1304 réponses à ce sujet

[Maxster_]

drayfish wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

@drayfish
War crimes aren't justifiable by necessity. That is why they are war crimes. Hence the arguments that Destroy is Genocide are pure hyperbole, and that is the semantic game.

Obadiah wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...
...
"necessity" is a very interesting thing.
You order a massive MIRV artillery strike at town, where is some enemy presense, knowing that this artillery strike is going to level the city with all it's inhabitants; to lesser losses of your divison. Is this a necessity?

There is a military principle that covers that.

This is absurd.  You are quoting a specific military doctrine that is intended to rationalise and justify the extreme application of force in war time.  That does not alter the actions themselves from being what they are, merely the way in which they are to be prosecuted.  They are not 'crimes' in this context because they will not be punished.  That does not fundamentally alter what those original actions were.  Carpet bombing a village of people and calling it justified by 'military principle' does not make those people any less dead - it just means the people who ordered the strike are not to be convicted of anything.  The victims have still been killed, and their deaths deserve respect.

In the same sense, you cannot change the definition of the word genocide (the targetted extermination of a race) by retroactively arguing that it was necessary to stop a greater evil.  The meaning of the term doesn't work that way.  The Geth have still been the victims of genocide; and by you intentionally obfuscating the act of genocide with the crime of genocide, you are belittling and ignoring their actual loss.

As I have stated before, if you want to call it 'justified' Genocide, that is your (rather unnerving) right - the game certainly invites you to think in such a manner - but to call the choice to wholesale exterminate a race anything but its correct definition is a grossly inappropriate mutilation of language.

You stated that perfectly.
I don't think if Shepard could survive the Destroy ending, he even would be dragged to a court. Quite the opposite. But it is still horrific crime, even if it comes from necessity.

[MegaSovereign]

wantedman dan wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

There's a way in whch dan could be right. For anyone who had an interpretation of ME3 before Leviathan that had to be changed after Leviathan, it's a retcon. Similar to how the EC is a retcon to people who thought novas destroyed every system with a relay in the original ending, but it isn't a retcon to anyone who figured out that wasn't what had happened in the first place.

But I'm not sure what Leviathan actually does along those lines.

The point I'm making is that the story, overall, was retroactively revised to include the story of the Leviathans.

So the revision is the inclusion of a new characters/sub-plots?

By your defintion pretty much every ME DLC is considered a retcon of some sort .

[wantedman dan]

MegaSovereign wrote...

So the revision is the inclusion of a new characters/sub-plots?

By your defintion pretty much every ME DLC is considered a retcon of some sort .

If they're introduced into the middle of the story in order to make clearer concepts described later in the game--or series--then yes, they are.

[T-Raks]

Fandango9641 wrote...

T-Raks wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

T-Raks wrote...

Guys, it gets ridiculous here with definition of genocide and what not. If you want to go by definition, in reality, EDI and the Geth are simply not alive, they are no race, they are artificial intelligence. Nothing more, nothing less.

Problem is, you get there by using a worthless definition of "life."

Lol. I didn't start with definitions and that is not a worthless definition of alive, but common sense and pretty obvious.

Obvious that the EDI and the Geth are not alive or that you have no idea what you are talking about?

Do your homework, before you tell others that they don't know what they talk about. It's OK though, if you don't believe in actual definitions of "alive" and want to talk endlessly about whether destroying machines with general intelligence is genocide or not - go on.

Just don't count on me engaging in this useless discussion any further - which you probably are OK with. So we should both be fine.

[wantedman dan]

T-Raks wrote...

Do your homework, before you tell others that they don't know what they talk about. It's OK though, if you don't believe in actual definitions of "alive" and want to talk endlessly about whether destroying machines with general intelligence is genocide or not - go on.

Just don't count on me engaging in this useless discussion any further - which you probably are OK with. So we should both be fine.

Let's just get over this little pissing match here and answer this question:

How do you define alive?

[MegaSovereign]

wantedman dan wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

So the revision is the inclusion of a new characters/sub-plots?

By your defintion pretty much every ME DLC is considered a retcon of some sort .

