Auintus wrote...
What's been prohibited? Are we talking something specific here?
Not much of a gambler, I take it? Taking leaps is how we move ahead. Stick only to what you know and you stagnate.
Testing medicine on terminally ill people before prior testing on animals or otherwise, that's prohibited for good reasons.
No, I don't believe in taking unwarranted risks for little expected gain. You believe that we move ahead by taking extraordinary risks, trampling over basic rights, and so on? I beg to differ, the risk you take may just as well set us back further than any forward motion ever may. If there's anything true to gamling, it's that in the long term you always lose. Leaps, for example the landing on the moon, are not made by gambling.
Auintus wrote...
You should probably watch your wording. The "sane" bit could be taken personally. And the ethics bit already has been.
I don't mean anything with it other than what it states. There's no reason to take it personally. Unless you feel current ethics are not sane, I guess.
Auintus wrote...
No, in the meta-game he's an interfacing tool. To show you, the player, how to make your final decision and provide explanation. He has no real form, so he pulls something that Shepard remembers. Apparently Shepard's own voice echoes behind his, though I've never heard that.
So you pick and choose what you want to believe, on a whim? What if what you choose to believe is wrong? What if he's telling the truth in a different part?
Actually, it does. Remember that the Reapers have existed for eons. When they say war is inevitable, they could mean a hundred, a thousand years down the line. I see little reason to doubt that.
Err, that's a cop-out and it also shows you're not playing as Shepard, but rather as a third wheel. Fact stays that he specifically states he has created the cycle, the reapers, and is responsible for the slaughter of countless generations on the basis of: "Synthetics would do it anyways, so why not us!". If you want to put your stock with him, be my guest. I just seriously doubt the reasoning behind trusting something like that.
Shepard's voice, both male and female are combined in the Catalyst's voice. Question though, what voice does he use when you use the refuse option? Anyway, fact stays still, why does the Catalyst feel the need to play with Shepard's emotions, rather than have an objective discussion on the subject? Why does he feel the need to read his mind?
Auintus wrote...
Psychosis being a disconnect with reality, your statements imply as much. Perhaps I misinterpreted, but it seems you consider my ethical system to be inferior to your own, if not outright disconnected with reality. And now I am called delusional. My ethics are questioned and I am the one exploiting Ad Hominem in wondering if you really understand my side?
Ad hominem is using a personal attack as a means of attacking one's opponent's arguments. I have never attacked yours, merely defended mine. I never questioned your decision-making, nor your ethics, only your ability to see things the way I do.
The arguments supporting your position are based on a difference in belief. My beliefs lead quite easily to my conclusion. Your beliefs take a straightforward path to your conclusion. No one is changing their minds here.
You were the first to bring up pity. An insult, if indirect.
My statements do not imply a disconnect with reality, whether I think your moral compass is justified or not has no basis on whether I think you're disconnected from reality. I think you take alot of my comments way too personally and overreact to it. I'm perfectly in my right to say you're delusional if you make the connections you do, there's no reason to come to the conclusions you do based on what I said, you're making much more of it than what I am writing.
An ad hominem is using a personal attack as a means of belittling a person, thus taking the wind out of his argument's sail. You're not attacking an opponent's argument directly at all, if anything it shows you're incapable of attacking the argument and thus resort to belittling the person in the hope it makes his argument less valid in the eyes of others.
To think that saying I'm close minded does not constitute an ad hominem is ridiculous, it's definately an attack on the person instead of an attack on an argument. My comment on being sorry for you if you think Synthesis is an utopia to strife for is in no way an ad hominem. First of all it's left in the open of whether you think it is an utopia (which you denied, thus I do not feel sorry on that basis), secondly it could very well be my own emotional overinvestment on the subject (thus ridiculing myself), instead of being an attack on you. Again you're making alot more out of nothing at all.
My beliefs are based on what evidence Shepard has been shown throughout the games, taking stock in those that have shown honesty and support towards Shepard and his cause. However, you rather belief in no evidence at all and put faith in your main enemies words. I'm not going to deny that your belief leads quite straightforward to your conclusion, I'm merely putting doubt on whether it's a good position to have.
I feel I cannot stress enough though, I'm not attacking you as a person at all, only after your comment on closed mindedness have I put an edge to some arguments, but I've never solely attacked you as a person without argument.
Auintus wrote...
In Refuse, you die. That can't be seen as an improvement in any way. Except you wouldn't suffer anymore, or have to deal with noisy neighbors, or...that's beside the point. And in Destroy you trash the Reapers and the Geth. Destruction is not an upgrade to human life.
Yet, when we make the decision we can feel refuse is an improvement to making another choice which involves compromises. You're once again looking with hindsight. Anyway, even if we use hindsight, I would prefer extinction to (possibly) being controlled by AI. In Destroy you trash the one thing you were seeking to do all along, and every cycle before you were. You're putting an end to an abomination, and that definately is an upgrade to human life. Also it shows we do not require extraordinary aid (space magic) to come to peace with other races, if anything it has the most beautiful meaning (and upgrade to humanity) to the ending. Destroying the Geth and EDI definately is a bummer though, but there's no reason to belief that would happen and it's still debatable whether it actually did happen.
Auintus wrote...
Your questioning my ethics sounds, to me, as if you consider my personal ethical code...inferior? Broken? questionable? There's a word for it. But you consider yours right and mine wrong, while I consider them different. I never questioned the fate of the world in your hands.
I'm sorry, but if you feel that forcing changes on peoples lifes and bodily functions without having their consent is acceptable, then yes I do see it as an inferior ethical code. However, to imply it's an ad hominem is simply wrong, I'm merely questioning the code you abide by.
Auintus wrote...
So you'd rather lose on your own terms than win on the terms of a device that everyone admits they have no freaking clue how it works? I...okay. Okay. Not my choice, but that's your game.
Sigh, I keep having to repeat myself, but you just cannot stop using hindsight. The argument is on whether it's reasonable to put faith in the Catalysts words, whether it's a reasonable belief to jump into a beam and good space magic happens. If you're in Shepard's shoes at the moment of decision, alarm bells should ring when he asks you to kill yourself and jump into the beam. Like you say, you have no way of knowing what will happen, just that you'll die. It may enslave the entire population, or it may do what he says it does. You don't know, so therefore it's alot more reasonable to shoot and try to destroy the leader of the reapers, instead of working with his plans which very well may be a trap.
Destroying the Catalyst could very well have ended the reaper threat for all we know, or cripple them.
Retour en haut
