587 réponses à ce sujet

[Indy_S]

Auintus wrote...

Indy_S wrote...

Are you implying that our morality can be derived from our actions in a video game? Seriously?

Not the actions themselves, but consider how you defend those actions. I come here because human psychology is interesting. Your decisions and your defense of those decisions allow glimpses into your mind. It shows how you think, where your values lie, how you treat others and under what circumstances. The "what" is irrelevent. What decision you made doesn't interest me. All of them successfully stop the Reapers, since I don't count Refuse. The "why" that lies behind it is what matters. That is what is applicable to reality.

Add in the fact that nobody chose Destroy specifically for the genocide aspect and Wulfie loses his bite in that respect. I picked Destroy for the freedom to choose is given back to the galaxy. The Reapers are gone, they can develop however they like now. They can love or destroy synthetics if they want. I chose choice.

[Auintus]

o Ventus wrote...

1. Unless he meant something else by "what the ending shows us", he's referring to something other than the Catalyst conversation. It doesn't show you anything.

2. I'm not looking for approval.

3. Incompatible doesn't equal opposites. I can be hypothetically opposed to transhumanism while at the same time not being a Luddite.

True. His statement was a direct result of meta-gaming knowledge. However, much of the same information can be derived from the conversation with the Catalyst.

Clearly not. Nor am I, but that is beside the point. The point is that you wasted time and action on a statement that accomplished nothing but making you a less credible voice from someone who just entered this conversation, like me. Approval is irrelevent, but you hindered your own argument with that statement.

Correct. You wouldn't have to be one or the other. But their end goals do stand in direct conflict. Opposite ends of the spectrum, one might say.

[Auintus]

Indy_S wrote...

Add in the fact that nobody chose Destroy specifically for the genocide aspect and Wulfie loses his bite in that respect. I picked Destroy for the freedom to choose is given back to the galaxy. The Reapers are gone, they can develop however they like now. They can love or destroy synthetics if they want. I chose choice.

But that is the point. You can't say, "That isn't why I chose it, it doesn't count."
Each decision is a packaged deal, pros and cons. The fact that one chose Destroy despite the collateral damage says much about their mindset. The fact that I rob the galaxy of a decision in chosing Synthesis says quite a lot about mine. 
Synthesis allows freedom of choice. Control(paragon) specifically defends choice. I choose Synthesis and force an advancement that some may not want. You choose Destroy and force a sacrifice of which the Geth likely would not approve. Control is the option in favor of choice, as the only one directly affected is the wo/man making the decision.

[Indy_S]

Auintus wrote...

Indy_S wrote...

Add in the fact that nobody chose Destroy specifically for the genocide aspect and Wulfie loses his bite in that respect. I picked Destroy for the freedom to choose is given back to the galaxy. The Reapers are gone, they can develop however they like now. They can love or destroy synthetics if they want. I chose choice.

But that is the point. You can't say, "That isn't why I chose it, it doesn't count."
Each decision is a packaged deal, pros and cons. The fact that one chose Destroy despite the collateral damage says much about their mindset. The fact that I rob the galaxy of a decision in chosing Synthesis says quite a lot about mine. 
Synthesis allows freedom of choice. Control(paragon) specifically defends choice. I choose Synthesis and force an advancement that some may not want. You choose Destroy and force a sacrifice of which the Geth likely would not approve. Control is the option in favor of choice, as the only one directly affected is the wo/man making the decision.

I can't see heavy-handed galactic enforcement as a pro-choice decision. To me, that is the antithesis of what I've been fighting for. It limits choice: You can only choose within these constraints. Failure to comply results in death by dreadnought. Destroy wipes the slate clean, allows the galaxy to run itself and whatever follows is because they chose.

[Auintus]

Indy_S wrote...

I can't see heavy-handed galactic enforcement as a pro-choice decision. To me, that is the antithesis of what I've been fighting for. It limits choice: You can only choose within these constraints. Failure to comply results in death by dreadnought. Destroy wipes the slate clean, allows the galaxy to run itself and whatever follows is because they chose.

Paragon states he will defend the many. Renegade says lead, but I'm not talking about that. Defense does not imply control. Giving each the chance to choose, without letting one lord over another.
Society is about constraints. They are called laws. Should we remove those as well? No, because then someone else would rob you of the right to choose. These constraints allow each a wider range of choice without giving some more and some less. That is what Paragon Control means, as I interpreted it.

