343 réponses à ce sujet

[Sc2mashimaro]

jtav wrote...

Argolas wrote...

If that wasn't enough, what else do the Reapers have to do until everyone considers them the bad guys?

Killing Garrus?

It doesn't matter. If the Reapers are a valid lifeform (and they clearly are in universe) then we have an obligation to use the least lethal means we have to contain the threat.

Okay, I accept your claim that Reapers are a valid life form. And I accept that this assumption leads to the conclusion that we should use the least lethal means possible to stop them.

Ialso view Reapers as a primarily synthetic life form. Thus, their thought processes may not mirror organic thought processes very well. The representatives from their culture before the Catalyst exhibit clearly sociopathic traits includong violence, manipulation, inflated self worth, and lack of empathy. This contrasts strongly with the other synthetics i have met which primarily mean EDI and the Geth. Being synthetic, i assume that this is a hardware or software trait of the Reapers. Now, knowing this and confronting an AI that says it speaks for the Reapers, why would I trust that AIk? I cannot, unless it exhibits signs of empathy or regret. The Catalyst does not. Thus, I conclude we are still at war and choosing to ignore that is likely to end badly.

[KennyAshes]

jtav wrote...

Argolas wrote...

If that wasn't enough, what else do the Reapers have to do until everyone considers them the bad guys?

Killing Garrus?

It doesn't matter. If the Reapers are a valid lifeform (and they clearly are in universe) then we have an obligation to use the least lethal means we have to contain the threat.

The Reapers do not deserve the right to be treated as a valid reasoning lifeform.
Why i claim that? Because it is and was in their power to create the crucible and enforce synthesis on the MEU long before Shepard was given the choice. Thus they made the circle of life a game to see who could reach the end. They might not have been able to the first cycles, but they certainly could in the later cycles because the catalyst knows about the choices it gives the user. This makes clear that the Reapers do not have the best for the MEU in mind.

[ElSuperGecko]

Wayning_Star wrote...
we cannot actually 'kill' a reapership,they're not alive. We can destroy them and their cargo, killing the chance of their recovery, or the recovery of their heritage.

The reapers are not 'guys' they are ships carrying cargo with objectives set out by the catalyst, what seen problems with the organization of synth an its creation/w evolutionary simulation of sentience. We built them and they came, now we have to learn to live with them. Otherwise the MEU is toast. The MEU will fall away without support by synthetic life forms.

That's a nice and rather fanciful headcanon you have established there, Wayning.  A shame it's nothing more than a pipe dream.

We saw a Reaper being created in ME2.

Exactly what part of this processed human goo used in it's creation do you think can be recovered?

[Enhanced]

KennyAshes wrote...

jtav wrote...

Argolas wrote...

If that wasn't enough, what else do the Reapers have to do until everyone considers them the bad guys?

Killing Garrus?

It doesn't matter. If the Reapers are a valid lifeform (and they clearly are in universe) then we have an obligation to use the least lethal means we have to contain the threat.

The Reapers do not deserve the right to be treated as a valid reasoning lifeform.
Why i claim that? Because it is and was in their power to create the crucible and enforce synthesis on the MEU long before Shepard was given the choice. Thus they made the circle of life a game to see who could reach the end. They might not have been able to the first cycles, but they certainly could in the later cycles because the catalyst knows about the choices it gives the user. This makes clear that the Reapers do not have the best for the MEU in mind.

No, the Cataylst says that they tried synthesis and failed. The crucible created new possibilities.

Modifié par Enhanced, 19 février 2013 - 01:59 .

[jtav]

KennyAshes wrote...

jtav wrote...

Argolas wrote...

If that wasn't enough, what else do the Reapers have to do until everyone considers them the bad guys?

Killing Garrus?

It doesn't matter. If the Reapers are a valid lifeform (and they clearly are in universe) then we have an obligation to use the least lethal means we have to contain the threat.

