779 réponses à ce sujet

[IntelligentME3Fanboy]

[quote]Auintus wrote...

[quote]Zavox wrote...

Simple. You choose to take the CHANCE to forge a bridge with pretty much every ethic trodden upon in the process. If it were a guarantee I might overlook it (probably still won't), but it's not. Every discussion about this subject with synthetic proponents seems to be involved with hindsight.

Either way, it's the 'it's only a small crime' that always gets me worked up. Just accept and come out that you pay a huge price for the bridge, but you think that the end justifies the means.
[/quote]

And the ethics of life? Destroy commits genocide against the geth. Synthesis fundamentally alter the galaxy's life, all of it. But I understand it as being for the better. Destroy only affects the geth and EDI. The difference is: Following Synthesis, the people affected can still do what they want. Live, laugh, love, whatever. Following Destroy, the geth can do nothing. Synthesis makes a single decision on behalf of everybody. Destroy takes every future decision away from a select few. Even if we weigh this on the principles of choice over life, I still don't see how Destroy is considered preferable.
[/quoteGenocide[/b] is "the deliberate and systematic destruction of, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.Are you sure it's genocide?

Modifié par IntelligentME3Fanboy, 02 avril 2013 - 11:23 .

[Auintus]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Destroy is infinitely preferable for reasons I discussed back in my earlier argument. That you dismissed without reading.

Round one: I tried to goad you into bringing the topic to the forefront. It was a psychology experiment. You were mellower than I expected, so that idea failed.
Round two: I clarify my intentions on round one and politely ask that you bring that specific argument to the forefront. I am ignored.
So, my pickley little friend, one more time: You post on here a lot. I have no goddamn clue which post you are talking about. If you would be kind enough to bring it to my attention, I would be happy to address it and tell you, in explicit detail, just how wrong you are. <_<
Who knows? Maybe you'll even change my mind.

[Auintus]

Zavox wrote...

Only if you believe the catalyst... again it's all hindsight. Why would you believe the catalyst? Before the ending I would simply see shooting a tube next to the catalyst as only destroying the catalyst.

Why wouldn't I believe it? If it wanted to continue the harvest, it would have just left you to bleed out. No rational, thinking being is going to think that shooting at a precision instrument will make it do what you want. If it wanted to trick you, it would have mixed up your options or played Destroy up as even worse. Or it could have just kept talking to you(it says a few times "there is not enough time") and brought the Reapers in to trash the Crucible. It did none of these things. So I trust it.

[Auintus]

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

Auintus wrote...

And the ethics of life? Destroy commits genocide against the geth. Synthesis fundamentally alter the galaxy's life, all of it. But I understand it as being for the better. Destroy only affects the geth and EDI. The difference is: Following Synthesis, the people affected can still do what they want. Live, laugh, love, whatever. Following Destroy, the geth can do nothing. Synthesis makes a single decision on behalf of everybody. Destroy takes every future decision away from a select few. Even if we weigh this on the principles of choice over life, I still don't see how Destroy is considered preferable.

Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction of, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.Are you sure it's genocide?

I would call the geth a race, so yes. Maybe not particularly systematic, but the Crucible does discriminate between synthetics and organics, so I think it counts.

Modifié par Auintus, 02 avril 2013 - 11:34 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Auintus wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Destroy is infinitely preferable for reasons I discussed back in my earlier argument. That you dismissed without reading.

Round one: I tried to goad you into bringing the topic to the forefront. It was a psychology experiment. You were mellower than I expected, so that idea failed.
Round two: I clarify my intentions on round one and politely ask that you bring that specific argument to the forefront. I am ignored.
So, my pickley little friend, one more time: You post on here a lot. I have no goddamn clue which post you are talking about. If you would be kind enough to bring it to my attention, I would be happy to address it and tell you, in explicit detail, just how wrong you are. <_<
Who knows? Maybe you'll even change my mind.

I'll leave it for you to find pal. I don't think I'll change your mind though. 

Can I ask what would incline you to trust the Catalyst without meta-gaming? 

Why is his problem a problem anyway? He made it one. Actually he was made by a race of flawed beings to fix their problem. Isn't he, as a synthetic creation of his organic masters whom he turned on, a problem in his own?

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 02 avril 2013 - 11:41 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Auintus wrote...

Zavox wrote...

Only if you believe the catalyst... again it's all hindsight. Why would you believe the catalyst? Before the ending I would simply see shooting a tube next to the catalyst as only destroying the catalyst.

Why wouldn't I believe it? If it wanted to continue the harvest, it would have just left you to bleed out. No rational, thinking being is going to think that shooting at a precision instrument will make it do what you want. If it wanted to trick you, it would have mixed up your options or played Destroy up as even worse. Or it could have just kept talking to you(it says a few times "there is not enough time") and brought the Reapers in to trash the Crucible. It did none of these things. So I trust it.

