1304 réponses à ce sujet

[ghost9191]

the reapers are what they are, still a threat that would commit genocide multiple times if not stopped.and have before. only way to stop them is to make one out of 4 bs choices.none are right , only which one you can live with

Modifié par ghost9191, 09 octobre 2012 - 02:03 .

[wantedman dan]

Han Shot First wrote...

That is a gross misrepresentation of what actually happens. Shepard does not set out to destroy the Geth simply because they were in his way. Shepard does set out to destroy the Reapers, and in the process of doing so the Geth end up being killed as collateral damage. You are giving Shepard hostile motivations towards the Geth that simply aren't there. The destruction of the Geth is an unintended consequence of firing the Crucible, and as such it does not meet the legal definition for genocide.

Intent is important.

You fully intend to, by picking destroy, destroy the geth to destroy the Reapers. You're misreading my argument and because of that, you obviously aren't understanding it; it's pretty obvious because you are adding the hostility element, not I.

You may have the best intention in destroying the Geth because they're synthetic (Hell, saving the Milky Way is a noble cause indeed). You, however, still intend to destroy the Geth because they're synthetic. Ergo, you are committing genocide.

Benevolent, for-the-greater-good intentions, but genocide still the same.

[Heimdall]

Han Shot First wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...


You have the intent to destroy, in whole, a national, ethnical, racial group of intelligent, sapient beings simply because they were in your way. You a) kill members of the group or c) deliberately inflict on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole.  

That is a gross misrepresentation of what actually happens. Shepard does not set out to destroy the Geth simply because they were in his way. Shepard does set out to destroy the Reapers, and in the process of doing so the Geth end up being killed as collateral damage. You are giving Shepard hostile motivations towards the Geth that simply aren't there. The destruction of the Geth is an unintended consequence of firing the Crucible, and as such it does not meet the legal definition for genocide.

Intent is important.

If Shepard knew the consequences of his actions, could have avoided those consequences, but chose to go through with his actions anyway, then killing the geth was part of Shepard's intent, yes.  Their demise is not an unintended consequence, that would imply lack of knowledge.

[Maxster_]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...
Nah, they are much worse than genocide. Genocide is at least honest.

I'd ague the point but I'm tired.  I will say that your honest choice is the only one that requires you kill friends that trust you to help everyone including them survive the Reapers.

I think all three choices have equal drawbacks, at any rate.

Yeah, other "choices", which are, btw, not mine, are being forced cyborgization of everyone(including your friends) with brainwashing, and benevolent dictatorship based on slavery.
It is so much better to mutilate your friends or put them under martial law. All for the Greater Good.

Modifié par Maxster_, 09 octobre 2012 - 02:07 .

[Han Shot First]

Xilizhra wrote...

Killing all of the Reapers is also genocide, so the geth thing is almost moot. However, as the Crucible could be fired in other ways, the slaughter of the geth could be prevented, but Shepard would choose not to, killing them all due to a perceived threat. Which has been the motivation of many other genocides.

The only choices Shepard beyond Destroy, were allowing the Reapers to win (Refuse), or a stalemate with the Reapers where it is hoped the Reapers will behave and not return to destroying civilizations. (Control & Synthesis)
Destroy is the only option Shepard has for actually achieving his mission and ensuring that the galaxy is saved for all time from the Reaper threat.

Does the destruction of the Reapers constitute genocide? I don't know. The answer to that would depend on what exactly the Reapers are. We know that organics are taken against their will and used to construct Reapers. Is the collective consciousness of these unfortunate organics somehow uploaded onto the Reaper? If so, the destruction of the Reapers is freeing those organic minds trapped within and is more liberation than genocide. Even if the Reaper hive minds are just synthetic copies of those organics, it is hard to feel pity for a race of beings that has caused the mass extinctions of perhaps thousands of sapient space faring species. They earned their place in the rubbish bin of history.

[wantedman dan]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...


You have the intent to destroy, in whole, a national, ethnical, racial group of intelligent, sapient beings simply because they were in your way. You a) kill members of the group or c) deliberately inflict on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole.  

