1304 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

I acknowledge that my choice led to abominations.

And, well, I made a choice that didn't kill anyone.

[ghost9191]

wantedman dan wrote...

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.

eh details

[Heimdall]

Han Shot First wrote...

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.

Categorically false.  Nobody knows what the Crucible does, they only know that it is intended as a solution to the reaper threat.  There are three solutions to the Reaper threat presented to us.

The Crucible says that more synthetics will be built.  Those synthetics will not be geth.  Not even the quarians fully understood the geth after they were left to evolve independently for three centuries.

Shepard does have intent, as I've explained.  You can't do something without having intent unless you didn't know it was going to happen.  Shepard did.

[wantedman dan]

Xilizhra wrote...

I acknowledge that my choice led to abominations.

And, well, I made a choice that didn't kill anyone.

Forced genetic alterations or authoritarianism via an enslaved fleet of hyperadvanced space-Cthulhus.

[Maxster_]

Lord Aesir wrote...

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?

Fabrications? After failed attempt of manipulation, you now accusing me of making things up?
How killing friends worse than forced cyborgization of said friends?
At least, when they are killed, they are dead, not some brainwashed abomination, which btw, was goal of the genocidal cuttlefishes.

Modifié par Maxster_, 09 octobre 2012 - 02:35 .

[Xilizhra]

wantedman dan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I acknowledge that my choice led to abominations.

And, well, I made a choice that didn't kill anyone.

Forced genetic alterations or authoritarianism via an enslaved fleet of hyperadvanced space-Cthulhus.

Becuase "authoritarianism" is so much worse than omnicide. Hell, forced genetic alterations are still better than that.

[wantedman dan]

ghost9191 wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

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.

eh details

You could go all avian like Han there and put a bag on your head and pretend it's nighttime.

[Han Shot First]

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

1. Sure, but the game doesn't give Shepard any other option but to pick one of the choices presented by the Catalyst. One of the flaws with the ending that most people railed against was having the ending choices be framed by the arch villain. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Shepard doesn't know the Crucible will work until he actually uses it. Everything else is a leap of faith, regardless of which ending is chosen. The intent to destroy the Geth simply isn't there.

2. That assumes that the reconstructed Geth wouldn't be the same entities, which may not be the case. When EDI was reconstructed and upgraded after her destruction on Luna, she retained her memories from Luna. She was the same entity, only upgraded.

[Heimdall]

Maxster_ wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

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?

Fabrications? After failed attempt of manipulation, you now accusing me of making things up?
How killing friends worse than forced cyborgization of said friends?
At least, when they are killed, they are dead, not some brainwashed abomination, which btw, was goal of the genocidal cuttlefishes.

Keep telling yourself that, buddy.

[ghost9191]

well i see it as genocide, but also necessary , at least to me the other options are a no go.

and also see that destroy is the main function of the crucible and control and synthesis use it as a power source , but that was to a earlier comment

[wantedman dan]

Xilizhra wrote...

Becuase "authoritarianism" is so much worse than omnicide. Hell, forced genetic alterations are still better than that.

Yes, they are. I am the one who must commit those atrocities. The Reapers commit omnicide.

[wantedman dan]

ghost9191 wrote...

well i see it as genocide, but also necessary , at least to me the other options are a no go.

and also see that destroy is the main function of the crucible and control and synthesis use it as a power source , but that was to a earlier comment

That's fine. You, at least, accept the gravity of the decision being made.

[Maxster_]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

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?

Fabrications? After failed attempt of manipulation, you now accusing me of making things up?
How killing friends worse than forced cyborgization of said friends?
At least, when they are killed, they are dead, not some brainwashed abomination, which btw, was goal of the genocidal cuttlefishes.

Keep telling yourself that, buddy.

Sure
And you can keep your justification of willing disregard of humanity ethics, in exchange for some "benefits". All for the Greater Good.
And Greater Good, as we all know, doesn't need any justifications

[Xilizhra]

wantedman dan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Becuase "authoritarianism" is so much worse than omnicide. Hell, forced genetic alterations are still better than that.

Yes, they are. I am the one who must commit those atrocities. The Reapers commit omnicide.

Actually, the Reapers lack free will and don't "commit" anything. Heck, even the Catalyst wants to use the Crucible to find a new solution, but is incapable of activating it, so even it doesn't seem to have free will. Shepard is the only agent in this choice, and it's her responsibility if she shirks that choice and continues the cycle.

And even if you don't think of it like that, it doesn't matter to me. Who commits what is irrelevant. All that matters is the result, and if I can take a dubious action to prevent someone from taking a far worse one, and if said action is the only option that can be taken to prevent the worse one, then hell yes, I'll do it, without shame.

[Maxster_]

wantedman dan wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

well i see it as genocide, but also necessary , at least to me the other options are a no go.

and also see that destroy is the main function of the crucible and control and synthesis use it as a power source , but that was to a earlier comment

That's fine. You, at least, accept the gravity of the decision being made.

Yeah.

[wantedman dan]

Xilizhra wrote...