Perhaps it's in its nature to deceive? Perhaps it is programmed to inform you of a truth but not the truth. In that faustian bargain, you can really only refuse. 

It's a matter of how you interpret the problem. I absolutely believe the Catalyst believes everything it says. I also believe that it's horrifically flawed judgement, stipulated by an imperfect organic race (also created by it and having its logic defined by the constraints the Leviathans built into it), is something that has caused an untold suffering and destruction upon the galaxy. I will remove it and its solution from the equation permanently.

I'll refrain from telling you that you're making a faulty generalization of the Catalysts given motives, and by your given logic, he could also be lying to you about synthesis. And the outcome. Is it more than a green vaporizing laser? You won't ever know.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 02 avril 2013 - 11:47 .

[chmarr]

http://mmoscreensite...662&REFERRAL=LI

[Riot86]

Auintus wrote...

And the ethics of life? Destroy commits genocide against the geth. Synthesis fundamentally alter the galaxy's life, all of it. But I understand it as being for the better. Destroy only affects the geth and EDI. The difference is: Following Synthesis, the people affected can still do what they want. Live, laugh, love, whatever. Following Destroy, the geth can do nothing. Synthesis makes a single decision on behalf of everybody. Destroy takes every future decision away from a select few. Even if we weigh this on the principles of choice over life, I still don't see how Destroy is considered preferable.

"If you change who someone is, how they think, you have killed them. They will be something new in the same body." (Samara)

Destroy only kills Synthetics.

Synthesis however basically "kills" everyone and replaces them with people who might look the same but think differently. But their old self is gone, "dead" so to speak.

Modifié par Riot86, 02 avril 2013 - 11:47 .

[Auintus]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I'll leave it for you to find pal. I don't think you'll change my mind though. 

Can I ask what would incline you to trust the Catalyst without meta-gaming? 

Why is his problem a problem anyway? He made it one. Actually he was made by a race of flawed beings to fix their problem. Isn't he, as a synthetic creation of his organic masters whom he turned on, a problem in his own?

I don't think I'll bother taking this seriously, then. 20 pages, and you post a lot, nah, not worth the effort.

I mentioned my reason in a previous post on this page, actually. Basically, if it wanted to decieve you, or just leave you to die, it could. No rational being would think that shooting a precision device would get it to work. Since it does speak to you and outright tells you how to take each option, which includes killing them all, I assume its intentions are genuine.

The Catalyst's original goal was to "make a bridge between synthetic and organic life." Forming a Reaper does that, in a very bad way, but still, mission accomplished. The Catalyst refers to a previous attempt at Synthesis, so it's still trying to find a better way, but states that it cannot be forced. Since Shepard can take it, I figure that a successful Synthesis requires the races' cooperation, like the Crucible. The Catalyst was unable to do it alone, but its own ego made it woefully unaware of the possibility that the races may be able to help. The fact that Reaper horns are apparently designed to generate a fear response was not a good move, in that regard.
As for the Catalyst betraying the Leviathans, that is their ego kicking in. Everything in the galaxy had served them until that point. They couldn't even consider the possibility of something beating them.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Perhaps it's in its nature to deceive? Perhaps it is programmed to inform you of a truth but not the truth. In that faustian bargain, you can really only refuse. 

It's a matter of how you interpret the problem. I absolutely believe the Catalyst believes everything it says. I also believe that it's horrifically flawed judgement, stipulated by an imperfect organic race (also created by it and having its logic defined by the constraints the Leviathans built into it), is something that has caused an untold suffering and destruction upon the galaxy. I will remove it and its solution from the equation permanently.

I'll refrain from telling you that you're making a faulty generalization of the Catalysts given motives, and by your given logic, he could also be lying to you about synthesis. And the outcome. Is it more than a green vaporizing laser? You won't ever know.

Let's put it this way. The Catalyst is not making a logically sound assertion with his argument for synthesis.

He says that by absorbing the essence of Shepard, the Crucible will fire a beam of energy that will alter the fabric of all life everywhere in the galaxy.

How is that possible? Essence? Life Energy? That sounds awfully a lot like vitalism. That's mysticism. It's basically the saying that inanimate objects hold energy of their own. 

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 02 avril 2013 - 11:56 .

[Blarg]

chmarr wrote...

*snip*

That might be the best thing I've seen all day.

[Zavox]

Auintus wrote...

Zavox wrote...

Only if you believe the catalyst... again it's all hindsight. Why would you believe the catalyst? Before the ending I would simply see shooting a tube next to the catalyst as only destroying the catalyst.

