445 réponses à ce sujet

[teh DRUMPf!!]

[quote]3DandBeyond wrote...

Actually outside of this thread, I've never even heard the argument used at all.[/quote]

Non-Destroyers are clearly more sensitive to it.

The pre-reaper machines were killers.[/quote]

Says who? Maybe they were just provoked and fighting in "self-defense."

Or there were Project Overlord-like incidents in that time period that turned them hostile through infection.

There are any number of reasons synthetics can "rebel" against organics, not simply being "killers."

[quote]If they have some sort of consciousness then it's not logical to consider they still exist as the people they were nor that they'd like to exist in their current state.[/quote]

'Not sure how you reached either conclusion here. The virtual-alien example lends credence to both being possible.

[quote]That leads to the question of the reapers themselves.  As machines they were killers, so I have no concern for them on that point.[/quote]

I'm sure some would say the same about the geth, but I don't get the idea you ever wipe them out over Rannoch.

[quote]The cons in keeping them alive are fully outweighed by the pros in destroying them.

The reapers are a mess of a creation.  As has been said, they are the coffins of trillions of people.  I have no mercy for them because from all I know they have always been killers, controlled or autonomous.  And if kept alive, they'd exist merely to be misused by some future TIM, if nothing else.[/quote]

We meet again, slippery-slope fallacy.

[3DandBeyond]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Alienboy411676 wrote...

In either case, I still believe picking synthesis is wrong no matter what, as I explained in my previous post.  Even with the time for him to explain it to you, it is wrong to impose it on the entire galaxy

Moot point, considering every option is imposed in nature....

Destroy: directly imposed death on synthetic life, indirect effects on organics (losing valuable allies).
Control: directly imposed control over Reapers, likely indirect effects on galaxy at large.
Sync: directly imposed change unto organic life, indirect effects on synthetics (gained understanding through us).

Any of these "impositions" can and are easily justified by the fact that it saves all life from imminent death/harvest.

I don't *like* it. In a perfect world, we'd have choices like the last link in my sig, but this isn't a perfect world.

A choice still has to be made.

I'm sorry this is incredibly silly.  Yes, they're all imposed except one specifically is forced into the bodies of people.  I can at least presume that should Control happen the people are fundamentally intact and no one is dead so they still have some possible choice (I find it horrific for many reasons all its own).  But you know darn well the imposition people speak of is in inserting or creating and replicating tech in people's bodies without their consent.  And by any definition this imposition is forced.

Yes, as I see it destroy kills synthetic life, though that is not ever said to Shepard other than that all synthetics will be destroyed-the word "life" is never said.  Even in meta-gaming we have no real clue as to who it affected other than EDI.  All tech will be damaged but easily repaird.  Ok, synthetic life is tech and all tech is synthetic.  The whole description is a mess so saying it's imposed on synthetic life is ignoring really what we're told.  And yet the teller is not credible so we must rely on what we see after making a choice.

Synthesis was not something any rational person wanted and there were people in ME that never even wanted implants of any kind in their bodies.  This means that if Shepard does choose it then s/he is knowingly invading the bodies of people against their will.  We see that this is exactly what happens but strangely enough the point of view we get on it is EDI's and not any organic person's feelings about it all.  And for some reason she's alive even though she already told my Shepard she was because of her, and yet all synthetics were given (from somewhere magical) is full understanding of organics (a lifeform that no longer exists since it has been hybridized with fully integrated tech).  It's a mess as are all the choices.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 

3DandBeyond wrote...

The only conclusion is that keeping the reapers is more about keeping libraries of information, but if the library at Alexandria was some people sucking monster whose existence thus far was only to suck up the minds and bodies of people, I sincerely doubt people would be so distraught over its destruction.

Again, parable of the geth.

All units' hardware are designed for combat, because their existence depended on eliminating organics that threatened them.

Are organic-killing machines they only definition of who they are?

[Steelcan]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 

3DandBeyond wrote...

The only conclusion is that keeping the reapers is more about keeping libraries of information, but if the library at Alexandria was some people sucking monster whose existence thus far was only to suck up the minds and bodies of people, I sincerely doubt people would be so distraught over its destruction.

Again, parable of the geth.

All units' hardware are designed for combat, because their existence depended on eliminating organics that threatened them.

Are organic-killing machines they only definition of who they are?

. Maybe if they tried to escape that label we could talk.  But they never do ANYTHING to do so.

[3DandBeyond]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Non-Destroyers are clearly more sensitive to it.

Says who? Maybe they were just provoked and fighting in "self-defense."

Or there were Project Overlord-like incidents in that time period that turned them hostile through infection.

There are any number of reasons synthetics can "rebel" against organics, not simply being "killers."

'Not sure how you reached either conclusion here. The virtual-alien example lends credence to both being possible.

I'm sure some would say the same about the geth, but I don't get the idea you ever wipe them out over Rannoch.

We meet again, slippery-slope fallacy.

