748 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

Hexley UK wrote...

Even if we didn't it's still "Accidental Genocide" but Genocide nonetheless.

There is no such thing as accidental genocide.

[Getorex]

No because I would be lost without my smart phone, my electric watch, my PC, the computer in my car (just TRY and operate your car with the computer toasted!), the computers in jets, rockets, etc.

Just how the HELL do you tell a "dumb" PC from a "smart" PC AI? The size of the code? What is that magic/mystical line that separates a VI from an AI? Nothing but code...so, no, I don't accept the loss of all synthetics because it couldn't be done without toasting ALL related tech. Stone Age baby! Or at the very least, back to vacuum tubes.

Or are we talking about synthetic biology? In THAT case you cannot actually tell the biological difference between a synthetic cell (cell membranes, DNA, RNA, proteins, etc) and a naturally evolved cell (cell membranes, DNA, RNA, proteins, etc). The only way you might tell is the lack of "junk" DNA in the synthetic vs the natural...but surely that isn't a good way to discern (and wipe out) one vs the other...viruses don't have "junk" DNA (or RNA) in them.  None of them do.  Many/most bacteria don't have "junk" DNA so...no you couldn't tell synthetic biological cell from nonsynthetic in that way. 

No, I don't accept it cuz it just cannot be done.  It's impossible.

Modifié par Getorex, 08 mars 2013 - 06:04 .

[elitecom]

The answer is quite simple:Synthetics can quickly be rebuilt.

[LucasShark]

Yes, it's bad...

It's better than the alternatives:
- Galactic eternal police state
- Universal mind and body rape
- death to all and then one of the awful 3 anyway.

[Hexley UK]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

Even if we didn't it's still "Accidental Genocide" but Genocide nonetheless.

There is no such thing as accidental genocide.

Only because in our history nobody ever "accidentally" exterminated an entire race of people, so yes the term has probably never come up officially.

But your just being pedantic.

Modifié par Hexley UK, 08 mars 2013 - 06:04 .

[CronoDragoon]

Hexley UK wrote...

Only because in our history nobody ever "accidentally" exterminated an entire race of people, so yes the term has probably never come up officially.

And yet we are trying to label the act using an historical term: genocide.

That's why labeling it such is so problematic. There is so little in common it shares with the historical examples of genocide, in terms of intent, reasoning, and execution.

But your just being pedantic.

I'm not. Calling something genocide puts people in the same category as the worst criminals in our history. It is entirely fair to ask you why this is genocide and dispute the contradictions I've received in response.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 08 mars 2013 - 06:07 .

[Xilizhra]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Not as much as you'd like to think. You're making the deliberate choice to kill all the geth because killing the geth will prevent you from needing to pick Control or Synthesis.

Something is either intended or it's not. A side effect is unintended.

Yes, I am making a choice to pick an ending that happens to kill the geth, because I think Control and Synthesis are worse. See how much more accurate we can be when we don't classify other people as monsters?

You're making the choice to kill the geth because you think the other two are worse. You cannot separate killing the Reapers and killing the geth.

Also, I don't believe in humans being monsters. I do believe that Destroy is monstrous, however.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 08 mars 2013 - 06:06 .

[Hexley UK]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

Only because in our history nobody ever "accidentally" exterminated an entire race of people, so yes the term has probably never come up officially.

And yet we are trying to label the act using an historical term: genocide.

That's why labeling it such is so problematic. There is so little in common it shares with the historical examples of genocide, in terms of intent, reasoning, and execution.

What it's called is entirely irrelevant....it's still the death of an entire race and Shepard causes it.

[Reapling]

You guys don't pay attention, do you? Admiral Hackett specifically says that EVERYTHING that was lost can be REBUILT... and MORE. Once again, the catalyst states that synthetics can and WILL be rebuilt by future generations. The term genocide cannot be used here because it is reversible and is not intended. This is a dire situation, put yourself in Shepard's place and face the uncertainty of the future of Control and Synthesis. He may lose control over the reapers to the catalyst AND, like Thane says during the invasion of the heretic station in Mass Effect 2, it is better to die than to force a belief down someone's throat (re-writing the Heretics), which is exactly what synthesis is.

[wright1978]

When faced with 3 abhorrent choices, I'll choose the least abhorrent, that's destroy for me. That's ignoring the fact that the presenter of the endings is an untrustworthy little troll.

[CronoDragoon]

Hexley UK wrote...

What it's called is entirely irrelevant....it's still the death of an entire race and Shepard causes it.

It is NOT irrelevant, because calling it genocide has a specific connotation in history. If it's irrelevant what it's called then be more specific and accurate and say:

it's still the death of an entire race and Shepard causes it.

Which I more or less agree with.

[HiddenInWar]

 Lets just all agree that:

• Losing the geth sucked
• Transforming every life form without their consent sucks
• Possibly losing yourself into the next cycle sucks
• Having horrific outcomes in either of these endings in an effort to save the galaxy, sucks.

[Xilizhra]

Reapling wrote...

You guys don't pay attention, do you? Admiral Hackett specifically says that EVERYTHING that was lost can be REBUILT... and MORE. Once again, the catalyst states that synthetics can and WILL be rebuilt by future generations. The term genocide cannot be used here because it is reversible and is not intended. This is a dire situation, put yourself in Shepard's place and face the uncertainty of the future of Control and Synthesis. He may lose control over the reapers to the catalyst AND, like Thane says during the invasion of the heretic station in Mass Effect 2, it is better to die than to force a belief down someone's throat (re-writing the Heretics), which is exactly what synthesis is.

Even if a new race of AIs is built, the original geth have been wiped out forever. I could kill every last human, clone more humans, and it wouldn't make the previous humans any less dead. Also, I disagree with Thane there.

