1304 réponses à ce sujet

[Han Shot First]

Shepard didn't commit genocide in the Bahak system either. Or at least he didn't if he attempts to warn the Batarians so they can evacuate.

Like the Geth, it is collateral damage.

[Han Shot First]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Shepard didn't commit genocide in the Bahak system either. Or at least he didn't if he attempts to warn the Batarians so they can evacuate.

Like the Geth, it is collateral damage.

Destory is genocide Han.

It doesn't meet the legal definition.

Shepard could never be convicted of it post-war.

[wantedman dan]

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

Which obviously means that the Catalyst has another solution in mind, seeing as how he is the Reapers.

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.

If you can point to me one situation that is as black and white as that ethic, I will stop laughing at the hopeless utilitarianism you use to justify your abominiation of a decision.

[wantedman dan]

Han Shot First wrote...

It doesn't meet the legal definition.

Shepard could never be convicted of it post-war.

Just like we all know how a finding of "not guilty" automatically means you didn't do it. OJ would be proud of your nonsensical argument.

[Han Shot First]

wantedman dan wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

It doesn't meet the legal definition.

Shepard could never be convicted of it post-war.

Just like we all know how a finding of "not guilty" automatically means you didn't do it. OJ would be proud of your nonsensical argument.

He would never be convicted it, because Destroy doesn't meet the legal definition of genocide. It is an example of friendly fire and collateral damage, not genocide.

Your argument has no substance and is a misuse of the word genocide.

[wantedman dan]

Han Shot First wrote...

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.

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

So basically, "Nu-uh, ur wrng." Thank you for clarifying.

Instead of making a rational point, you scream that I'm wrong and vomit up definitions that you think suit you. This is sad.

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.

I'm sorry you misunderstand what an RPG is.

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.

If you seriously believe I've characterized my argument as such, you either are purposefully ignoring everything I've said on the subject--in this thread, even--or you simply can't comprehend what I'm saying.

I'll slow it down so you can keep up:
I -- recog-nize -- that -- refusal -- leads -- to -- omnicide. The -- diff-erence -- is -- I -- did -- not -- commit -- the -- atrocity.

Better?

[wantedman dan]

Han Shot First wrote...

He would never be convicted it, because Destroy doesn't meet the legal definition of genocide. It is an example of friendly fire and collateral damage, not genocide.

Your argument has no substance and is a misuse of the word genocide.

You have two separate arguments incorrectly conjoined as one.

Either he wouldn't be convicted of it, or he didn't do it. You need to decide which one you're going to use.

[wantedman dan]

Fandango9641 wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

It doesn't meet the legal definition.

Shepard could never be convicted of it post-war.

Just like we all know how a finding of "not guilty" automatically means you didn't do it. OJ would be proud of your nonsensical argument.

It's a nonsensical, nonsensical argument, in that there are many legal definitions for genocide that could easily finger destroy Shep as a war criminal.

"I didn't like killing the Geth, but I did it purposefully anyway, therefore not genocide."

How does that make sense?

[Han Shot First]

wantedman dan wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

He would never be convicted it, because Destroy doesn't meet the legal definition of genocide. It is an example of friendly fire and collateral damage, not genocide.

Your argument has no substance and is a misuse of the word genocide.

You have two separate arguments incorrectly conjoined as one.

Either he wouldn't be convicted of it, or he didn't do it. You need to decide which one you're going to use.

He wouldn't be convicted of it because it does not meet the legal definition of genocide, and thus could not be charged with it. It isn't that difficult to understand.

[Obadiah]

ghost9191 wrote...
...
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:

If one has power, one will be judged - even for inaction. That is the way of things.

[wantedman dan]

Han Shot First wrote...

He wouldn't be convicted of it because it does not meet the legal definition of genocide, and thus could not be charged with it. It isn't that difficult to understand.

Except that it does, and he still wouldn't be convicted of it.

See? I can do it, too.

[Xilizhra]

If you can point to me one situation that is as black and white as that ethic, I will stop laughing at the hopeless utilitarianism you use to justify your abominiation of a decision.

A bit hard to laugh when you and the entire galaxy have died because of your lack of a choice. Your deontology was apparently not enough to save the galaxy; I'm quite certain those who yet live in mine are glad that I did something.

[wantedman dan]

Fandango9641 wrote...