I can't take you seriously at all because you have always been someone that appears to want a rational discussion and then you mischaracterize what others have said.  I see this as a trolling thread.  Nowhere has anyone ever discussed mercy killing reapers to any extent.  They've only ever said (and mostly here where I've said it) the people inside the reapers wouldn't like to live that way.

Slippery slope, my eye.  You're picking and choosing in order to belittle the posters, just as you did with the statement of synthesis being imposed.  I'd say you know better what the poster meant, but I'm beginning to think you either don't or you don't care. This could have been used for a real discussion but you're using it to start argument.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 27 mars 2013 - 02:13 .

[3DandBeyond]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 

3DandBeyond wrote...

The only conclusion is that keeping the reapers is more about keeping libraries of information, but if the library at Alexandria was some people sucking monster whose existence thus far was only to suck up the minds and bodies of people, I sincerely doubt people would be so distraught over its destruction.

Again, parable of the geth.

All units' hardware are designed for combat, because their existence depended on eliminating organics that threatened them.

Are organic-killing machines they only definition of who they are?

Your geth analogy is ridiculous.  The geth had never even fired a weapon until attacked by the quarians.  They were created for various (even domestic) tasks.  And the geth in and of themselves never had shown an intent to attack and kill anyone.  They were taught that because they had to defend themselves.  This is so not a corollary to the existence of the reapers at all.  They aren't defending themselves-they are attacking and liquefying people.

The geth were not designed for combat because their existence depended upon eliminating anyone-it was learned behavior for them for self-preservation.  Sure, some of them may have been created to be used in fighting for the quarians (we don't know if so).  And yes, later on they did perceive REAL threats to themselves and again act on them.

And the pre-reaper machines were not said to have been created to eliminate organics that threatened them, nor were the reapers. 

The reapers were created with the express intent of solving Leviathan's problem of synthetics that will kill all organics-to find a balance between organics and synthetics and to keep synthetics from inevitably destroying all organic life.  The kid may think (and as I see it he does) that organics are a threat but his purpose is not to eliminate them as a threat nor is it ever said that the pre-reaper machines were created for that purpose.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

3DandBeyond wrote...

I'm sorry this is incredibly silly.  Yes, they're all imposed except one specifically is forced into the bodies of people.

Semantics. Imposition onto bodies is no more/less an imposition than one of death, new-world-order, control...

But you know darn well the imposition people speak of is in inserting or creating and replicating tech in people's bodies without their consent.

It's clear that many folks around here are most sensitive to the imposition that would affect them directly.

I'm pointing out that, despite that clear sensitivity, you can't act like the others aren't imposed in their own rights.

I only speak my own mind. I don't see the imposition of tech in people's bodies as fudamentally different than imposition of death on others, nor different than imposing control on others, nor different than imposing, nor yet different from imposing order on the galaxy.

Yes, as I see it destroy kills synthetic life, though that is not ever said to Shepard other than that all synthetics will be destroyed-the word "life" is never said.  Even in meta-gaming we have no real clue as to who it affected other than EDI.  All tech will be damaged but easily repaird.  Ok, synthetic life is tech and all tech is synthetic.  The whole description is a mess so saying it's imposed on synthetic life is ignoring really what we're told.

No, I reached that conclusion easily.

And yet the teller is not credible so we must rely on what we see after making a choice.

The teller has credibility in its own right, but it's not worth my time to go down that road yet again.

Synthesis was not something any rational person wanted

Just because nobody did rationally forsee the solution does not mean nobody would rationally want it.

[redbaron76]

@ HYR 2.0

Your whole statement is wrong. No normal being would evere choose to exist as a machine if they had a choice. And as to another permises just ask ****s, because they had same ideas as you did and they started a war and lost. Killing reapers is not mercy it is justice. Reapers killed and harvested all those lifeforms without their permission and regard for their wishes. And also do you want to be harvested ad exist as a machine. Because nobody does.

[Applepie_Svk]

3DandBeyond wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 

3DandBeyond wrote...

The only conclusion is that keeping the reapers is more about keeping libraries of information, but if the library at Alexandria was some people sucking monster whose existence thus far was only to suck up the minds and bodies of people, I sincerely doubt people would be so distraught over its destruction.

Again, parable of the geth.

All units' hardware are designed for combat, because their existence depended on eliminating organics that threatened them.

Are organic-killing machines they only definition of who they are?

Your geth analogy is ridiculous.  The geth had never even fired a weapon until attacked by the quarians.  They were created for various (even domestic) tasks.  And the geth in and of themselves never had shown an intent to attack and kill anyone.  They were taught that because they had to defend themselves.  This is so not a corollary to the existence of the reapers at all.  They aren't defending themselves-they are attacking and liquefying people.

The geth were not designed for combat because their existence depended upon eliminating anyone-it was learned behavior for them for self-preservation.  Sure, some of them may have been created to be used in fighting for the quarians (we don't know if so).  And yes, later on they did perceive REAL threats to themselves and again act on them.