 
Lets just all agree that:

No.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 08 mars 2013 - 06:10 .

[cerberus1701]

Quote: The breath scene (which is most likely just the clone, anyway)

Breath scene existed before the clone.

[Hexley UK]

Reapling wrote...

You guys don't pay attention, do you? Admiral Hackett specifically says that EVERYTHING that was lost can be REBUILT... and MORE. Once again, the catalyst states that synthetics can and WILL be rebuilt by future generations. The term genocide cannot be used here because it is reversible and is not intended. This is a dire situation, put yourself in Shepard's place and face the uncertainty of the future of Control and Synthesis. He may lose control over the reapers to the catalyst AND, like Thane says during the invasion of the heretic station in Mass Effect 2, it is better to die than to force a belief down someone's throat (re-writing the Heretics), which is exactly what synthesis is.

And we still have people of Jewish faith today...does that make the atrocities of WW2 any less disgusting?

Modifié par Hexley UK, 08 mars 2013 - 06:10 .

[CronoDragoon]

Xilizhra wrote...
You're making the choice to kill the geth because you think the other two are worse. You cannot separate killing the Reapers and killing the geth.

It's actually part of my point that you can't separate killing the geth and the Reapers. If you COULD and chose NOT to anyway, killing the geth, then I would have a VERY different opinion on the matter.

[fr33stylez]

It doesn't matter whether you want to call Destroy genocide, it's still less repulsive than Control and Synthesis. And the fact I based my decision on which one is the least reupulsive should tell you a lot about the quality of the endings.

Modifié par fr33stylez, 08 mars 2013 - 06:11 .

[Getorex]

Hexley UK wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

Only because in our history nobody ever "accidentally" exterminated an entire race of people, so yes the term has probably never come up officially.

And yet we are trying to label the act using an historical term: genocide.

That's why labeling it such is so problematic. There is so little in common it shares with the historical examples of genocide, in terms of intent, reasoning, and execution.

What it's called is entirely irrelevant....it's still the death of an entire race and Shepard causes it.

Shepard: Judge, jury, and executioner of not just ONE bad guy, not a
troop of bad guys, but an ENTIRE race of NON-bad guys.  Oh yeah, THAT'S
the Shepard I was aiming for in my game play. Oh, and also (unfortunately for the game and reason) the killer of Joker's sex toy robot.

[Getorex]

wright1978 wrote...

When faced with 3 abhorrent choices, I'll choose the least abhorrent, that's destroy for me. That's ignoring the fact that the presenter of the endings is an untrustworthy little troll.

An abhorrent, chubby, poopypants wearing brat troll.  Be accurate.

[Yeulia]

wright1978 wrote...

When faced with 3 abhorrent choices, I'll choose the least abhorrent, that's destroy for me. That's ignoring the fact that the presenter of the endings is an untrustworthy little troll.

I agree~

Neither I nor Shepard going into this the first time knew entirely what was going to happen. So in that case I would rather have dead reaper than reapers chilling around the other species that they were just trying to kill 5 minutes ago. 

[Reapling]

Hexley UK wrote...

Reapling wrote...

You guys don't pay attention, do you? Admiral Hackett specifically says that EVERYTHING that was lost can be REBUILT... and MORE. Once again, the catalyst states that synthetics can and WILL be rebuilt by future generations. The term genocide cannot be used here because it is reversible and is not intended. This is a dire situation, put yourself in Shepard's place and face the uncertainty of the future of Control and Synthesis. He may lose control over the reapers to the catalyst AND, like Thane says during the invasion of the heretic station in Mass Effect 2, it is better to die than to force a belief down someone's throat (re-writing the Heretics), which is exactly what synthesis is.

And we still have people of Jewish faith today...does that make the atrocities of WW2 any less disgusting?

No it doesn't, but that's the reality of warfare.

[Xilizhra]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
You're making the choice to kill the geth because you think the other two are worse. You cannot separate killing the Reapers and killing the geth.

It's actually part of my point that you can't separate killing the geth and the Reapers. If you COULD and chose NOT to anyway, killing the geth, then I would have a VERY different opinion on the matter.

What I mean is that you make the active and deliberate choice to kill the geth just as much as you do the Reapers.

[Hexley UK]

Destroy = Genocide
Control = Slavery
Synthesis = Forced Eugenics/Racial Cleansing

All abhorrent and disgusting.

Shepard is no hero.

Modifié par Hexley UK, 08 mars 2013 - 06:15 .

[Hexley UK]

Reapling wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

Reapling wrote...

You guys don't pay attention, do you? Admiral Hackett specifically says that EVERYTHING that was lost can be REBUILT... and MORE. Once again, the catalyst states that synthetics can and WILL be rebuilt by future generations. The term genocide cannot be used here because it is reversible and is not intended. This is a dire situation, put yourself in Shepard's place and face the uncertainty of the future of Control and Synthesis. He may lose control over the reapers to the catalyst AND, like Thane says during the invasion of the heretic station in Mass Effect 2, it is better to die than to force a belief down someone's throat (re-writing the Heretics), which is exactly what synthesis is.

And we still have people of Jewish faith today...does that make the atrocities of WW2 any less disgusting?

No it doesn't, but that's the reality of warfare.

Oh well that makes it okay then.

[Reapling]

Xilizhra wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
You're making the choice to kill the geth because you think the other two are worse. You cannot separate killing the Reapers and killing the geth.

It's actually part of my point that you can't separate killing the geth and the Reapers. If you COULD and chose NOT to anyway, killing the geth, then I would have a VERY different opinion on the matter.

What I mean is that you make the active and deliberate choice to kill the geth just as much as you do the Reapers.

We can argue for hours on end that all three of the choices have negative side effects. Hell, I could name you a dozen for EACH. Let's just agree to disagree and stop tearing each other apart.