Actually, the Reapers lack free will and don't "commit" anything. Heck, even the Catalyst wants to use the Crucible to find a new solution, but is incapable of activating it, so even it doesn't seem to have free will. Shepard is the only agent in this choice, and it's her responsibility if she shirks that choice and continues the cycle.

And even if you don't think of it like that, it doesn't matter to me. Who commits what is irrelevant. All that matters is the result, and if I can take a dubious action to prevent someone from taking a far worse one, and if said action is the only option that can be taken to prevent the worse one, then hell yes, I'll do it, without shame.

That's why, instead of finding someone else or sending Shepard away, the Crucible is deactivated and the Reapers continue their onslaught. Yes, definitely interested in finding a new solution ahead of committing to the cycle again.

If you're able to so easily abandon your principles when the situation suits you, that isn't my problem. Integrity, I surmise, is something sorely lacking.

[Heimdall]

Han Shot First wrote...

1. Sure, but the game doesn't give Shepard any other option but to pick one of the choices presented by the Catalyst. One of the flaws with the ending that most people railed against was having the ending choices be framed by the arch villain. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Shepard doesn't know the Crucible will work until he actually uses it. Everything else is a leap of faith, regardless of which ending is chosen. The intent to destroy the Geth simply isn't there.

That's called willfully ignoring what you would prefer not to be true.

[Heimdall]

Maxster_ wrote...
Sure
And you can keep your justification of willing disregard of humanity ethics, in exchange for some "benefits". All for the Greater Good.
And Greater Good, as we all know, doesn't need any justifications

Uh huh, right :innocent:

[Maxster_]

Fandango9641 wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Yeah, definitely genocide.

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

I feel you dude, my Shep made the conscious choice to sacrifice all Geth too .Thing is, I kinda feel bad about it, so decided to find another word for 'genocide'. I settled on 'snuggles'. I mean, I know it's genocide (how could it not be), but if everybody squints their eyes and tilts their heads just so, my Shep might not have to take responsibility for the snuggles.

Ahhhhhhhh snuggles.

Yes, definitions is more important than the deeds. Deeds are irrelevant, definitions ftw.

Modifié par Maxster_, 09 octobre 2012 - 02:51 .

[Xilizhra]

That's why, instead of finding someone else or sending Shepard away, the Crucible is deactivated and the Reapers continue their onslaught. Yes, definitely interested in finding a new solution ahead of committing to the cycle again.

The Reapers are hammering on the Crucible right now and there's no time for anyone else to show up. If the Crucible was active, the explosion might destroy the Citadel, which the Catalyst wouldn't want for several reasons, despite it not affecting the cycle continuing in all likelihood.

If you're able to so easily abandon your principles when the situation suits you, that isn't my problem. Integrity, I surmise, is something sorely lacking.

I have one principle above all others, and that is "Seek the best outcome for the greatest number of people." I can only do this by taking action.

[ghost9191]

Fandango9641 wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Yeah, definitely genocide.

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

I feel you dude, my Shep made the conscious choice to sacrifice all Geth too .Thing is, I kinda feel bad about it, so decided to find another word for 'genocide'. I settled on 'snuggles'. I mean, I know it's genocide (how could it not be), but if everybody squints their eyes and tilts their heads just so, my Shep might not have to take responsibility for the snuggles.

Ahhhhhhhh snuggles.

been wondering about that, how the galaxy would react to shepard sacrificing the geth,. commited genocide with destroying the bahak system and most found it necessary. if you choose to side with the quarians most of the crew thinks it was right, because of what the geth did in the past. not saying it is but just wondering how shepard would be treated. guessing a hero by most but more often then not heroes have to do bad things


and the batarians were upset about the bahak system ,  but if you destroy all geth well , no geth left to be mad:crying:

Modifié par ghost9191, 09 octobre 2012 - 02:55 .

[Han Shot First]

wantedman dan wrote...

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.

Sorry, but no.

Collateral damage would never get a conviction for genocide. It just does not simply meet the legal requirements, and those like yourself using the term genocide in this discussion either don't understand the term, or are intentionally misusing it to suit an agenda.

Again, Article II of the 1948 United Nations' Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as, "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group."


The Oxford dictionary defines genocide as, "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group."

In other words genocide is the deliberate killing of a large group of people, because they're different in some way. The intent and deliberate nature of it are important, and Shepard's actions during the finale of Mass Effect 3 meet neither the legal nor the dictionary definitions for 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.

There isn't any spin to either the legal or dictionary definitions of genocide, both of which don't support your argument.

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.

You seem to have a problem seperating yourself from the fictional protagonist in the story, since you keep using personal pronouns (You, I, Me, ect) to refer to actions Shepard may have taken in the game. I think that might be linked to why you are getting so emotional about this issue. Let me reiterate: YOU ARE NOT SHEPARD.

With that out of the way, you are arguing that the collateral damage of Destroy is genocide while the collateral damage of Refuse is not. That doesn't make a lick of sense.

For the record I don't believe Refuse is genocide either, just the consequences of a tactically inept Shepard making a very bad choice that ends in a flawless Reaper victory. It isn't genocide, just colossal stupidity.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 09 octobre 2012 - 02:58 .