And the pre-reaper machines were not said to have been created to eliminate organics that threatened them, nor were the reapers. 

The reapers were created with the express intent of solving Leviathan's problem of synthetics that will kill all organics-to find a balance between organics and synthetics and to keep synthetics from inevitably destroying all organic life.  The kid may think (and as I see it he does) that organics are a threat but his purpose is not to eliminate them as a threat nor is it ever said that the pre-reaper machines were created for that purpose.

We can agree that we disagree, whatever you say Reapers are monstrosity created by flawed logic upon the flawed premise by the arc-arse apex race as much their acr-arse AI were both morons. Sayíng that keeping a Reapers is a good way or it has to be done is flawed and wrong in so many ways. Never wanted to bring this argument but saying that synthesis and control are good is like saying that machiavellism applied at years 1939-1945 justify all the horors in same way which Reapers bring horror upon the Milky Way. You don´t like it ? Deal with it, because in its basics it´s the same premise. 

Are the minds inside the Reaper alive ? If we are taking a premise of control ending, then not - they are just AI coppies of their pre-harvested persons - nothing more/nothing less, just a memories within the whole new entity.

[3DandBeyond]

HYR 2.0 wrote...


Just because nobody did rationally forsee the solution does not mean nobody would rationally want it.

Whatever HYR 2.0.  People did know whether or not they wanted tech inserted into their bodies, even tech as seen for something good.  Some didn't want any of it so having it integrated with their DNA would be forcing it on them.  And the fact that you can't see that or refuse to see it indicates you're just for argument as is always the case with you.  That's like saying that just because the passed out drunk girl did not forsee the rape that was about to happen doesn't mean she didn't want it.  And the implication is that someone other than the girl should be able to tell her it's a good idea for her.  Or that someone has the right to say for the whole galaxy that having this tech put into them will be something they will like. 

Guess what, I'm a real person and I wouldn't like it or want it.  If it got put into me it would be going against my will and I supposedly have some idea of what it would do.  And I'm not alone so if a percentage of people here who all know beforehand what Synthesis is wouldn't want it done to them (and there have been polls that say the majority feel this way), then that means it is forced upon them against their will.  Even if one person would not want it, it is forced.

I purely logical terms, all tech is at its core created by flawed beings, organics who created it, or organics who created synthetics who created it.  All tech is flawed.  Planes have mechanical trouble.  Hip implants fail, pacemakers electrocute people.  And the body can reject tech (some individuals have out of control immune systems or super sensitive ones that would reject tech).  It makes no sense at all to have nanites implanted in every organic life in the galaxy and think it contains no flaws or that it would not suffer some rejection or go haywire. THAT is merely one reason people wouldn't want it in them.  Again, the Zha'til have a story that might be revealing to you on that subject and it would be something Shepard would consider as a possibility of what the future could look like by forcing tech into people.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

3DandBeyond wrote...

I can't take you seriously at all because you have always been someone that appears to want a rational discussion and then you mischaracterize what others have said.  I see this as a trolling thread.

Ah, right, trolling. When you dare to buck the conventional-wisdom, it's got to be a lulz troll thread.

Nobody has forced you to participate in discussion here. If it's too much for you, you're free to leave.

This post kind of bums me out because I thought you were better than the average BSNite, 3D.

Nowhere has anyone ever discussed mercy killing reapers to any extent.  They've only ever said (and mostly here where I've said it) the people inside the reapers wouldn't like to live that way.

It's been said plenty of times, believe me!

Slippery slope, my eye.  You're picking and choosing in order to belittle the posters, just as you did with the statement of synthesis being imposed.  I'd say you know better what the poster meant, but I'm beginning to think you either don't or you don't care. This could have been used for a real discussion but you're using it to start argument.

There's no discussion without two sides of an opinion, unless you want groupthink, but my threads have never been about that. Again, if that's too much for you, nobody is making you post here. I'd hate losing you opinion in this matter, but alas.

3DandBeyond wrote...

Your geth analogy is ridiculous.  The geth had never even fired a weapon until attacked by the quarians.  They were created for various (even domestic) tasks.  And the geth in and of themselves never had shown an intent to attack and kill anyone.  They were taught that because they had to defend themselves.

You're preaching to the choir, friend.

I'm giving the perspective of someone who's anti-geth, comparing it to a similar perspective of Reapers.

Just look at what Steelcan had to say about it.

This is so not a corollary to the existence of the reapers at all.  They aren't defending themselves-they are attacking and liquefying people.

The geth were not designed for combat because their existence depended upon eliminating anyone-it was learned behavior for them for self-preservation.  Sure, some of them may have been created to be used in fighting for the quarians (we don't know if so).  And yes, later on they did perceive REAL threats to themselves and again act on them.

Sure it's corollary. The Reapers are really NOT interested in the war. They have a job to do, as directed by the catalyst, and they can't override its control over them. They're built to defend themselves in the same way the geth are.