That is a gross misrepresentation of what actually happens. Shepard does not set out to destroy the Geth simply because they were in his way. Shepard does set out to destroy the Reapers, and in the process of doing so the Geth end up being killed as collateral damage. You are giving Shepard hostile motivations towards the Geth that simply aren't there. The destruction of the Geth is an unintended consequence of firing the Crucible, and as such it does not meet the legal definition for genocide.

Intent is important.

If Shepard knew the consequences of his actions, could have avoided those consequences, but chose to go through with his actions anyway, then killing the geth was part of Shepard's intent, yes.  Their demise is not an unintended consequence, that would imply lack of knowledge.

Exactly. You are informed of, before making the decision, its consequences.

[Heimdall]

Maxster_ wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...
Nah, they are much worse than genocide. Genocide is at least honest.

I'd ague the point but I'm tired.  I will say that your honest choice is the only one that requires you kill friends that trust you to help everyone including them survive the Reapers.

I think all three choices have equal drawbacks, at any rate.

Yeah, other "choices", which are, btw, not mine, are being forced cyborgization of everyone(including your friends) with brainwashing, and benevolent dictatorship based on slavery.
It is so much better to mutilate your friends or put them under martial law. All for Greater Good.

Considering most of the things you've mentioned are mischaracterizations of the other choices, I am going to ignore you

[Xilizhra]

The only choices Shepard beyond Destroy, were allowing the Reapers to win (Refuse), or a stalemate with the Reapers where it is hoped the Reapers will behave and not return to destroying civilizations. (Control & Synthesis)
Destroy is the only option Shepard has for actually achieving his mission and ensuring that the galaxy is saved for all time from the Reaper threat.

No it's not; all of them work perfectly to stop the cycle. Also, Destroy leaves the galaxy screwed from the Leviathan threat and potentially the krogan as well.

Does the destruction of the Reapers constitute genocide? I don't know. The answer to that would depend on what exactly the Reapers are. We know that organics are taken against their will and used to construct Reapers. Is the collective consciousness of these unfortunate organics somehow uploaded onto the Reaper? If so, the destruction of the Reapers is freeing those organic minds trapped within and is more liberation than genocide. Even if the Reaper hive minds are just synthetic copies of those organics, it is hard to feel pity for a race of beings that has caused the mass extinctions of perhaps thousands of sapient space faring species. They earned their place in the rubbish bin of history.

Death isn't freedom. And the Reapers haven't "earned" anything; none of them could choose to do anything else. If the Reapers want to die, then fine, but killing them all off for crimes they had literally no choice in committing is still genocide, and what I would consider evil.

[Han Shot First]

wantedman dan wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

That is a gross misrepresentation of what actually happens. Shepard does not set out to destroy the Geth simply because they were in his way. Shepard does set out to destroy the Reapers, and in the process of doing so the Geth end up being killed as collateral damage. You are giving Shepard hostile motivations towards the Geth that simply aren't there. The destruction of the Geth is an unintended consequence of firing the Crucible, and as such it does not meet the legal definition for genocide.

Intent is important.

You fully intend to, by picking destroy, destroy the geth to destroy the Reapers. You're misreading my argument and because of that, you obviously aren't understanding it; it's pretty obvious because you are adding the hostility element, not I.

You may have the best intention in destroying the Geth because they're synthetic (Hell, saving the Milky Way is a noble cause indeed). You, however, still intend to destroy the Geth because they're synthetic. Ergo, you are committing genocide.

Benevolent, for-the-greater-good intentions, but genocide still the same.

No, you're still imposing motivations on Shepard that just aren't there.

You are implying that he desires to kill the Geth because their synthetics, as if the news that the Geth had been destroyed by the Crucible would be welcome. In short, you are flat out making things up. No such motivation is ever implied in the ending, and if Shepard truly wanted to destroy the Geth he could have done so on Rannoch.

The destruction of the Geth is an unintended consequence of firing the Crucible. Ergo, not genocide.

[Xilizhra]

No, you're still imposing motivations on Shepard that just aren't there.

You are implying that he desires to kill the Geth because their synthetics, as if the news that the Geth had been destroyed by the Crucible would be welcome. In short, you are flat out making things up. No such motivation is ever implied in the ending, and if Shepard truly wanted to destroy the Geth he could have done so on Rannoch.

The destruction of the Geth is an unintended consequence of firing the Crucible. Ergo, not genocide.