Whatever follows Synthesis is what they choose. I chose the integration and afterwards, they could choose. You chose to sacrifice the Geth and afterwards, only those who remained could choose.

[MJoshier]

I choose destroy because that's what I think Shepard has been fighting to get to ever since ME1. I don't necessarily agree with the waking nightmare theory I've heard about, I think the catalyst isn't necessarily trying to "trick" shepard because that indicate emotion, however, I do think as the catalyst is only a program, a synthetic construct its following its programming, (albiet that programming has certainly been modified and "improved" for millions of years) and so in telling shepard of the "new possible solutions" it is intelligently laying all the cards out on the table. As we all know Harbinger knows Shepard by name, and so do all the Reapers and if the catalyst controls the reapers, it knows shepard too. What it doesn't know is what being organic means, what being Human (turian, asari, krogan, etc) means because it's not organic. Again, the catalyst has been 'harvesting' only ADVANCED civilizations for countless cycles, its way of following its original programming to understand organics by absorbing their 'essence' and making order out of the chaos that is organic life however, it will never truly understand organics (otherwise the cycles would've stopped perhaps?) because it is a machine, construct with a predetermined purpose. Shepard brings something new to the table as well as the crucible and the Catalyst has new 'data' but still doesn't understand it the way an organic would.
I choose destroy because an ARTIFICIAL intelligence that has been harvesting all advanced life in the galaxy for countless centuries is not the most reliable source of wisdom due to the fact that it still has no understanding of Organics after all of these cycles. Organics are complex, intense, unique beings, synthetics are programmed and created for specific reasons. not to mention if you add in the indoctrination theory that shepard has been fighting against since ME1, the catalyst has the ability to make very convincing arguments.
Its not genocide to wipe out the reapers since they've been committing genocide (according to our terms) for eons. Yes, destroy the reapers to save whats left of the current cycles and everything in the future.

[Auintus]

MJoshier wrote...
I choose destroy because an ARTIFICIAL intelligence that has been harvesting all advanced life in the galaxy for countless centuries is not the most reliable source of wisdom due to the fact that it still has no understanding of Organics after all of these cycles. Organics are complex, intense, unique beings, synthetics are programmed and created for specific reasons. not to mention if you add in the indoctrination theory that shepard has been fighting against since ME1, the catalyst has the ability to make very convincing arguments.
Its not genocide to wipe out the reapers since they've been committing genocide (according to our terms) for eons. Yes, destroy the reapers to save whats left of the current cycles and everything in the future.

What of the Geth? And Legion? Are they not complex enough to be considered alive? And what of EDI? She chose to side with you over the Illusive Man. That is definately not what she was "programmed" to do. The point of Synthesis is understanding synthetics as living similar, if not equal, to organics. A point that you've missed, it seems.

Modifié par Auintus, 19 février 2013 - 02:18 .

[MJoshier]

Auintus wrote...

MJoshier wrote...
I choose destroy because an ARTIFICIAL intelligence that has been harvesting all advanced life in the galaxy for countless centuries is not the most reliable source of wisdom due to the fact that it still has no understanding of Organics after all of these cycles. Organics are complex, intense, unique beings, synthetics are programmed and created for specific reasons. not to mention if you add in the indoctrination theory that shepard has been fighting against since ME1, the catalyst has the ability to make very convincing arguments.
Its not genocide to wipe out the reapers since they've been committing genocide (according to our terms) for eons. Yes, destroy the reapers to save whats left of the current cycles and everything in the future.

What of the Geth? And Legion? Are they not complex enough to be considered alive? And what of EDI? She chose to side with you over the Illusive Man. That is definately not what she was "programmed" to do. The point of Synthesis is understanding synthetics as living similar, if not equal, to organics. A point that you've missed, it seems.

A very valid point, Auintus, thats why its a difficult decision, destroy the reapers including the geth (in my playthroughs legion sacrifices itself to give the geth intelligence) and edi, control the reapers by becoming one with a third-person understanding of organics via thoughts and memories, synthesis combines organic and synthetic life together bringing about understanding to the Advanced races, those preflight such as the yahg would not understand it. I wouldn't impose that choice on the entire galaxy therefore stealing their right to choose. For me the decision is based upon stopping them once and for all. lives will always be lost in war, regardless of the war, wars will always rage regardless of the reasoning, but an entire galactic civilization should not be forced into a decision (synthesis) and whats the purpose of fighting for everyone around when you lose your own humanity (control). Not to mention, if you get a high enough EMS score its stated that all that has been destroyed can be rebuilt. However, its only my opinion and I respect yours as well. It is understandable why someone would choose synthesis, another chooses control, and someone else chooses destroy. 