Albeit, the Reapers are a more extreme example, but no less an example of the same general idea.

And the pre-reaper machines were not said to have been created to eliminate organics that threatened them, nor were the reapers.

I know, that's because no reason was given why they rebeled.

It could be any number of reasons beyond being inherently murderous.

I tend to believe its impossible for a synthetic to ever be evil. Going by D&D Morality, true-neutral, at worst.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 27 mars 2013 - 02:28 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

redbaron76 wrote...

No normal being would evere choose to exist as a machine if they had a choice.

Criminy. Way to not read the OP.

[3DandBeyond]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Again, parable of the geth.

All units' hardware are designed for combat, because their existence depended on eliminating organics that threatened them.

Are organic-killing machines they only definition of who they are?

Your geth analogy is ridiculous.  The geth had never even fired a weapon until attacked by the quarians.  They were created for various (even domestic) tasks.  And the geth in and of themselves never had shown an intent to attack and kill anyone.  They were taught that because they had to defend themselves.  This is so not a corollary to the existence of the reapers at all.  They aren't defending themselves-they are attacking and liquefying people.

The geth were not designed for combat because their existence depended upon eliminating anyone-it was learned behavior for them for self-preservation.  Sure, some of them may have been created to be used in fighting for the quarians (we don't know if so).  And yes, later on they did perceive REAL threats to themselves and again act on them.

And the pre-reaper machines were not said to have been created to eliminate organics that threatened them, nor were the reapers. 

The reapers were created with the express intent of solving Leviathan's problem of synthetics that will kill all organics-to find a balance between organics and synthetics and to keep synthetics from inevitably destroying all organic life.  The kid may think (and as I see it he does) that organics are a threat but his purpose is not to eliminate them as a threat nor is it ever said that the pre-reaper machines were created for that purpose.

We can agree that we disagree, whatever you say Reapers are monstrosity created by flawed logic upon the flawed premise by the arc-arse apex race as much their acr-arse AI were both morons. Sayíng that keeping a Reapers is a good way or it has to be done is flawed and wrong in so many ways. Never wanted to bring this argument but saying that synthesis and control are good is like saying that machiavellism applied at years 1939-1945 justify all the horors in same way which Reapers bring horror upon the Milky Way. You don´t like it ? Deal with it, because in its basics it´s the same premise. 

Are the minds inside the Reaper alive ? If we are taking a premise of control ending, then not - they are just AI coppies of their pre-harvested persons - nothing more/nothing less, just a memories within the whole new entity.

Sometimes it's impossible to avoid.  All throughout just our human history we have examples of people saying they were just following orders.  If we see the reapers as mindless drones following the catalyst's commands then they must be examined as truly mindless.  If they are not, then they are complicit in the evils he has perpetrated.  Either way, I have no mercy for them.  Trillions of lives have been lost in a testament to their lack of knowledge of such a word.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Whatever HYR 2.0.  People did know whether or not they wanted tech inserted into their bodies, even tech as seen for something good.  Some didn't want any of it so having it integrated with their DNA would be forcing it on them.  And the fact that you can't see that or refuse to see it indicates you're just for argument as is always the case with you.  That's like saying that just because the passed out drunk girl did not forsee the rape that was about to happen doesn't mean she didn't want it.  And the implication is that someone other than the girl should be able to tell her it's a good idea for her.  Or that someone has the right to say for the whole galaxy that having this tech put into them will be something they will like. 

Guess what, I'm a real person and I wouldn't like it or want it.  If it got put into me it would be going against my will and I supposedly have some idea of what it would do.  And I'm not alone so if a percentage of people here who all know beforehand what Synthesis is wouldn't want it done to them (and there have been polls that say the majority feel this way), then that means it is forced upon them against their will.  Even if one person would not want it, it is forced.

I purely logical terms, all tech is at its core created by flawed beings, organics who created it, or organics who created synthetics who created it.  All tech is flawed.  Planes have mechanical trouble.  Hip implants fail, pacemakers electrocute people.  And the body can reject tech (some individuals have out of control immune systems or super sensitive ones that would reject tech).  It makes no sense at all to have nanites implanted in every organic life in the galaxy and think it contains no flaws or that it would not suffer some rejection or go haywire. THAT is merely one reason people wouldn't want it in them.  Again, the Zha'til have a story that might be revealing to you on that subject and it would be something Shepard would consider as a possibility of what the future could look like by forcing tech into people.

For someone who claims to know me so well as to "always be looking for argument" and other daring accusations, you should also know that I never denied the very real possibility that many of the synthesized would not have wanted/wished for the change. You'd also know that I've acknowledged, many a time, that it's one of (if not thee) biggest issues with Synthesis.

In the interest of time, I'll have to leave it at that.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 27 mars 2013 - 02:34 .

[3DandBeyond]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

I can't take you seriously at all because you have always been someone that appears to want a rational discussion and then you mischaracterize what others have said.  I see this as a trolling thread.