Shepard desires to kill the geth because their lives are less valuable than the genocide of the Reapers.

[Heimdall]

Han Shot First wrote...

Does the destruction of the Reapers constitute genocide? I don't know. The answer to that would depend on what exactly the Reapers are. We know that organics are taken against their will and used to construct Reapers. Is the collective consciousness of these unfortunate organics somehow uploaded onto the Reaper? If so, the destruction of the Reapers is freeing those organic minds trapped within and is more liberation than genocide.

What you describe is still genocide.  Justifying it as a mercy killing doesn't change that.

[Maxster_]

I like that definiton's play.
So now destroying whole race is not a genocide, because it was not intentional(but informed), and not systematic(geth are killed instantly).
It still destroying entire race, but it is not a genocide, so you may feel better about it

Modifié par Maxster_, 09 octobre 2012 - 02:11 .

[wantedman dan]

Han Shot First wrote...

No, you're still imposing motivations on Shepard that just aren't there.

You are implying that he desires to kill the Geth because their synthetics, as if the news that the Geth had been destroyed by the Crucible would be welcome. In short, you are flat out making things up. No such motivation is ever implied in the ending, and if Shepard truly wanted to destroy the Geth he could have done so on Rannoch.

The destruction of the Geth is an unintended consequence of firing the Crucible. Ergo, not genocide.

If you wish to continue denying that, despite all evidence to the contrary, you are fully informed in making the decision as to what the consequences of choosing destroy would be before making it; further, if you wish to continue to bastardize the definition of "genocide" to suit your own obviously delicate sensibilities and in an attempt to justify the abhorrence you forced upon an entire race of people (sapient life, no less), be my guest.

You look foolish, your argument is weak, and you are the internet-forum-equivalent to the petulant child putting his fingers in his ears screaming, "LALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU"

Good luck with that.

[Han Shot First]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...


You have the intent to destroy, in whole, a national, ethnical, racial group of intelligent, sapient beings simply because they were in your way. You a) kill members of the group or c) deliberately inflict on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole.  

That is a gross misrepresentation of what actually happens. Shepard does not set out to destroy the Geth simply because they were in his way. Shepard does set out to destroy the Reapers, and in the process of doing so the Geth end up being killed as collateral damage. You are giving Shepard hostile motivations towards the Geth that simply aren't there. The destruction of the Geth is an unintended consequence of firing the Crucible, and as such it does not meet the legal definition for genocide.

Intent is important.

If Shepard knew the consequences of his actions, could have avoided those consequences, but chose to go through with his actions anyway, then killing the geth was part of Shepard's intent, yes.  Their demise is not an unintended consequence, that would imply lack of knowledge.

That assumes that Shepard knows that all of the Geth would perish when the Crucible fires, when the only information he has that indicates that they might, is the word of his arch enemy. That information comes from an entity that was responsible for every mass extinction cycle, including the current attempt, and an entity whose minions had just tried to kill Shepard mere minutes before. Additionally if the Crucible destroyes the Reapers it will destroy the Catalyst as well. With all of the above in mind, Shepard has no reason to trust it. For all he knew, the information on the Geth could just as likely been an attempt at deception, to convince Shepard to choose an option that doesn't destroy the Catalyst. (Synthesis)

In short information that the player has is not necessarily the same information that Shepard has. The player may know how Destroy will play out, but Shepard doesn't.

[Maxster_]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...
Nah, they are much worse than genocide. Genocide is at least honest.

I'd ague the point but I'm tired.  I will say that your honest choice is the only one that requires you kill friends that trust you to help everyone including them survive the Reapers.

I think all three choices have equal drawbacks, at any rate.

Yeah, other "choices", which are, btw, not mine, are being forced cyborgization of everyone(including your friends) with brainwashing, and benevolent dictatorship based on slavery.
It is so much better to mutilate your friends or put them under martial law. All for Greater Good.

Considering most of the things you've mentioned are mischaracterizations of the other choices, I am going to ignore you

As if i care.
Manipulations and demagogy won't work on me.

[wantedman dan]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Yeah, definitely genocide.

B--but, I didn't really want to kill the Geth but I did it anyway.

[Han Shot First]

wantedman dan wrote...