The Reapers do not deserve the right to be treated as a valid reasoning lifeform.
Why i claim that? Because it is and was in their power to create the crucible and enforce synthesis on the MEU long before Shepard was given the choice. Thus they made the circle of life a game to see who could reach the end. They might not have been able to the first cycles, but they certainly could in the later cycles because the catalyst knows about the choices it gives the user. This makes clear that the Reapers do not have the best for the MEU in mind.

It's not a matter of "deserve." That they trample on rights does not take those rights away from them.

[Steelcan]

An opinion jtav.

[KennyAshes]

No, the Cataylst says that they tried synthesis and failed. The crucible created new possibilities. [/quote]

And after the crucicle was connected to the citadel nothing happened by the hands of the catalyst, but Shepard was needed to decide the faith of the universe. If the Catalyst REALLY wanted the best for the MEU it would have instantly fired the synthesis. Or over the course of billions of years found a way to enforce synthesis. Yet it did not.
I assume it did not know what the crucible would do, although it did not consider it a big treath because the reapers didn't shoot at it before it docked.
I'll broaden my point : if you want universal peace for beings way less evolved as yourself, the best way to 'enforce' peace is by keeping them in a controlled environment. Not running into the sewer once each decade to kill the rats. But keeping the sewer clean.

[Enhanced]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Enhanced wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Enhanced wrote...

I don't think Shepard likes Destroy...

Catalyst: "Soon, your children will create synthetics, and then the chaos will come back"
Shepard: "There has to be another way"

Likes? Probably not, but it turns out there's no other way to kill the Reapers.

Yea. Just saying,  Shepard is not really excited about Destroy after realizing that the galaxy won't be at peace after the reapers are gone.

Only if you believe the kid. I was referring to the deaths of the Geth and EDI.

Shepard believes him. And,  if anyhing other than refuse is chosen, that is undeniable.

Modifié par Enhanced, 19 février 2013 - 02:07 .

[Obadiah]

jtav wrote...

KennyAshes wrote...

jtav wrote...

Argolas wrote...

If that wasn't enough, what else do the Reapers have to do until everyone considers them the bad guys?

Killing Garrus?

It doesn't matter. If the Reapers are a valid lifeform (and they clearly are in universe) then we have an obligation to use the least lethal means we have to contain the threat.

The Reapers do not deserve the right to be treated as a valid reasoning lifeform.
Why i claim that? Because it is and was in their power to create the crucible and enforce synthesis on the MEU long before Shepard was given the choice. Thus they made the circle of life a game to see who could reach the end. They might not have been able to the first cycles, but they certainly could in the later cycles because the catalyst knows about the choices it gives the user. This makes clear that the Reapers do not have the best for the MEU in mind.

It's not a matter of "deserve." That they trample on rights does not take those rights away from them.

I think it does take those rights away from them. Society takes away peoples rights all the time for breaking laws, and the Reapers have most certainly broken those.

[CoolioThane]

Reapers are ****s and deserve to be destroyed. Simple, really

[jtav]

Obadiah wrote...

I think it does take those rights away from them. Society takes away peoples rights all the time for breaking laws, and the Reapers have most certainly broken those.

Sure we do, but the right being spoken of was the right to be considered valid life. If they are, then it can't be taken away by anything they do. So the question becomes: can we contain them without killing them?

[Steelcan]

jtav wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

I think it does take those rights away from them. Society takes away peoples rights all the time for breaking laws, and the Reapers have most certainly broken those.

Sure we do, but the right being spoken of was the right to be considered valid life. If they are, then it can't be taken away by anything they do. So the question becomes: can we contain them without killing them?

. Why should we?  They are sapient creature that have chosen a path that prohibits peaceful coexistence.  Killing them is a favor to the rest of the galaxy. The only way around it is brainwashing, Control, or modifying all life in the galaxy to form of life they deem acceptable.

[ElSuperGecko]

It's us or them.

