalize away responsibility. And that's kind of missing the point.

brought it to the point.

thats what i am trying to show.

everybody rationalizes things every day. We have to eat so we eat plants or meat. Either way, we are taking a life to preserve our own.

Extinction is hardly comparable

not extinction if the synthetic can be rebuilt.

rebuild - yes ... will they be the same individual, sentient beings - no.

its like .. well we may whiped out that ethnical group because we are scum but we can clone them. a lost individual is irreplaceable. as stated in the game. if an ai like edi is tranfered to another quantum blue box, its personality is irretrievably lost.

Fine, but the species is not extinct because they can still be rebuilt. the orginals are gone. But they can be brought back.

Just like Mammoths are extinct, but could possibly be brought back one day with genetic engineering.

it is not about rebuilding - its about mass murderering a whole sentient species in the first place.

i highly doubt, that the quarians would ever try to rebuild the geth .. the first time they did it, the geth nearly whiped them out.

[BatmanTurian]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

Kabooooom wrote...

You did not commit genocide on the citizens of whatever country you used it in, you just didn't I'm sorry. What you did was not a war crime.

This was analogous to using the atomic bombs. A similar situation, but no one can question the moral ramifications of that choice. Whether you call it genocide, or mass murder of innocents, or a war crime - whatever you want to call it, it doesn't matter. You are killing people to save a greater number of people.

The problem is, as Taboo pointed out and as I pointed out earlier in this discussion, people are trying to rationalize away responsibility. And that's kind of missing the point.

People are not trying to rationalize responsibility.  Shepard did it, just like he/she flew the asteroid in the relay.  Shepard is responsible for thsose deaths and has to live with it.  People are saying that what they did does not constitute a heinous WAR CRIME.

Annihilating an entire sentient race, allies no less, is heinous no matter what way you spin it.  What your doing is rationalizing away just how bad it is through semantics.

No one said it wasn't bad.  Like I said in my other post Shepard did it and has to live with it.  But what Shepard did wasn't a crime.

When the reapers first came through Hackett sacrificed an entire fleet to allow the others to escape and live on to fight another day.  Judging by this thread Hackett committed a crime and murdered these people.

You use the word crime as if it has some meaning beyond a legally recognized wrongdoing.  An atrocity does not require legal recognition to be an atrocity.

I'd say the difference is that Hackett didn't point a gun at that fleet and fire, nor was that fleet the entirety of a species.

All of which is beside the point, because, through Shepard's knowing and deliberate action, a friendly sentient race that had only begun to explore its potential as individual thinking beings was made extinct.

Let's not forget part of the responsibility is on the Geth themselves and specifically Legion. He uploaded the Reaper code, so he doomed his own race. Instead of taking the short road and looking for a solution, they made a quick shortcut and it ended up biting them in the @**

[Heimdall]

BatmanTurian wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Kabooooom wrote...

You did not commit genocide on the citizens of whatever country you used it in, you just didn't I'm sorry. What you did was not a war crime.

This was analogous to using the atomic bombs. A similar situation, but no one can question the moral ramifications of that choice. Whether you call it genocide, or mass murder of innocents, or a war crime - whatever you want to call it, it doesn't matter. You are killing people to save a greater number of people.

The problem is, as Taboo pointed out and as I pointed out earlier in this discussion, people are trying to rationalize away responsibility. And that's kind of missing the point.

brought it to the point.

thats what i am trying to show.

everybody rationalizes things every day. We have to eat so we eat plants or meat. Either way, we are taking a life to preserve our own.

Extinction is hardly comparable

not extinction if the synthetic can be rebuilt.

The geth is dead, what it was is lost forever.  Don't dodge the issue.

In all fairness LA has a point here.  Maybe future geth can be built but the ones that died when the reapers were destroyed went down forever.  New geth maybe can be built but they won't be the same indivuduals from before.  And I am saying this as a guy that justifies using destroy.  Though I am willing to use destroy to kill the reapers I accept the consequences of what it does to the geth as well.  I don't like it but I won't deny what I did to them (even though in my mind it was justified although unfortunate)

That's fine. but the fact remains they can be rebuilt. Navel gazing and being emo does not change this fact.

Deriding the willingness to contemplate the weight of your actions as emo doesn't really help your case.