If you wish to continue denying that, despite all evidence to the contrary, you are fully informed in making the decision as to what the consequences of choosing destroy would be before making it; further, if you wish to continue to bastardize the definition of "genocide" to suit your own obviously delicate sensibilities and in an attempt to justify the abhorrence you forced upon an entire race of people (sapient life, no less), be my guest.

You look foolish, your argument is weak, and you are the internet-forum-equivalent to the petulant child putting his fingers in his ears screaming, "LALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU"

Good luck with that.

I've already demonstrated multiple times how the Destroy ending doesn't meet the legal definition of genocide. Simply sticking your head in the sand or flat out making things up, isn't a very effective strategy for debate. If anyone is looking a fool here, it is yourself, when you've been owned multiple times by facts.

Furthermore your contention that the collateral damage of of Destroy is genocide, while the much greater collateral damage of Refuse is not, makes you look like a hypocrite and a simpleton. You are applying different standards to the various endings in a very weak defense of the one you selected as your favorite.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 09 octobre 2012 - 02:20 .

[Heimdall]

Han Shot First wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...


You have the intent to destroy, in whole, a national, ethnical, racial group of intelligent, sapient beings simply because they were in your way. You a) kill members of the group or c) deliberately inflict on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole.  

That is a gross misrepresentation of what actually happens. Shepard does not set out to destroy the Geth simply because they were in his way. Shepard does set out to destroy the Reapers, and in the process of doing so the Geth end up being killed as collateral damage. You are giving Shepard hostile motivations towards the Geth that simply aren't there. The destruction of the Geth is an unintended consequence of firing the Crucible, and as such it does not meet the legal definition for genocide.

Intent is important.

If Shepard knew the consequences of his actions, could have avoided those consequences, but chose to go through with his actions anyway, then killing the geth was part of Shepard's intent, yes.  Their demise is not an unintended consequence, that would imply lack of knowledge.

That assumes that Shepard knows that all of the Geth would perish when the Crucible fires, when the only information he has that indicates that they might, is the word of his arch enemy. That information comes from an entity that was responsible for every mass extinction cycle, including the current attempt, and an entity whose minions had just tried to kill Shepard mere minutes before. Additionally if the Crucible destroyes the Reapers it will destroy the Catalyst as well. With all of the above in mind, Shepard has no reason to trust it. For all he knew, the information on the Geth could just as likely been an attempt at deception, to convince Shepard to choose an option that doesn't destroy the Catalyst. (Synthesis)

In short information that the player has is not necessarily the same information that Shepard has. The player may know how Destroy will play out, but Shepard doesn't.

A hollow argument.  If Shepard doesn't trust the Catalyst at all there's no reason to believe Destroy will kill the Reapers.  You either choose to take the Catalyst's word for it, or you willfully choose to ignore the consequences you don't like whle accepting the ones you do with no reason for doing so besides personal preference.

[ghost9191]

it isn't genocide, it be sacrifice to stop reapers, jut happened to be big

and fyi the geth could have been destroyed on rannoch, boom problem solved. now it is all on the quarians

[Heimdall]

Maxster_ wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...
Nah, they are much worse than genocide. Genocide is at least honest.

I'd ague the point but I'm tired.  I will say that your honest choice is the only one that requires you kill friends that trust you to help everyone including them survive the Reapers.

I think all three choices have equal drawbacks, at any rate.

Yeah, other "choices", which are, btw, not mine, are being forced cyborgization of everyone(including your friends) with brainwashing, and benevolent dictatorship based on slavery.
It is so much better to mutilate your friends or put them under martial law. All for Greater Good.

Considering most of the things you've mentioned are mischaracterizations of the other choices, I am going to ignore you

As if i care.
Manipulations and demagogy won't work on me.

No, nothing seems to stop you from fabricating information to put down the options you don't like, does it?

[Han Shot First]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...


You have the intent to destroy, in whole, a national, ethnical, racial group of intelligent, sapient beings simply because they were in your way. You a) kill members of the group or c) deliberately inflict on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole.  

That is a gross misrepresentation of what actually happens. Shepard does not set out to destroy the Geth simply because they were in his way. Shepard does set out to destroy the Reapers, and in the process of doing so the Geth end up being killed as collateral damage. You are giving Shepard hostile motivations towards the Geth that simply aren't there. The destruction of the Geth is an unintended consequence of firing the Crucible, and as such it does not meet the legal definition for genocide.