[Auintus]

MJoshier wrote...

A very valid point, Auintus, thats why its a difficult decision, destroy the reapers including the geth (in my playthroughs legion sacrifices itself to give the geth intelligence) and edi, control the reapers by becoming one with a third-person understanding of organics via thoughts and memories, synthesis combines organic and synthetic life together bringing about understanding to the Advanced races, those preflight such as the yahg would not understand it. I wouldn't impose that choice on the entire galaxy therefore stealing their right to choose. For me the decision is based upon stopping them once and for all. lives will always be lost in war, regardless of the war, wars will always rage regardless of the reasoning, but an entire galactic civilization should not be forced into a decision (synthesis) and whats the purpose of fighting for everyone around when you lose your own humanity (control). Not to mention, if you get a high enough EMS score its stated that all that has been destroyed can be rebuilt. However, its only my opinion and I respect yours as well. It is understandable why someone would choose synthesis, another chooses control, and someone else chooses destroy. 

Wow. You just took all the fun out of this, you know that?
The way I see it, the goal is stopping the Reapers. Destroying them is only one way of going about it. Therefore, the only wrong choice in this is Refuse, which forces someone else to stop the conflict. I just find it fascinating to make other people defend their decisions. Helps me understand how they think.

In that interest: The Reaper war has already claimed many lives. Control or Synthesis would ensure that only one more(Shepard) is lost, and even allows the Reapers to begin making amends for what they'd done. Instead you choose to sacrifice even more to destroy them completely, erasing the memories of the races they had preserved. Why is that solution preferable? Note that while Synthesis makes one choice for everyone, Destroy forces a choice on the Geth and then ensures they can never choose on their own again.

Modifié par Auintus, 19 février 2013 - 02:53 .

[MJoshier]

Auintus wrote...

MJoshier wrote...

A very valid point, Auintus, thats why its a difficult decision, destroy the reapers including the geth (in my playthroughs legion sacrifices itself to give the geth intelligence) and edi, control the reapers by becoming one with a third-person understanding of organics via thoughts and memories, synthesis combines organic and synthetic life together bringing about understanding to the Advanced races, those preflight such as the yahg would not understand it. I wouldn't impose that choice on the entire galaxy therefore stealing their right to choose. For me the decision is based upon stopping them once and for all. lives will always be lost in war, regardless of the war, wars will always rage regardless of the reasoning, but an entire galactic civilization should not be forced into a decision (synthesis) and whats the purpose of fighting for everyone around when you lose your own humanity (control). Not to mention, if you get a high enough EMS score its stated that all that has been destroyed can be rebuilt. However, its only my opinion and I respect yours as well. It is understandable why someone would choose synthesis, another chooses control, and someone else chooses destroy. 

Wow. You just took all the fun out of this, you know that?
The way I see it, the goal is stopping the Reapers. Destroying them is only one way of going about it. Therefore, the only wrong choice in this is Refuse, which forces someone else to stop the conflict. I just find it fascinating to make other people defend their decisions. Helps me understand how they think.

In that interest: The Reaper war has already claimed many lives. Control or Synthesis would ensure that only one more(Shepard) is lost, and even allows the Reapers to begin making amends for what they'd done. Instead you choose to sacrifice even more to destroy them completely, erasing the memories of the races they had preserved. Why is that solution preferable? Note that while Synthesis makes one choice for everyone, Destroy forces a choice on the Geth and then ensures they can never choose on their own again.

Didn't mean to kill the fun for you, that's how i think. I can understand each decision but choose Destroy because that's what the war has been all about, the reason the galaxy has united. Even the geth (well legion's geth, not the heretics as he calls them) have chosen to fight the reapers but also take into consideration that the geth allied themselves with the reapers, though legion states this 'was a difficult choice' and they still didn't agree with what they call the "old machines'. Edi states that she would risk becoming 'non-functional' to save joker and all other life. While it does suck that the geth and edi die, destroy is preferable to me because the entire galaxy is fighting for that, if a geth was up with shepard and the catalyst i'm sure they would certainly violently disapprove but it also puts a final stop to the cycles. Control in my opinion is giving into indoctrination, yes only shepard dies and the geth and edi are sparred but he becomes the very thing he'd been fighting against albiet he changes their direction and defends the many as he says. Synthesis does spar the geth and edi but in my opinion forces the entire galaxy prespaceflight or not into a choice. haha i guess i don't have a great reason for not choosing synthesis other than the choice thing.  