Ah, right, trolling. When you dare to buck the conventional-wisdom, it's got to be a lulz troll thread.

Nobody has forced you to participate in discussion here. If it's too much for you, you're free to leave.

This post kind of bums me out because I thought you were better than the average BSNite, 3D.

Nowhere has anyone ever discussed mercy killing reapers to any extent.  They've only ever said (and mostly here where I've said it) the people inside the reapers wouldn't like to live that way.

It's been said plenty of times, believe me!

Slippery slope, my eye.  You're picking and choosing in order to belittle the posters, just as you did with the statement of synthesis being imposed.  I'd say you know better what the poster meant, but I'm beginning to think you either don't or you don't care. This could have been used for a real discussion but you're using it to start argument.

There's no discussion without two sides of an opinion, unless you want groupthink, but my threads have never been about that. Again, if that's too much for you, nobody is making you post here. I'd hate losing you opinion in this matter, but alas.

3DandBeyond wrote...

Your geth analogy is ridiculous.  The geth had never even fired a weapon until attacked by the quarians.  They were created for various (even domestic) tasks.  And the geth in and of themselves never had shown an intent to attack and kill anyone.  They were taught that because they had to defend themselves.

You're preaching to the choir, friend.

I'm giving the perspective of someone who's anti-geth, comparing it to a similar perspective of Reapers.

Just look at what Steelcan had to say about it.

This is so not a corollary to the existence of the reapers at all.  They aren't defending themselves-they are attacking and liquefying people.

The geth were not designed for combat because their existence depended upon eliminating anyone-it was learned behavior for them for self-preservation.  Sure, some of them may have been created to be used in fighting for the quarians (we don't know if so).  And yes, later on they did perceive REAL threats to themselves and again act on them.

Sure it's corollary. The Reapers are really NOT interested in the war. They have a job to do, as directed by the catalyst, and they can't override its control over them. They're built to defend themselves in the same way the geth are.

Albeit, the Reapers are a more extreme example, but no less an example of the same general idea.

And the pre-reaper machines were not said to have been created to eliminate organics that threatened them, nor were the reapers.

I know, that's because no reason was given why they rebeled.

It could be any number of reasons beyond being inherently murderous.

I tend to believe its impossible for a synthetic to ever be evil. Going by D&D Morality, true-neutral, at worst.

Again whatever.  I never held myself above anyone else and it's hard to take you seriously because you've burned me before when I thought you were trying to have a true discussion.  I don't believe you are here because you've shown otherwise.  You twist the meaning of the geth around.  The geth being supposedly not quite as advanced as reapers and yet they could supercede their programming and not have an eye to destroy their creators until attacked.

The reapers however exist to destroy organics-you said because organics threaten them-and yet, that's not even what they kid says and you seem to believe him.

The idea that machines or synthetics can't be evil is erroneous.  Evil is more than just intent, it is action as much as it is an intentional desire.  A good person can truly have holy ideas (or so they believe) and commit evil acts in deference to what they think is a good intent.  So too could a warped AI do something evil in support of something that is considered to be a good thing.  Again, it is all about point of view.  My POV is as a human being that understands these things that have claimed some autonomy (Sovereign and Harbinger) directly contradicted by this kid standing before me.  His acts, no matter how well-intended have had evil consequences.  As a reaper, I may not see them as evil.  As the kid, I may not see them as such either.  As a human and it's told from that POV, I can't help but see the effects as being evil.  People have been made into goo in order to serve an irrelevant purpose.  I see the acts as evil and I also see them as irrational, illogical.  I don't care why the kid is doing it.  I would only care about that if I could stop the behavior in a truly satisfying way, on my terms.

[robertthebard]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 This was deserving of its own thread.

I am okay with many arguments for Destroy, but playing the "mercy" card is not one of them.


Disregard everything leading up to the creation of the Reaper, because none of that matters. All that matters in an appeal to mercy is whether or not the target actually wants to be mercy-killed. In this case, you have no way of knowing that. That many were probably forced, unwillingly, to create the Reaper is irrelevant because it doesn't follow that the harvested would reject the prospect of continued existence in these circumstances.

Can we lend credence to the notion that some preserved civilizations would wish for continued existence? Yes, we can.
Snip

So you chose Refuse because you wanted to be a Reaper?

[Kadi]

3DandBeyond wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

I can't take you seriously at all because you have always been someone that appears to want a rational discussion and then you mischaracterize what others have said.  I see this as a trolling thread.

Ah, right, trolling. When you dare to buck the conventional-wisdom, it's got to be a lulz troll thread.

Nobody has forced you to participate in discussion here. If it's too much for you, you're free to leave.

This post kind of bums me out because I thought you were better than the average BSNite, 3D.

Nowhere has anyone ever discussed mercy killing reapers to any extent.  They've only ever said (and mostly here where I've said it) the people inside the reapers wouldn't like to live that way.

It's been said plenty of times, believe me!