Why wouldn't I believe it? If it wanted to continue the harvest, it would have just left you to bleed out. No rational, thinking being is going to think that shooting at a precision instrument will make it do what you want. If it wanted to trick you, it would have mixed up your options or played Destroy up as even worse. Or it could have just kept talking to you(it says a few times "there is not enough time") and brought the Reapers in to trash the Crucible. It did none of these things. So I trust it.

Ehm, do you trust someone who's responsible for countless of complete exterminations? For all we know he may have needed us to 'push the button' so he can hurry this cycle's slaughter along, instead of a few centuries with more than a couple capital reapers destroyed in the process. You're still looking with hindsight and use it to rationalize a gamble.

Modifié par Zavox, 02 avril 2013 - 11:49 .

[Auintus]

Riot86 wrote...

"If you change who someone is, how they think, you have killed them. They will be something new in the same body." (Samara)

Destroy only kills Synthetics.

Synthesis however basically "kills" everyone and replaces them with people who might look the same but think differently. But their old self is gone, "dead" so to speak.

This always comes up, why is that?
Synthesis does not change how they think. In the ending slides, everyone behaves as they do in the other endings, they are clearly the same individuals. Their is no evidence to suggest that there is any sort of fundamental difference in their thought patterns.
Based on that belief, your conclusin makes sense, but I think that belief is unfounded.

[DeinonSlayer]

Auintus wrote...

Riot86 wrote...

"If you change who someone is, how they think, you have killed them. They will be something new in the same body." (Samara)

Destroy only kills Synthetics.

Synthesis however basically "kills" everyone and replaces them with people who might look the same but think differently. But their old self is gone, "dead" so to speak.

This always comes up, why is that?
Synthesis does not change how they think. In the ending slides, everyone behaves as they do in the other endings, they are clearly the same individuals. Their is no evidence to suggest that there is any sort of fundamental difference in their thought patterns.
Based on that belief, your conclusin makes sense, but I think that belief is unfounded.

Wreav becomes a peacenik.

[SmokePants]

I find it hilarious when people say they picked Destroy because they don't trust the Catalyst.

You obviously trusted that Destroy does what the Catalyst says it will. Somehow, it makes sense to you that a character trying to trick you would also hand you a loaded gun. Talk about "flawed intelligence".

Modifié par SmokePants, 02 avril 2013 - 11:56 .

[IntelligentME3Fanboy]

Auintus wrote...

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

Auintus wrote...

And the ethics of life? Destroy commits genocide against the geth. Synthesis fundamentally alter the galaxy's life, all of it. But I understand it as being for the better. Destroy only affects the geth and EDI. The difference is: Following Synthesis, the people affected can still do what they want. Live, laugh, love, whatever. Following Destroy, the geth can do nothing. Synthesis makes a single decision on behalf of everybody. Destroy takes every future decision away from a select few. Even if we weigh this on the principles of choice over life, I still don't see how Destroy is considered preferable.

Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction of, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.Are you sure it's genocide?

I would call the geth a race, so yes. Maybe not particularly systematic, but the Crucible does discriminate between synthetics and organics, so I think it counts.

www.youtube.com/watch

[Iakus]

David Gaider wrote...

I weighed the options and chose what I felt was the lesser of three evils. I stand by my choice and am perfectly capable of thinking for myself, thanks.

interesting, and telling, choice of words.  i find that  "lesser of three evils" is exactly what's wrong with the endings.  There is no "which is best?" it's "which is least bad?"  That's why they fail.

[Auintus]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Perhaps it's in its nature to deceive? Perhaps it is programmed to inform you of a truth but not the truth. In that faustian bargain, you can really only refuse. 

It's a matter of how you interpret the problem. I absolutely believe the Catalyst believes everything it says. I also believe that it's horrifically flawed judgement, stipulated by an imperfect organic race (also created by it and having its logic defined by the constraints the Leviathans built into it), is something that has caused an untold suffering and destruction upon the galaxy. I will remove it and its solution from the equation permanently.

I'll refrain from telling you that you're making a faulty generalization of the Catalysts given motives, and by your given logic, he could also be lying to you about synthesis. And the outcome. Is it more than a green vaporizing laser? You won't ever know.

Maybe, but then you wouldn't know what to believe and what not to believe. I'm tired, losing blood, and just barely got Tali out without her getting killed. I'm not gonna worry about that. Occum's Razor, I think. Simplest solution.

Of course. It could be lying to me about anything. I could jump into the beam and not disintigrate until I impale myself on that pointy thing in the middle while the Catalyst chuckles and says to the Reapers, "See? Was that so hard? Now let's wrap this up." But I believe that it knows what's going on and actually wants to see the cycle close, if only so that it's objective will be completed.