I'm sure some people would like it or think it was "nice" if there was any other way, but there isn't.

It's us... or them.  It's as simple as that. Unfortunately the Reapers have a habit of making people forget which side "us" actually is...

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 19 février 2013 - 02:21 .

[Enhanced]

[quote]KennyAshes wrote...

No, the Cataylst says that they tried synthesis and failed. The crucible created new possibilities. [/quote]

And after the crucicle was connected to the citadel nothing happened by the hands of the catalyst, but Shepard was needed to decide the faith of the universe. If the Catalyst REALLY wanted the best for the MEU it would have instantly fired the synthesis. Or over the course of billions of years found a way to enforce synthesis. Yet it did not.
I assume it did not know what the crucible would do, although it did not consider it a big treath because the reapers didn't shoot at it before it docked.
I'll broaden my point : if you want universal peace for beings way less evolved as yourself, the best way to 'enforce' peace is by keeping them in a controlled environment. Not running into the sewer once each decade to kill the rats. But keeping the sewer clean. [/quote]

The Catalyst did want synthesis, but couldn't just activate the Crucible because he wanted to.  It's designed to require a person to willingly sarcifice him or herself to activate it.

Modifié par Enhanced, 19 février 2013 - 02:26 .

[Steelcan]

Enhanced wrote...

The Catalyst couldn't just activate the Crucible because he want to. It's designed to require a person to willingly sarcifice him or herself to activate it.

. Or because he had no desire to do so until his back was against the wall.

[KennyAshes]

Enhanced wrote...

The Catalyst did want synthesis, but couldn't just activate the Crucible because he wanted to.  It's designed to require a person to willingly sarcifice him or herself to activate it.

Assuming indoctrinated beings do not count, this is one heck of a machine and one very very stupid requirement build into the crucible. So stupid even that programming something like that is a waste of time there was not in the MEU.

[FIN-Olmi]

 Count me in!  We destroy them or they destroy us.

My Shepard's quest has been to destroy the reapears since Eden Prime and I will not let my Shepards turn into the illusive man2.0 or Saren2.0

[Ieldra]

ElSuperGecko wrote...
It's us or them.

Hehe....isn't this proof of my hypothesis that some Destroyers are stuck in an us vs. them mentality. Not that I think it's not an understandable stance, but it's most emphatically not the only imaginable one, neither in this conflict nor anywhere else.

(And I'm lucky that it isn't, because my country would've been destroyed after WWII if it was. Some thought it should be, actually. And yet, here we are, and it isn't all bad)

[Wayning_Star]

Ieldra2 wrote...

ElSuperGecko wrote...
It's us or them.

Hehe....isn't this proof of my hypothesis that some Destroyers are stuck in an us vs. them mentality. Not that I think it's not an understandable stance, but it's most emphatically not the only imaginable one, neither in this conflict nor anywhere else.

(And I'm lucky that it isn't, because my country would've been destroyed after WWII if it was. Some thought it should be, actually. And yet, here we are, and it isn't all bad)

an example of "US" versing ourselves..as it were Destroy uses atomics to clean up a toxic spill..

[KennyAshes]

Ieldra2 wrote...

ElSuperGecko wrote...
It's us or them.

Hehe....isn't this proof of my hypothesis that some Destroyers are stuck in an us vs. them mentality. Not that I think it's not an understandable stance, but it's most emphatically not the only imaginable one, neither in this conflict nor anywhere else.

(And I'm lucky that it isn't, because my country would've been destroyed after WWII if it was. Some thought it should be, actually. And yet, here we are, and it isn't all bad)

Bear in mind that every race that is apex on their home planet did not become the apex creature by being friendly grass-eaters. Some became apex by breeding (Asari), the others by intelligence (Salarians), and others just by knocking other species into oblivion (humans, Krogan). But in the end all had a struggle and a fight to survive. So not a lot of species in the universe will be friendly but a lot will shoot first and then look wtf you are. Fighting to survive literally is in our being and in our state of mind. Not to imagine the un-imaginable cruelties apex-creatures inflict on 'lesser'-creatures.