Slippery slope, my eye.  You're picking and choosing in order to belittle the posters, just as you did with the statement of synthesis being imposed.  I'd say you know better what the poster meant, but I'm beginning to think you either don't or you don't care. This could have been used for a real discussion but you're using it to start argument.

There's no discussion without two sides of an opinion, unless you want groupthink, but my threads have never been about that. Again, if that's too much for you, nobody is making you post here. I'd hate losing you opinion in this matter, but alas.

3DandBeyond wrote...

Your geth analogy is ridiculous.  The geth had never even fired a weapon until attacked by the quarians.  They were created for various (even domestic) tasks.  And the geth in and of themselves never had shown an intent to attack and kill anyone.  They were taught that because they had to defend themselves.

You're preaching to the choir, friend.

I'm giving the perspective of someone who's anti-geth, comparing it to a similar perspective of Reapers.

Just look at what Steelcan had to say about it.

This is so not a corollary to the existence of the reapers at all.  They aren't defending themselves-they are attacking and liquefying people.

The geth were not designed for combat because their existence depended upon eliminating anyone-it was learned behavior for them for self-preservation.  Sure, some of them may have been created to be used in fighting for the quarians (we don't know if so).  And yes, later on they did perceive REAL threats to themselves and again act on them.

Sure it's corollary. The Reapers are really NOT interested in the war. They have a job to do, as directed by the catalyst, and they can't override its control over them. They're built to defend themselves in the same way the geth are.

Albeit, the Reapers are a more extreme example, but no less an example of the same general idea.

And the pre-reaper machines were not said to have been created to eliminate organics that threatened them, nor were the reapers.

I know, that's because no reason was given why they rebeled.

It could be any number of reasons beyond being inherently murderous.

I tend to believe its impossible for a synthetic to ever be evil. Going by D&D Morality, true-neutral, at worst.

Again whatever.  I never held myself above anyone else and it's hard to take you seriously because you've burned me before when I thought you were trying to have a true discussion.  I don't believe you are here because you've shown otherwise.  You twist the meaning of the geth around.  The geth being supposedly not quite as advanced as reapers and yet they could supercede their programming and not have an eye to destroy their creators until attacked.

The reapers however exist to destroy organics-you said because organics threaten them-and yet, that's not even what they kid says and you seem to believe him.

The idea that machines or synthetics can't be evil is erroneous.  Evil is more than just intent, it is action as much as it is an intentional desire.  A good person can truly have holy ideas (or so they believe) and commit evil acts in deference to what they think is a good intent.  So too could a warped AI do something evil in support of something that is considered to be a good thing.  Again, it is all about point of view.  My POV is as a human being that understands these things that have claimed some autonomy (Sovereign and Harbinger) directly contradicted by this kid standing before me.  His acts, no matter how well-intended have had evil consequences.  As a reaper, I may not see them as evil.  As the kid, I may not see them as such either.  As a human and it's told from that POV, I can't help but see the effects as being evil.  People have been made into goo in order to serve an irrelevant purpose.  I see the acts as evil and I also see them as irrational, illogical.  I don't care why the kid is doing it.  I would only care about that if I could stop the behavior in a truly satisfying way, on my terms.

This.
I posted similar on page 8. The discussion that the Reapers are reaping, with the intent to preserve all life, is wrong because the methods they use to do it. I chose Synthesis to unite all, not ignorant to what others may want, but considering the other options: That killed the synthetics i fought tooth and nail for, Or created a new being from shepard and the cruicible to control the Reapers, which i dont trust because the Reapers are pure evil, every 50.000 years or so they come and harvest or wipe out an entire galaxy, because they demand it, no starchild is going to make me forget what Soverign and Harbinger said. and the fact reapers indoctrinated people to see their PoV, and people rebel, its death, So far above our understanding that they cant even rebel against the Catalyst.

With the Revised Synthesis option, Merging Synthetics and Organics alike, including those death machines from hell, I do it for the Geth, EDI, for the other Organics and and Synthetics, and not becomming deformed shackled/mind controlled monsters. achieving that, means all those trillions of people who have died for countless thousands of years, did not die for nothing. atleast i like to think so, it would be hypocritical to kill the remaining reapers after the fact, however i do think justice should be served, for without Order, we have chaos.

and regarding the people who might be alive after the Harvest, well Living without choice, or freedom in this entity that is supposed to be one nation, its not quality of life, and nobody likes to live without freedom, choice the things that allow them to be human, not to mention being an abomination.

[Auld Wulf]

@EleventhChild

Except that you're basing your entire argument off of a base logical fallacy which contradicts canonical information.

We're told that canonically the Reapers are slaves to the will of another. A slave can't push any idea, because they're already being mind controlled to accept one (the Leviathan Doctrine). I'm more than a little tired of seeing people say that the Reapers are culpable when they full well know this, when they're intelligent and observant enough to notice that the Reapers weren't acting with free will.

