Modifié par Ecrulis, 12 avril 2013 - 07:19 .
Reorte wrote...
As I said, it's about proportion. If someone attacks you and kidnaps civilians and stuffs them in all its military facilities, and ties children to the top of its tanks, so it's impossible to fight back without innocents dying then there's no crime in fighting back even knowing innocents will die - it's not your intention that they will, there's just no realistic alternative.Robosexual wrote...
That's not the case. You don't launch a missile on one guy and then try to pretend it wasn't a war crime because you also knew the guy happened to be standing in the middle of a crowd. You don't unload a clip full of bullets into a dangerous criminal and then try to pretend you didn't murder the people who were standing in front of him.
You wanted to kill the guys. You wanted to kill the Reapers. You knew it would kill innocents and you knew it would commit genocide. Whether or not you wanted that to happen doesn't change the fact that you knew it would and intentionally chose to do it anyway.
And saying "knowing it will commit genocide" is a circular argument - intent is required for genocide, i.e. it has to be the reason for your attack. Even knowing the deaths will happen does not make it genocide if you did not want them to happen although, depending upon the exact circumstances, it could well be a different crime.
Heh, yeah, I want you to try explaining to your court that the best way to have dealt with the bad guy was to choose to make everyone think like the bad guy... You see, this analogy sucks because, the bad guy already understands people, he's a person. This is my biggest flaw with the butterflies and rainbows idea of Synthesis; understanding does not mean peace. I think I used this as an example about a year ago: So the Krogan walks up to the Salarian and says, I understand why you invented the Genophage, but I hate you for it anyway", and then shoots him in the face. So much for butterflies and rainbows, eh?Robosexual wrote...
Reorte wrote...
In that case it would generally be regarded as completely unproportional (even assuming that you didn't have any less destructive methods) and you'd get locked up (if you don't nuke everyone coming to lock you up too). If it was all you had and the bad guy was seconds away from activating some Wipe Out The Earth Doomsday device then it would be justified and you'd be free to go.PirateMouse wrote...
Reorte wrote...
No, because it is not deliberate or your target.
Okay, so set off a nuke to kill one bad guy and then argue you were only killing the bad guy, and none of the other people were your targets (so therefore killing them wasn't deliberate).
It's exactly the same thing.
Unless there were two other ways to stop the bad guy that didn't require killing anyone.
robertthebard wrote...
because everything the Catalyst says is a lie..
Modifié par Robosexual, 12 avril 2013 - 07:23 .
Reorte wrote...
Only if a court believes such a ridiculous idea would actually work and wouldn't go wrong in the future, causing even worse damage.
robertthebard wrote...
Heh, yeah, I want you to try explaining to your court that the best way to have dealt with the bad guy was to choose to make everyone think like the bad guy... You see, this analogy sucks because, the bad guy already understands people, he's a person. This is my biggest flaw with the butterflies and rainbows idea of Synthesis; understanding does not mean peace. I think I used this as an example about a year ago: So the Krogan walks up to the Salarian and says, I understand why you invented the Genophage, but I hate you for it anyway", and then shoots him in the face. So much for butterflies and rainbows, eh?
robertthebard wrote...
You're right, it is spelled out in plain English, deliberate and systematic. Nothing in what you said shows anything deliberate, since we can't even believe shooting the tube will destroy the Reapers, because everything the Catalyst says is a lie
Modifié par AlanC9, 12 avril 2013 - 07:27 .
Every single thread on BSN that discusses the endings. I really don't have time to go through and link them all, and yes, it's because you say so. You choose to misinterpret the meaning of a word, and you choose to continue to insist that your misinterpretation is an actual definition, despite it being shown to be otherwise, so yes, it's because you say so. Because Merriam Webster disagrees with you. Given the choice, I'll take their word over yours for what a word means, nothing personal, you understand, but they've been a reliable source for definitions since I was in elementary school, and that was 40 years ago. Now if you can link me to your internationally recognized dictionary...Robosexual wrote...
robertthebard wrote...
because everything the Catalyst says is a lie..
Source?
Also you're vastly mistaken if you think what I'm saying is "because I said so".
I'd love to see you explain that one too. However, as I point out, bad analogy is bad anyway, because if he's standing in a crowd, in the open, I would simply put a sniper on him and take him out. If dealing with the Reapers was that easy, believe, a lot of people would have chosen it too.Robosexual wrote...
robertthebard wrote...
Heh, yeah, I want you to try explaining to your court that the best way to have dealt with the bad guy was to choose to make everyone think like the bad guy... You see, this analogy sucks because, the bad guy already understands people, he's a person. This is my biggest flaw with the butterflies and rainbows idea of Synthesis; understanding does not mean peace. I think I used this as an example about a year ago: So the Krogan walks up to the Salarian and says, I understand why you invented the Genophage, but I hate you for it anyway", and then shoots him in the face. So much for butterflies and rainbows, eh?
Or by making it so the bad guy doesn't kill anyone unless you say so.
Which as you can tell, is so much worse than just launching a missile at him in a crowd.
robertthebard wrote...
Every single thread on BSN that discusses the endings.Robosexual wrote...
robertthebard wrote...
because everything the Catalyst says is a lie..
Source?
Also you're vastly mistaken if you think what I'm saying is "because I said so".
robertthebard wrote...