[Auintus]

MJoshier wrote...

Didn't mean to kill the fun for you, that's how i think. I can understand each decision but choose Destroy because that's what the war has been all about, the reason the galaxy has united. Even the geth (well legion's geth, not the heretics as he calls them) have chosen to fight the reapers but also take into consideration that the geth allied themselves with the reapers, though legion states this 'was a difficult choice' and they still didn't agree with what they call the "old machines'. Edi states that she would risk becoming 'non-functional' to save joker and all other life. While it does suck that the geth and edi die, destroy is preferable to me because the entire galaxy is fighting for that, if a geth was up with shepard and the catalyst i'm sure they would certainly violently disapprove but it also puts a final stop to the cycles. Control in my opinion is giving into indoctrination, yes only shepard dies and the geth and edi are sparred but he becomes the very thing he'd been fighting against albiet he changes their direction and defends the many as he says. Synthesis does spar the geth and edi but in my opinion forces the entire galaxy prespaceflight or not into a choice. haha i guess i don't have a great reason for not choosing synthesis other than the choice thing.  

All fine, all fine. You're still playing my game.

Not entirely accurate, I think. The galaxy is fighting to stop the Reapers. The utter annihilation of one's enemies is not required for victory.
If Shepard is actually in control of the Reapers, I don't think it can be counted as giving in to indoctrination. And if the Reaper's new leader guides them in a good direction, I don't think there is much lost.
I won't argue with the fact that Synthesis is making a massive choice on behalf of every species in the galaxy. I just think that the payoff is worth the cost. I can't say that I believe the same for Destroy, but I can understand why another might.

[Indy_S]

Auintus wrote...
All fine, all fine. You're still playing my game.

Not entirely accurate, I think. The galaxy is fighting to stop the Reapers. The utter annihilation of one's enemies is not required for victory.
If Shepard is actually in control of the Reapers, I don't think it can be counted as giving in to indoctrination. And if the Reaper's new leader guides them in a good direction, I don't think there is much lost.
I won't argue with the fact that Synthesis is making a massive choice on behalf of every species in the galaxy. I just think that the payoff is worth the cost. I can't say that I believe the same for Destroy, but I can understand why another might.

That's something I like. I flipped the two: Destroy has the payoff worth the cost while Synthesis is abhorrant to me. I think straight-up slavery is worse than murder. A loss of freedom is worth more than loss of life. And if Synthesis removes conflict as the Catalyst implies, I can't see that as anything but manipulation, brain-washing, a loss of choice. Control enforces a strict set of ethics, one not open to adaptation or disagreement. Both of these are against what I believe. After the red wave hits everything, the galaxy can go back to normal. This is something I can get behind.

[Auld Wulf]

Also, Auintus is very right.

Picking genocide is one thing, when you are very clearly told that you will be killing (in cold blood) every artificial form of life out there. This includes the geth, EDI, whatever consciousnesses exist enslaved within the reaper consensus, and any artificial life we don't already know about. The defence of that act of genocide is what makes a person look bad.

Rarely do we have someone who says "I don't think that genocide is a defendable action." and instead we get very vocal, very feral defences of genocide. That's the part that throws me. The person defends genocide as an action, as something that they would be consciously responsible for, as something that they would find completely acceptable (almost proud of, even) given the variables involved. And that is what says something about the person and their sense of ethics (or lack thereof).

It's not so much Destroy that bothers me, but rather how vocally, and how passionately Destroy fans defend genocide. That's where I get the Hitler angle from. Because to my mind? Defending genocide in any context just isn't a thing you do.

Edit: And moreover, Destroy is wanting genocide. What else is there? I mean, if you just want the reapers gone, then you pick Control. You use the reapers to repair everything, you free the people from the reaper consensuses, then you destroy the ships. The reapers are dead, if you absolutely have to do that. Destroy is just Control + Genocide.

Modifié par Auld Wulf, 19 février 2013 - 04:03 .

[Indy_S]

Auld Wulf wrote...