[Wayning_Star]

being APEX is what caused for the strife in the MEU,hence the cycle. The endless contraption of survival. Theoretically, the synth is a way around it by altering the basis of it, evolution via the very existence OF existence. Nature. That thing that controls the needs that 'shape' intelligence so the body can survive to contain it. Simple in the complication of construction.

[TheRealJayDee]

It's really a question of commensurability. I'm not one who thinks killing people who did wrong is the best way to go, because imo it usually isn't. But I think sentient starships of superior power who start an unprovoked war of aggression against the whole galaxy with the explicit intent of wiping out most intelligent life in huge mass genocides and who did so countless times before without any sign of hesitation or remorse seems like a pretty good point to draw the line.

[Obadiah]

jtav wrote...

Obadiah wrote...
I think it does take those rights away from them. Society takes away peoples rights all the time for breaking laws, and the Reapers have most certainly broken those.

Sure we do, but the right being spoken of was the right to be considered valid life. If they are, then it can't be taken away by anything they do. So the question becomes: can we contain them without killing them?

That's an interesting way of putting it.

First, I don't think the action of "containment" necessarily follows from considering something a valid from of life.

Second, I still don't see why that right can't be taken away. Even if the right of "consideration as life" stood, there is also the "right to go on living." Can you not conceive of an action that could abdicate either of those rights? Is the mass killing of all advanced sientient organic and artificial life for 37 million plus years not enough to abdicate either of those rights? I think at the decision chamber, realistically, we're at a point where the Reaper's rights aren't really the over-riding principle to be considered.

But, you know, you got five minutes before THE REAPERS destroy all of your options. Weigh the considerations as you will.

[Edited]

Modifié par Obadiah, 19 février 2013 - 03:11 .

[Enhanced]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

It's really a question of commensurability. I'm not one who thinks killing people who did wrong is the best way to go, because imo it usually isn't. But I think sentient starships of superior power who start an unprovoked war of aggression against the whole galaxy with the explicit intent of wiping out most intelligent life in huge mass genocides and who did so countless times before without any sign of hesitation or remorse seems like a pretty good point to draw the line.

They are not really sentient.  They are doing what they are programmed to do, preserve life at all cost. They don't have a choice.

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

[BleedingUranium]

Enhanced wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Enhanced wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Enhanced wrote...

I don't think Shepard likes Destroy...

Catalyst: "Soon, your children will create synthetics, and then the chaos will come back"
Shepard: "There has to be another way"

Likes? Probably not, but it turns out there's no other way to kill the Reapers.

Yea. Just saying,  Shepard is not really excited about Destroy after realizing that the galaxy won't be at peace after the reapers are gone.

Only if you believe the kid. I was referring to the deaths of the Geth and EDI.

Shepard believes him. And,  if anyhing other than refuse is chosen, that is undeniable.

No. Choosing Destroy shows you don't believe the problem exists. You don't believe we need ReaperPolice to keep us in line, nor do we need to merge everyone together to get along. I believe we can all get along, and that the Reapers, if they believe otherwise, are wrong. That's why I blow them up.

Ieldra2 wrote...

ElSuperGecko wrote...
It's us or them.

Hehe....isn't
this proof of my hypothesis that some Destroyers are stuck in an us vs.
them mentality. Not that I think it's not an understandable stance, but
it's most emphatically not the only imaginable one, neither in this
conflict nor anywhere else.

(And I'm lucky that it isn't,
because my country would've been destroyed after WWII if it was. Some
thought it should be, actually. And yet, here we are, and it isn't all
bad)

Real world examples don't work, because true evil only exists in fiction.

The Reapers can only be compared to things like the Borg, the Flood, or Sauron and his Orcs.