Intent is important.

If Shepard knew the consequences of his actions, could have avoided those consequences, but chose to go through with his actions anyway, then killing the geth was part of Shepard's intent, yes.  Their demise is not an unintended consequence, that would imply lack of knowledge.

That assumes that Shepard knows that all of the Geth would perish when the Crucible fires, when the only information he has that indicates that they might, is the word of his arch enemy. That information comes from an entity that was responsible for every mass extinction cycle, including the current attempt, and an entity whose minions had just tried to kill Shepard mere minutes before. Additionally if the Crucible destroyes the Reapers it will destroy the Catalyst as well. With all of the above in mind, Shepard has no reason to trust it. For all he knew, the information on the Geth could just as likely been an attempt at deception, to convince Shepard to choose an option that doesn't destroy the Catalyst. (Synthesis)

In short information that the player has is not necessarily the same information that Shepard has. The player may know how Destroy will play out, but Shepard doesn't.

A hollow argument.  If Shepard doesn't trust the Catalyst at all there's no reason to believe Destroy will kill the Reapers.  You either choose to take the Catalyst's word for it, or you willfully choose to ignore the consequences you don't like whle accepting the ones you do with no reason for doing so besides personal preference.

Not all.

If Shepard doesn't trust Catalyst, he has no reason to trust that it is being honest about the Geth being destroyed. He knows however that the Crucible will destroy Reapers, because it was created for that very purpose.

If Shepard does trust the Catalyst, the Catalyst mentions that anything destroyed can be rebuild, in response to a query on how the Crucible will affect Synthetics.

No matter which angle you look it from, it isn't genocide. In the former Shepard doesn't have intent, and in the latter it isn't genocide if death isn't permanent. What makes murder so heinous a crime is the finality of it.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 09 octobre 2012 - 02:26 .

[Xilizhra]

If Shepard doesn't trust Catalyst, he has no reason to trust that it is being honest about the Geth being destroyed.

There's no reason to believe the Catalyst if it says that the Reapers will be destroyed, even. Maybe shooting the tube will cause some kind of backfire that destroys the Crucible and dooms the galaxy.

No matter which angle you look it from, it isn't genocide. In the former Shepard doesn't have intent, and in the latter it isn't genocide if death isn't permanent. What makes murder so heinous a crime is the finality of it.

The shells might be repurposed, but the programming has been completely obliterated and all identity is gone forever. Rebuilding, but not reviving. The geth are all dead and you killed them.

[wantedman dan]

Han Shot First wrote...

I've already demonstrated multiple times how the Destroy ending doesn't meet the legal definition of genocide. Simply sticking your head in the sand or flat out making things up, isn't a very effective strategy for debate. If anyone is looking a fool here, it is yourself, when you've been owned multiple times by facts.

Furthermore your contention that the collateral damage of of Destroy is genocide, while the much greater collateral damage of Refuse is not, makes you look like a hypocrite and a simpleton. You are applying different standards to the various endings in a very weak defense of the one you selected as your favorite.

Basically, all you've provided me thus far is "Nu-uh. Ur wrng" Boo-hoo all you'd like, the fact is, the legal, rational, dictionary-found definition agrees that yes, you committed genocide.

Spin all you'd like. You had alternatives, yet after being fully informed, you still chose to annihilate the Geth because they were synthetic. Oh, my sincerest apologies if that description offends you. Run to your room, shut off all the lights, lock the door, and resume the fetal position until the bad man goes away.

I'm well aware of the fact that the refusal ending leads to omnicide on a galactic scale. The difference is I am not personally destroying each and every life lost as I would have had I chosen the destroy option. That is where you and I differ. You, out of some sense of moral and ethical preservation, wish to will away the definition of genocide. I acknowledge that my choice led to abominations.

The least you could do is accept that your decision did as well.

I don't, however, have much hope that you fully grasp the gravity of the decision made.

[wantedman dan]

ghost9191 wrote...

it isn't genocide, it be sacrifice to stop reapers, jut happened to be big

and fyi the geth could have been destroyed on rannoch, boom problem solved. now it is all on the quarians

You may sacrifice them, but it is still genocidal sacrifice.