Also, Auintus is very right.

Picking genocide is one thing, when you are very clearly told that you will be killing (in cold blood) every artificial form of life out there. This includes the geth, EDI, whatever consciousnesses exist enslaved within the reaper consensus, and any artificial life we don't already know about. The defence of that act of genocide is what makes a person look bad.

Rarely do we have someone who says "I don't think that genocide is a defendable action." and instead we get very vocal, very feral defences of genocide. That's the part that throws me. The person defends genocide as an action, as something that they would be consciously responsible for, as something that they would find completely acceptable (almost proud of, even) given the variables involved. And that is what says something about the person and their sense of ethics (or lack thereof).

It's not so much Destroy that bothers me, but rather how vocally, and how passionately Destroy fans defend genocide. That's where I get the Hitler angle from. Because to my mind? Defending genocide in any context just isn't a thing you do.

Would you prefer justify as a term, then?

[EnvyTB075]

Because context.

In this context many seem to believe that AI's don't count as life, so the "genocide" doesn't exist. There are those that are rationalising it in the face of the other 3 choices that are presented, each with their own arbitrary "consequences" and ideals that are more appalling than killing off AI's.

I don't believe anyone actually believes it, but in the face of coping with how badly the games' exposition explained anything results in numerous ways to deal with the flaws in the narrative. I personally subscribe to the ideal that with a high enough EMS doesn't actually kill AI's, as its dumb and contradicted by Control.

Auld Wulf wrote...

Edit: And moreover, Destroy is wanting
genocide. What else is there? I mean, if you just want the reapers
gone, then you pick Control. You use the reapers to repair everything,
you free the people from the reaper consensuses, then you destroy the
ships. The reapers are dead, if you absolutely have to do that. Destroy
is just Control + Genocide.

That is dumb, and i shouldn't have to explain why.

Modifié par EnvyTB075, 19 février 2013 - 04:11 .

[Indy_S]

Oh yeah, there's Envy's aspect too. Some people don't see the things as alive in the first place, so how can they kill them?

[ruggly]

I found a pretty interesting description of synthesis on reddit that I can agree with:

the end result of synthesis itself is fundamentally bad science in that it's based on a hugely erroneous concept- that there is a pinnacle to evolution. Evolution is the concretion of changes over time in response to outside forces, while synthesis is the rapid change to an end result that is predetermined by the Catalyst as what it considers ideal because it drives what's happening. A 'pinnacle' to evolution would mean that these new creatures would be static, unable to react to the galaxy changing around them over the eons and suffering certain extinction because of it.

We know from the discussions about Protheans in the previous cycle that the Crucible was capable of both Destroy and Control but never achieved either before that cycle ended. The Crucible doesn't magically acquire synthesis and the current cycle certainly don't add that technology. It's the Catalyst that utilizes the Crucible to offer Synthesis, using the same technology to create reapers who are they themselves synthetic/organic hybrids once the Crucible is finally docked. That may be what the Catalyst means by 'things have changed'.

What does the Catalyst view as ideal? We already know this-a Reaper. It seems like synthesis has the only goal of turning everyone into a reaper simultaneously, which is why the Catalyst presents this option in such a sterling utopia. The Catalyst as an AI has very different perceptions as to what perfection means and those are based on the Leviathan programming it to keep subjugated races under their heel. Of course it would view this as the perfect solution.

To me, synthesis fits as an option, but only when viewed as a hideous galaxy manifestation of what the Catalyst intended all along. With that in mind, I can only assume the rainbow and puppy ending we see after it is because the Catalyst now controls all of these new creatures and makes them think they are happy.

[EnvyTB075]

Indy_S wrote...

Oh yeah, there's Envy's aspect too. Some people don't see the things as alive in the first place, so how can they kill them?

Not that i believe it, just sayin the fact they're AI makes it easier on some, especially when all you're told in the end is "they're all dead", and you see absolutely no negative effect of the consequence.

To use the Hitler comparison, there is no comparable Auschwitz where one can go and see the effect, or the Cambodian mass graves where there is documented evidence of human bones stacked upon each other. Like the rest of the game, theres no visual confirmation of the event, it all happens off screen and the effect is diluted.

[ruggly]

I'm going to add this one as well

Synthesis is magic, pure and simple. It's an insult to the struggles of all the scientists, engineers, sociologists, politicians, and everyone else in the Mass Effect universe that put real and hard work into making a civilization like theirs function; to then come along and have a god-like being wash all of our problems away in a magical green space explosion because it says they are insurmountable. It says that you have to do this to get along with machines, when we all know that we don't need this.