If they're introduced into the middle of the story in order to make clearer concepts described later in the game--or series--then yes, they are.

So by your definition:

The clarification of who the Shadow Broker is and why he helped the Collectors = retcon (LoTSB)?

Seriously?

The Leviathan DLC reinforces some of the concepts that show up in the endings, but they don't retcon or add anything.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 10 octobre 2012 - 09:17 .

[wantedman dan]

MegaSovereign wrote...

So by your definition:

The clarification of who the Shadow Broker is and why he helped the Collectors = retcon (LoTSB)?

Seriously?

If you think retcons are inherently evil, then that is where you are misunderstanding me. Retcons are not, only when used in such a manner comparable to that of Leviathan.

[wantedman dan]

MegaSovereign wrote...

The Leviathan DLC reinforces some of the concepts that show up in the endings, but they don't retcon or add anything.

It retroactively revises the story. End of--.

[MegaSovereign]

wantedman dan wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

So by your definition:

The clarification of who the Shadow Broker is and why he helped the Collectors = retcon (LoTSB)?

Seriously?

If you think retcons are inherently evil, then that is where you are misunderstanding me. Retcons are not, only when used in such a manner comparable to that of Leviathan.

In what manner exactly? 

The Leviathan DLC was planned before the Extended Cut/ending fiasco.  You're implying Bioware is trying to cover their tracks with DLC. This simply isn't true.

[wantedman dan]

MegaSovereign wrote...

In what manner exactly? 

The Leviathan DLC was planned before the Extended Cut/ending fiasco.  You're implying Bioware is trying to cover their tracks with DLC. This simply isn't true.

I'm implying they sold an incomplete product and attempted to fill in the gaps with DLC.

[MegaSovereign]

wantedman dan wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

In what manner exactly? 

The Leviathan DLC was planned before the Extended Cut/ending fiasco.  You're implying Bioware is trying to cover their tracks with DLC. This simply isn't true.

I'm implying they sold an incomplete product and attempted to fill in the gaps with DLC.

I agree, the Leviathan plot should have been included in the game along with From Ashes.

However Bioware leaving plotlines incomplete so that way they can expand on them later through DLC content isn't really shocking.

[Nuranin]

i don`t think so...as "from Ashes" the "Leviathan" DLC "only" explains things...it is nice to know who constructed the starchild and its nice to meet a Prothean - but it doesn`t change the game and makes it "whole".

[wantedman dan]

MegaSovereign wrote...

I agree, the Leviathan plot should have been included in the game along with From Ashes.

However Bioware leaving plotlines incomplete so that way they can expand on them later through DLC content isn't really shocking.

Actually I think it is, as it signals a fairly contemptous trend is in the works with game developers and publishers.

Sell incomplete games in the hopes that people buy extra pieces to make it whole? That's nefarious.

[T-Raks]

wantedman dan wrote...

T-Raks wrote...

Do your homework, before you tell others that they don't know what they talk about. It's OK though, if you don't believe in actual definitions of "alive" and want to talk endlessly about whether destroying machines with general intelligence is genocide or not - go on.

Just don't count on me engaging in this useless discussion any further - which you probably are OK with. So we should both be fine.

Let's just get over this little pissing match here and answer this question:

How do you define alive?

Though I recommended that you do your homework , I think it can't hurt when I give you a start:  "While life is, by definition, alive, artificial life is generally referred to as data confined to a digital environment and existence."

To be alive you need to grow (not only your intelligence), you need to be able to reproduce (not by using other machines and not talking about individuals not being able caused by illness), you have to be structurally composed of one or more cells,...

There is a lot more to the definition of alive than awareness/intelligence.

Look, I like EDI and Legion a lot, but that doesn't make them alive. They are still machines build by organics.  Their "mind" is basically stored on hard disks, you can transfer their "soul" - if you believe in that - from one platform to another (I know the mass effect codex tells you something else for this point - but it doesn't make sense as you can see with EDI and Legion), you can shut them off and then on again with them being the same as before, you can rewrite them, ...