[Riot86]

Auintus wrote...

Riot86 wrote...

"If you change who someone is, how they think, you have killed them. They will be something new in the same body." (Samara)

Destroy only kills Synthetics.

Synthesis however basically "kills" everyone and replaces them with people who might look the same but think differently. But their old self is gone, "dead" so to speak.

This always comes up, why is that?
Synthesis does not change how they think. In the ending slides, everyone behaves as they do in the other endings, they are clearly the same individuals. Their is no evidence to suggest that there is any sort of fundamental difference in their thought patterns.
Based on that belief, your conclusin makes sense, but I think that belief is unfounded.

Of course it changes the way people think...

Pre-Synthesis Javik would never accept such a change and would throw himself out of the airlock if something like that would ever happen to him. But afterwards he seems to conclude that it isn't so bad after all and is apparently cool with it.

Pre-Synthesis nearly everyone understandably wants to kill the Reapers as they are responsible for the deaths of their friends and family. But afterwards they seem to decide that they no longer have to hate the Reapers and get along well with them.

If Synthesis changes the conclusions people reach via their thought process, it effectively has changed the way they think.

How can this still be up for debate?

Modifié par Riot86, 03 avril 2013 - 12:05 .

[Auintus]

Zavox wrote...

Ehm, do you trust someone who's responsible for countless of complete exterminations? For all we know he may have needed us to 'push the button' so he can hurry this cycle's slaughter along, instead of a few centuries with more than a couple capital reapers destroyed in the process. You're still looking with hindsight and use it to rationalize a gamble.

No. No hindsight. Trust.
I believed that it would have left me to die or brought everything down on the Crucible has it truly wanted me stopped. Since it goes out of its way to get me up and explain the Crucible, I assume it's genuine. Otherwise it could've let me flail around with no idea what I was doing. As I've said, no sane individual would shoot a precision device and hope it works. Destroy would never occur by chance. Synthesis might occur by accident. Control would be the most likely if the Catalyst didn't even appear.

[Auintus]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Auintus wrote...

Synthesis does not change how they think.

Come on now, thats manifestly false.

Proof? No, not proof, evidence?
I have offered reasons for my beliefs and you say they are wrong without any counterpoints. I wonder how seriously I'll take your opinion...

[Zavox]

SmokePants wrote...

I find it hilarious when people say they picked Destroy because they don't trust the Catalyst.

You obviously trusted that Destroy does what the Catalyst says it will. Somehow, it makes sense to you that a character trying to trick you would also hand you a loaded gun. Talk about "flawed intelligence".

Who said I picked destroy? Though, for the sake of the argument, let's say I do. Which of the 3 will have the best probability of doing something without having to needlessly sacrifice your life.

-Shooting a tube, making it explode.
-Electrocuting yourself while merely grabbing pipes.
-Throwing yourself in a glowing hole, completely disintegrating yourself in the process.

Seems pretty obvious, no?

Edit: What do you mean "hand you a loaded gun"? What the hell did I have in my hand when I shot the Illusive Man then?

Modifié par Zavox, 03 avril 2013 - 12:14 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

SmokePants wrote...

I find it hilarious when people say they picked Destroy because they don't trust the Catalyst.

You obviously trusted that Destroy does what the Catalyst says it will. Somehow, it makes sense to you that a character trying to trick you would also hand you a loaded gun. Talk about "flawed intelligence".

You're using the assumption that because he told you an option that works, all options must work. I can't look into the catalyst's mind. Maybe it's not in his design parameters to withold the truth. But perhaps he can twist it. It is entirely possible that he is using the 3 doors approach.

Behind door one is a beautiful woman and a Ferrari.
Behind door two is a tiger that hasn't eaten in a few days.
And behind door three is an axe murderer.

You aren't told obviously what is behind each door.

That's a very broad generalization on my part, but it serves to accomplish what the trope accomplishes. 

In the end of course, it comes down to personal opinion. Synthesis is too far fetched and doesn't make logical sense to me. I am morally opposed to Control. Destroy is what I set out to do, and is what I hope to accomplish. It sucks that the Geth and EDI have to die, but a better future can be built without the Reapers threat looming over us. For better or for worse, we're going to make our own future from now on.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Auintus wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Auintus wrote...

Synthesis does not change how they think.

Come on now, thats manifestly false.

Proof? No, not proof, evidence?
I have offered reasons for my beliefs and you say they are wrong without any counterpoints. I wonder how seriously I'll take your opinion...

Eh.  As much as I despise synthesis, there is no proof to show that it corrupts the mind. Maybe it does. I don't know. It'd be hard to tell if anyone is indoctrinated if everyone is indoctrinated.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 03 avril 2013 - 12:13 .