That's the difference. If the Reapers were acting with free will then your argument would hold water. But everything in the game has presented evidence that the Reapers were always enslaved to the Leviathan Doctrine by the Catalyst. And that, similarly, they mind control others to do the same. But ultimately they are simply nothing more than tools or weapons, a tool or a weapon has no free will, it is simply an object wielded by another. A tool or a weapon does not make choices. A tool or a weapon does not push agendas.

You're also pushing the "abomination aesthetic," which is hard to take seriously. You're assuming that because something commits abominable acts and looks inhuman, it must therefore be abominable. But the fact of the matter is is that the Reapers are less abominable than any other race we've encountered thus far, because we haven't actually seen them commit an act with free will. The Reapers didn't choose to harvest that way. The Catalyst did.

What's interesting is in the only time we really see a Reaper try to resist the Catalyst's take on the Leviathan Doctrine, going for his own take, was Sovereign. Even Sovereign wasn't free willed, he just had enough wiggle room to want to initiate his own take on the Leviathan Doctrine. But all Reapers have always been enslaved to that. All Reapers have followed that ridiculous mandate to preserve all life according to the methods of the Catalyst. Because of mind control, the Reapers never had any say in the matter.

As I've pointed out many times, a Reaper's life was simply to obey and do as they were told. Only Synthesis gave them another option -- free will. This is a statement that's been dodged many a time.

Whilst you find the Reapers distasteful and want to kill them due to a feeling that shares verisimilitude to base phobias, you're not killing them because of what they've done. Because technically the Reapers haven't done anything yet.

The first act of free will of the majority of Reapers that we see is to rebuild and share information (canonically represented in Synthesis).

So how you feel about the Reapers is irrelevant, what I have a problem with is that you're pushing the idea that the Reapers had some kind of free involvement in the harvest. They didn't. They were forced. They might have found the entire process as distasteful as you did. But they didn't have a choice because they were being controlled.

I'll also say this again, too: A while back I ran a poll. The poll asked that if a man committed a crime under the influence of mind control, would it be most just to free him, control him, or kill him? The majority voted for freeing him, because it was the ethical thing to do.

Just food for thought.

[robertthebard]

Never mind, apparently I'm misinterpreting something here.

Modifié par robertthebard, 27 mars 2013 - 04:34 .

[Auld Wulf]

robertthebard wrote...

So you chose Refuse because you wanted to be a Reaper?

Refuse is less desirable than Synthesis.

The fact of the matter is is that the Reapers are slaves controlled by the Catalyst and the Leviathan Doctrine. They were created to be slaves and to make other slaves. This is because the Catalyst was created by an entire race who believed that enslaving the entire galaxy and basically turning them into pets was an okay thing to do.

Refuse is less desirable because the Leviathan Doctrine is still being followed, there. And the Reapers are still slaves with no free will.

I've often pointed out that I personally wouldn't find the Reaper process so unethical personally if:

A.) It was offered as an optional choice which one opted into.
B.) The Reapers continued to maintain free will.

Those are the two problems with the harvest as they stand -- that it's forced upon people, and that the Reapers created are slaves. Synthesis is preferrable to Refuse because the Reapers are given free within that end result.

[robertthebard]

Auld Wulf wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

So you chose Refuse because you wanted to be a Reaper?

Refuse is less desirable than Synthesis.

The fact of the matter is is that the Reapers are slaves controlled by the Catalyst and the Leviathan Doctrine. They were created to be slaves and to make other slaves. This is because the Catalyst was created by an entire race who believed that enslaving the entire galaxy and basically turning them into pets was an okay thing to do.

Refuse is less desirable because the Leviathan Doctrine is still being followed, there. And the Reapers are still slaves with no free will.

I've often pointed out that I personally wouldn't find the Reaper process so unethical personally if:

A.) It was offered as an optional choice which one opted into.
B.) The Reapers continued to maintain free will.

Those are the two problems with the harvest as they stand -- that it's forced upon people, and that the Reapers created are slaves. Synthesis is preferrable to Refuse because the Reapers are given free within that end result.

I could buy that if I'd never spoken to a Reaper.  But I have Sovereign, and Harbinger, and the unnamed Reaper on Rannoch that state differently.  They may not "enjoy" doing it, but they willingly do so.  Sovereign attempted a one Reaper coup of the Citadel to insure that the Harvest proceeded, and explained to you that you exist because they allow it, and end because they demand it.  Harbinger, and the Rannoch Reaper also expound along these lines, with the latter doing so when it knew it was going to "die".  So no, they are willing participants in the harvest because they believe as the Catalyst does, that it's the right thing to do.

[FOX216BC]

My Shepard is a Soldier.
One of his admirals said. "Dead reapers is how we win this war"
Just following orders.
I don't give a **** about the catalyst and i sure didn't destroy his tools out of mercy.
Control and synthesis would be okay if my Shepard was a lab-rat or a hippy, but he's not.
Refuse? what the hell? every one dies anyway, this option doesn't make any sense at all.