Doesn't mean that we can't have feelings for machines and that it can't be your Shepard's goal to preserve them, but to talk about a war crime because "it is genocide" when it comes to destroy is just dead wrong, because genocide is definitely aimed at alive beings.

That's why this discussion shouldn't even have started besides the point that even if in destroy you would also kill every Quarian because the destroyed Geth cause an explosion of Rannoch (and every Quarian was there) and the catalyst tells you that before, it still wouldn't be a genocide because it wasn't your intention to kill every Quarian.

Modifié par T-Raks, 10 octobre 2012 - 10:08 .

[wantedman dan]

T-Raks wrote...

Though I recommended that you do your homework , I think it can't hurt when I give you a start:  "While life is, by definition, alive, artificial life is generally referred to as data confined to a digital environment and existence."

To be alive you need to grow (not only your intelligence), you need to be able to reproduce (not by using other machines and not talking about individuals not being able caused by illness), you have to be structurally composed of one or more cells,...

There is a lot more to the definition of alive than awareness/intelligence.

Look, I like EDI and Legion a lot, but that doesn't make them alive. They are still machines build by organics.  Their "mind" is basically stored on hard disks, you can transfer their "soul" - if you believe in that - from one platform to another, you can shut them off and then on again with them being the same as before, you can rewrite them, ...

Doesn't mean that we can't have feelings for machines and that it can't be your Shepard's goal to preserve them, but to talk about a war crime because "it is genocide" when it comes to destroy is just dead wrong, because genocide is definitely aimed at alive beings.

That's why this discussion shouldn't even have started besides the point that even if in destroy you would also kill every Quarian because the destroyed Geth cause an explosion of Rannoch (and every Quarian was there) and the catalyst tells you that before, it still wouldn't be a genocide because it wasn't your intention to kill every Quarian.

We've been through the nonsensical argument about intentionality already.

However, take a look at Merriam-Webster's definition of alive and see how it comports with your definition:

1: Having life, not dead or inanimate
2a : still in existence, force, or operation

Which then leads us to defining the word, "life."

Merriam-Webster's has this to say,

 
1a. the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body
b. the principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings
c. an organismic state characterized by capacity for metablism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.

2a. the sequence of mental and physical experiences that make up the existence of an individual

Your stipulations only comport with one facet of one subset of one definition, that being a state characterized by capacity for metabolism. The rest of your explanation, however, makes absolutely zero sense when compared to the actual definition of life--and alive--itself.

Would you not say that the Geth and EDI are characterized by a sequence of mental and physical experiences? Would you not say that they are animate, that they are capable of reacting to stimuli, to grow, and ultimately reproduce?

Your stipulations are irrelevant and are simpy your gross misinterpretation borne from an unknown and inconceivable bias. Maybe you should have completed your homework, my friend, before telling the professor he's wrong.

Modifié par wantedman dan, 10 octobre 2012 - 10:15 .

[T-Raks]

wantedman dan wrote...

T-Raks wrote...

Though I recommended that you do your homework , I think it can't hurt when I give you a start:  "While life is, by definition, alive, artificial life is generally referred to as data confined to a digital environment and existence."

To be alive you need to grow (not only your intelligence), you need to be able to reproduce (not by using other machines and not talking about individuals not being able caused by illness), you have to be structurally composed of one or more cells,...

There is a lot more to the definition of alive than awareness/intelligence.

Look, I like EDI and Legion a lot, but that doesn't make them alive. They are still machines build by organics.  Their "mind" is basically stored on hard disks, you can transfer their "soul" - if you believe in that - from one platform to another, you can shut them off and then on again with them being the same as before, you can rewrite them, ...

Doesn't mean that we can't have feelings for machines and that it can't be your Shepard's goal to preserve them, but to talk about a war crime because "it is genocide" when it comes to destroy is just dead wrong, because genocide is definitely aimed at alive beings.

That's why this discussion shouldn't even have started besides the point that even if in destroy you would also kill every Quarian because the destroyed Geth cause an explosion of Rannoch (and every Quarian was there) and the catalyst tells you that before, it still wouldn't be a genocide because it wasn't your intention to kill every Quarian.