It doesn't.

So I'm going to whine about how it isn't genocide until someone puts the binkie back in my mouth and I take a nap. 

[wantedman dan]

Xilizhra wrote...

If you can point to me one situation that is as black and white as that ethic, I will stop laughing at the hopeless utilitarianism you use to justify your abominiation of a decision.

A bit hard to laugh when you and the entire galaxy have died because of your lack of a choice. Your deontology was apparently not enough to save the galaxy; I'm quite certain those who yet live in mine are glad that I did something.

You see, that's where you're wrong--you incorrectly assume that the deontological approach is all I used to weigh the decision. The situation is not black-and-white enough for one approach to take sole consideration.

I'm quite certain that the legacy I left in mine leads to a far brighter future than your obviously corruptible sense of purpose.

[Xilizhra]

wantedman dan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

If you can point to me one situation that is as black and white as that ethic, I will stop laughing at the hopeless utilitarianism you use to justify your abominiation of a decision.

A bit hard to laugh when you and the entire galaxy have died because of your lack of a choice. Your deontology was apparently not enough to save the galaxy; I'm quite certain those who yet live in mine are glad that I did something.

You see, that's where you're wrong--you incorrectly assume that the deontological approach is all I used to weigh the decision. The situation is not black-and-white enough for one approach to take sole consideration.

I'm quite certain that the legacy I left in mine leads to a far brighter future than your obviously corruptible sense of purpose.

A legacy of trillions more preventable deaths? How is that future brighter? Especially since the cycle that did win actually used the Crucible, so all you did was delay things with blood.

[Han Shot First]

wantedman dan wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

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.

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

So basically, "Nu-uh, ur wrng." Thank you for clarifying.

Instead of making a rational point, you scream that I'm wrong and vomit up definitions that you think suit you. This is sad.

What a brilliant rebuttal.

I see that the facts are provoking you into a towering rage. As much I personally enjoy that and would love to continue, perhaps you'd be better off unplugging your computer, getting some fresh air, and taking stock of what is really important?

I'm sorry you misunderstand what an RPG is.

You guide the protagonists actions in the story, but you are not actually the protagonist.

That you are confusing the two is a little disturbing.

I'll slow it down so you can keep up:
I -- recog-nize -- that -- refusal -- leads -- to -- omnicide. The -- diff-erence -- is -- I -- did -- not -- commit -- the -- atrocity.

Better?

No, but your Shepard willingly let the Reapers do it. That makes him complicit, if only because of his or her complete and utter stupidity. I'm sorry that you chose to turn the protagonist into an incompetent leader, and I'm also sorry that you chose to lose the game. Try winning next time. It is much more satisfying.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 09 octobre 2012 - 03:28 .

[Maxster_]

Han Shot First wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Shepard didn't commit genocide in the Bahak system either. Or at least he didn't if he attempts to warn the Batarians so they can evacuate.

Like the Geth, it is collateral damage.

Destory is genocide Han.

It doesn't meet the legal definition.

Shepard could never be convicted of it post-war.

What a laughable excuse

[wantedman dan]

Han Shot First wrote...

What a brilliant rebuttal.

I see that the facts are provoking you into a towering rage. As much I personally enjoy that and would love to continue, perhaps you'd be better off unplugging your computer, getting some fresh air, and taking stock of what is really important?

Please, continue. I enjoy when people try to psychoanalyze internet forum patrons. 

You guide the protagonists actions in the story, but you are not actually the protagonist.

That you are confusing the two is a little disturbing.

You assume the role of the protagonist. Hence the name Role-Playing-Game.

Apparently you didn't know what it was.

No, but your Shepard willingly let the Reapers do it.

That, I'm willing to concede because of gaudy autodialogue and l. I would have gone about that scene entirely different, at least dependent upon war assets.

That makes him complicit, if only in his complete and utter stupidity. I'm sorry that you chose to turn the protagonist into an incompetent leader, and I'm sorry that you chose the game. Try winning next time. It is much more satisfying.

This, however, is a tremendous leap in logic worthy of an olympic gold medal. I'm eager to see how you spin this.

[wantedman dan]

Xilizhra wrote...

A legacy of trillions more preventable deaths? How is that future brighter? Especially since the cycle that did win actually used the Crucible, so all you did was delay things with blood.

Since when was Twittercanon, canon?