Modifié par FOX216BC, 27 mars 2013 - 04:59 .

[Ryzaki]

Eh I'm tired of people saying everyone dies in refuse.

No.

Only ending where "everyone one" even comes close to dying is low EMS destroy. Refuse simply kills Shep's cycle (and given how derptastic they were during the Reaper war I'm not sure anything of value was lost) who are not everyone. (The Yahg for one are left untouched).

Modifié par Ryzaki, 27 mars 2013 - 05:05 .

[Kadi]

Auld Wulf wrote...

@EleventhChild

Except that you're basing your entire argument off of a base logical fallacy which contradicts canonical information.

We're told that canonically the Reapers are slaves to the will of another. A slave can't push any idea, because they're already being mind controlled to accept one (the Leviathan Doctrine). I'm more than a little tired of seeing people say that the Reapers are culpable when they full well know this, when they're intelligent and observant enough to notice that the Reapers weren't acting with free will.

That's the difference. If the Reapers were acting with free will then your argument would hold water. But everything in the game has presented evidence that the Reapers were always enslaved to the Leviathan Doctrine by the Catalyst. And that, similarly, they mind control others to do the same. But ultimately they are simply nothing more than tools or weapons, a tool or a weapon has no free will, it is simply an object wielded by another. A tool or a weapon does not make choices. A tool or a weapon does not push agendas.

You're also pushing the "abomination aesthetic," which is hard to take seriously. You're assuming that because something commits abominable acts and looks inhuman, it must therefore be abominable. But the fact of the matter is is that the Reapers are less abominable than any other race we've encountered thus far, because we haven't actually seen them commit an act with free will. The Reapers didn't choose to harvest that way. The Catalyst did.

What's interesting is in the only time we really see a Reaper try to resist the Catalyst's take on the Leviathan Doctrine, going for his own take, was Sovereign. Even Sovereign wasn't free willed, he just had enough wiggle room to want to initiate his own take on the Leviathan Doctrine. But all Reapers have always been enslaved to that. All Reapers have followed that ridiculous mandate to preserve all life according to the methods of the Catalyst. Because of mind control, the Reapers never had any say in the matter.

As I've pointed out many times, a Reaper's life was simply to obey and do as they were told. Only Synthesis gave them another option -- free will. This is a statement that's been dodged many a time.

Whilst you find the Reapers distasteful and want to kill them due to a feeling that shares verisimilitude to base phobias, you're not killing them because of what they've done. Because technically the Reapers haven't done anything yet.

The first act of free will of the majority of Reapers that we see is to rebuild and share information (canonically represented in Synthesis).

So how you feel about the Reapers is irrelevant, what I have a problem with is that you're pushing the idea that the Reapers had some kind of free involvement in the harvest. They didn't. They were forced. They might have found the entire process as distasteful as you did. But they didn't have a choice because they were being controlled.

I'll also say this again, too: A while back I ran a poll. The poll asked that if a man committed a crime under the influence of mind control, would it be most just to free him, control him, or kill him? The majority voted for freeing him, because it was the ethical thing to do.

Just food for thought.

Have to excuse your tiredness then, as Ive not posted here for a long time And i am not entirely familliar with all the theories floating around her, or all of the discussions infact,  This one caught my eye, as i chose Synthesis, but not in the same light as some of these people.
I think being made to live as a husk, or shadow of your former self, without freedom's or choices, just what i can imagine comes as base primal nature (like the Husks, or Cannibles) constitutes as being an abomination of the living, not what they look like.  Killing them is not only right, in respect for what they once were, or its most likely what they wanted, why else would they run and scream, or fight till the last breath against the reapers instead of accepting them and their cruel ideal of life? and I am not ignorant to the notion that once they have been harvested together to create a new being, or "nation" because i feel its like our own body, Our brain makes the decisions, our body does as its commanded, never mind the rest of the individual little things that make us work.  they are mindless, they exists to serve, and im sure thats what the reapes were made into.
and Because we havent seen the reapers act in any other way than pure violence, its not hard to build a defensive case against an enemey that up until Shepard has a heart to heart over a cup of tea with the Catalyst wanted to Harvest or Destroy us. Then the catalyst tells us its for preservation, if They wanted to preserve all life, why be so damned evil and force it.
Also I stated feel they should be judged for their crimes against the galaxy, not that i chose to destroy them. I chose Synthesis to get away from war and further mass Genocide. and Yes we see them rebuild and help, which does proove they arent completely malicious, but shouldnt they be held accountable for what they did or did not intend to do? ask the trillions of lives who were taken by force, death or harvest. you cant. I guess we'll see if the reapes actually have a shread of "humanity?" inside them, because thats the question that trips me up. do they feel guilt.
having accountability and responsability for ones actions goes a long way to fitting into the "natural order" of the current galaxy after the war no?
ps sorry if i made a contradiction to myself there, >.< what they are and what theyve done in the same post is confusing to me >.<