We've been through the nonsensical argument about intentionality already.

However, take a look at Merriam-Webster's definition of alive and see how it comports with your definition:

1: Having life, not dead or inanimate
2a : still in existence, force, or operation

Which then leads us to defining the word, "life."

Merriam-Webster's has this to say,

 
1a. the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body
b. the principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings
c. an organismic state characterized by capacity for metablism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.

2a. the sequence of mental and physical experiences that make up the existence of an individual

Your stipulations only comport with one facet of one subset of one definition, that being a state characterized by capacity for metabolism. The rest of your explanation, however, makes absolutely zero sense when compared to the actual definition of life--and alive--itself.

Would you not say that the Geth and EDI are characterized by a sequence of mental and physical experiences? Would you not say that they are animate, that they are capable of reacting to stimuli, to grow, and ultimately reproduce?

Your stipulations are irrelevant and are simpy your gross misinterpretation borne from an unknown and inconceivable bias. Maybe you should have completed your homework, my friend, before telling the professor he's wrong.

Oh man. "Alive" and "Artificial life" is the difference you don't understand. You dont have to look further than organismic state in your own definition to understand that EDI and the Geth are not alive by definition. Of course they don't grow and reproduce in the organic sense.

[wantedman dan]

T-Raks wrote...

Oh man. "Alive" and "Artificial life" is the difference you don't understand. You dont have to look further than organismic state in your own definition to understand that EDI and the Geth are not alive by definition. Of course they don't grow and reproduce in the organic sense.

Oh, pardon me. Two facets of one subset of one definition. You really got the monopoly, now.

The onus is on you, who is makig the claim that they are in fact different, to prove that they are. Thus far, all you've managed to do is placate your biases and scream, "ORGANICS."

[AlanC9]

MegaSovereign wrote...


So the revision is the inclusion of a new characters/sub-plots?

By your defintion pretty much every ME DLC is considered a retcon of some sort .

What wouldn't be a retcon?

[T-Raks]

wantedman dan wrote...

T-Raks wrote...

Oh man. "Alive" and "Artificial life" is the difference you don't understand. You dont have to look further than organismic state in your own definition to understand that EDI and the Geth are not alive by definition. Of course they don't grow and reproduce in the organic sense.

Oh, pardon me. Two facets of one subset of one definition. You really got the monopoly, now.

The onus is on you, who is makig the claim that they are in fact different, to prove that they are. Thus far, all you've managed to do is placate your biases and scream, "ORGANICS."

Pardon me that I'm organic and go by what is considered to be alive by our species and that I don't come up with a new definition just because of playing Mass Effect. Also pardon me that I believe that the cell structure (our body) is an important part of being alive.

[wantedman dan]

T-Raks wrote...

Pardon me that I'm organic and go by what is considered to be alive by our species and that I don't come up with a new definition just because of playing Mass Effect. Also pardon me that I believe that the cell structure (our body) is an important part of being alive.

I'm happy you apologize for your biases.

Moving on.

[Reorte]

Leaping into the alive issue without reading more than a couple of posts...

It's entirely reasonable to think that our definition of life is too restrictive, and that faced with some things that don't exist here on Earth today it would make sense to expand it.

[Eterna]

wantedman dan wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

So the revision is the inclusion of a new characters/sub-plots?

By your defintion pretty much every ME DLC is considered a retcon of some sort .

If they're introduced into the middle of the story in order to make clearer concepts described later in the game--or series--then yes, they are.

That's not a Retcon. 

[wantedman dan]

Eterna5 wrote...

That's not a Retcon. 

Not having this argument again.

[Heimdall]

Fandango9641 wrote...

As I thought, all over the place.

I never said Synthesis was a moral choice.  Only that I personally found it slightly less immoral than the other choices.

[AlanC9]

Isn't the best available choice the moral choice? If it isn't, then your moral code is letting you down when you need it most. What's the point of morals if they don't lead you to do the best thing?

Modifié par AlanC9, 11 octobre 2012 - 04:36 .