The act of choosing Synthesis, from an out-of-universe standpoint, is anti-progressive, anti-technology, and anti-critical thinking given how completely impossible it is from a logistics standpoint. I despise these themes, regardless of the effect they have on the in-game universe.

And this

Modifié par ruggly, 19 février 2013 - 04:33 .

[clennon8]

@Wulf: Go peddle your "genocide fetishist" rap somewhere else, man. Nobody here is buying it.  Not even your fellow Synth-fans, I don't think.

Modifié par clennon8, 19 février 2013 - 04:37 .

[A Great Biotic Wind]

Sil wrote...

"in which ending does Shepard infuse the galaxy with his organic essence?"

Frankly, Shepard has been spreading his organic essence across the Galaxy for the past 3 games, the dirty dog.

Can't...stop...laughing...

Anyways, any non-conventional victory is still crap to me. Wither it be synthesis or destroy, any moral interpretation of the matter is void since there are so many logical fallacies at hand. Why does Shepard trust everything the little bio-synthetic devil says anyways? Wouldn't it be just as likely that all paths simply led to Shepard's death (with no space magic splosion), and the cruciple was nothing more than the child's last line of defense? 

[Sc2mashimaro]

Auld Wulf wrote...

It's not so much Destroy that bothers me, but rather how vocally, and how passionately Destroy fans defend genocide. That's where I get the Hitler angle from. Because to my mind? Defending genocide in any context just isn't a thing you do.

Edit: And moreover, Destroy is wanting genocide. What else is there? I mean, if you just want the reapers gone, then you pick Control. You use the reapers to repair everything, you free the people from the reaper consensuses, then you destroy the ships. The reapers are dead, if you absolutely have to do that. Destroy is just Control + Genocide.

Assumption: The Catalystl/star child is telling the truth. Possibly falcious because the source is an entity claiming to represent the Reapers. Without metagaming it is entirely reasonable not to trust the Catalyst. This means the claims regarding synthesis and control, but also what it says about destroy harming anything but the Reapers. If the catalyst is honest, you will kill them, but without metagaming it is reasonable to doubt the sincerity of that claim at the time.

Some people would rather allow the collateral damage of EDI and the Geth to know for certain the Reaper threat is gone than to give credulity to an AI that claims to speak for an enemy they view as sociopathic.

[Eterna]

Indy_S wrote...

Oh yeah, there's Envy's aspect too. Some people don't see the things as alive in the first place, so how can they kill them?

People not viewing things as alive does not mean that they are not alive.

If I said I don't believe Ants are alive would ants not be alive? Or would I just be an ignorant fool? 

Modifié par Eterna5, 19 février 2013 - 11:23 .

[Indy_S]

Eterna5 wrote...
People not viewing things as alive does not mean that they are not alive.

If I said I don't believe Ants are alive would ants not be alive? Or would I just be an ignorant fool? 

From a purely biological standpoint, they are alive. From a purely philosophical standpoint, they are not sapient. From a purely biological standpoint, the Geth are not alive. From a purely philosophical standpoint, the Geth are sapient. You have to strike a balance and there is simply no definitive answer to 'what constitutes alive?'. The idea that someone can have the fulcrum at an extreme does not surprise me.

[ElSuperGecko]

Auld Wulf wrote...
Picking genocide is one thing, when you are very clearly told that you will be killing (in cold blood) every artificial form of life out there. This includes the geth, EDI, whatever consciousnesses exist enslaved within the reaper consensus, and any artificial life we don't already know about. The defence of that act of genocide is what makes a person look bad.

We DO NOT negotiate with terrorists.

The Catalyst is a terrorist, an unrepentant mass murderer, and a coward.  effectively holding Synthetic life hostage.  It is using the Geth and EDI etc as a shield against Destroy.  It is attempting to dissuade you from making that decision by presenting it in a negative light.  It is attempting to coerce you into making a decision which it approves of, one which fits it's own modus operandi.

Once again, we DO NOT negotiate with terrorists.

The "lives" of EDI and the Geth may very well be forfeit in choosing Destroy, HOWEVER the Geth and EDI have already accepted that their "lives" could very well be forfeit by joining in the war to stop the Reapers in the first place.