Every single thread on BSN that discusses the endings. I really don't have time to go through and link them all, and yes, it's because you say so. You choose to misinterpret the meaning of a word, and you choose to continue to insist that your misinterpretation is an actual definition, despite it being shown to be otherwise, so yes, it's because you say so. Because Merriam Webster disagrees with you. Given the choice, I'll take their word over yours for what a word means, nothing personal, you understand, but they've been a reliable source for definitions since I was in elementary school, and that was 40 years ago. Now if you can link me to your internationally recognized dictionary...Robosexual wrote...
robertthebard wrote...
because everything the Catalyst says is a lie..
Source?
Also you're vastly mistaken if you think what I'm saying is "because I said so".
PirateMouse wrote...
My action was not "I'm going to kill that person." My action was "I'm going to pull the trigger." Blowing his head off was just an unfortunate side effect.
Modifié par mrufka_z, 12 avril 2013 - 07:40 .
Which is kind of my point. If we can't believe what the Catalyst says, how do we know Control really works? However, since it's Control, it must be the truth, or if it's Synthesis, it must be the truth, because both factions will point to Destroyers and say "you people are monsters".AlanC9 wrote...
robertthebard wrote...
You're right, it is spelled out in plain English, deliberate and systematic. Nothing in what you said shows anything deliberate, since we can't even believe shooting the tube will destroy the Reapers, because everything the Catalyst says is a lie
If Shepard didn't believe shooting the tube would do what the Catalyst said it would do, why did he shoot it?
Do I really have to go through every ending thread since the beginning of the ME 3 forum to pull them? Actually, no, as you know as well as I do that these accusations against the Catalyst exist, and I bet if I search your post history, I am likely to find that you have either used it yourself or quoted someone that did, eh?Robosexual wrote...
robertthebard wrote...
Every single thread on BSN that discusses the endings. I really don't have time to go through and link them all, and yes, it's because you say so. You choose to misinterpret the meaning of a word, and you choose to continue to insist that your misinterpretation is an actual definition, despite it being shown to be otherwise, so yes, it's because you say so. Because Merriam Webster disagrees with you. Given the choice, I'll take their word over yours for what a word means, nothing personal, you understand, but they've been a reliable source for definitions since I was in elementary school, and that was 40 years ago. Now if you can link me to your internationally recognized dictionary...Robosexual wrote...
robertthebard wrote...
because everything the Catalyst says is a lie..
Source?
Also you're vastly mistaken if you think what I'm saying is "because I said so".
So no sources and no defending your faulty argument, apart from a delusion that intentionally commiting genocide is somehow not genocide and that I'm just making it up when I point out it is.
I would say I'm surprised that you never linked any sources, but I'm not.
It's not my position either, as I indicated in another post further up from this post. As I said then, it's just moustache twirling exposition.AlanC9 wrote...
robertthebard wrote...
Every single thread on BSN that discusses the endings.Robosexual wrote...
robertthebard wrote...
because everything the Catalyst says is a lie..
Source?
Also you're vastly mistaken if you think what I'm saying is "because I said so".
That's your case?
robertthebard wrote...
Do I really have to go through every ending thread since the beginning of the ME 3 forum to pull them? Actually, no, as you know as well as I do that these accusations against the Catalyst exist, and I bet if I search your post history, I am likely to find that you have either used it yourself or quoted someone that did, eh?
As to my source on Genocide, I have linked the page in the dictionary more than once, but here, I'll do it again for you: http://www.merriam-w...ionary/genocide Now, how about my documentation of deliberate and systematic destruction you imply happened. Oh wait, that's right, you said "shooting the tube is committing genocide". Despite the fact that the results of shooting the tube more accurately fit the definition of http://www.merriam-w...llateral damage . There's my links, where are yours supporting the unintended deaths of EDI, and possibly the geth, who may already be dead, is really genocide. Are we going to go back to "because I said so, despite seeing a definition that doesn't fit what actually happened"?
KingZayd wrote...
Xilizhra wrote...
Shepard wholly transferred into an AI state. She's died once and come back, why not a second time?First of all it's not you. It's not even Shepard. It's an AI that is based on Shepard.
Also, another thing they say is "Better to rule in Hell, then to serve in Heaven."
TIM was adamant that Shepard's brain had to be exactly the same as before (somehow).
Human brains operate differently to AI's. There are a bunch of chemicals involved.
http://masseffect.wi...al_Intelligence
Read the stuff about quantum blue boxes. If you can't just copy over an AI from one place to another, why do you think you can copy over Shepard directly into an AI. You can't. There is an AI that is created with all of Shepard's memories, but it is not Shepard. The personality will be different and we even see this in the EC videos.
Also that quote you used is attributed to Satan from "Paradise Lost". Just thought it was interesting that you were using Satan's quote
Modifié par Troxa, 12 avril 2013 - 08:02 .
robertthebard wrote...
Which is kind of my point. If we can't believe what the Catalyst says, how do we know Control really works? However, since it's Control, it must be the truth, or if it's Synthesis, it must be the truth, because both factions will point to Destroyers and say "you people are monsters"
Modifié par PirateMouse, 12 avril 2013 - 08:03 .
Yes, and I call your attention to your own bolded statement above. So choosing to misuse a word to support an argument, and you are choosing to misuse the word, isn't proof. You're saying that the intent to kill the Reapers is the same as intent to kill the geth, if they are even a factor, or EDI, is your opinion, being superimposed on everyone else as fact.Robosexual wrote...
robertthebard wrote...
Do I really have to go through every ending thread since the beginning of the ME 3 forum to pull them? Actually, no, as you know as well as I do that these accusations against the Catalyst exist, and I bet if I search your post history, I am likely to find that you have either used it yourself or quoted someone that did, eh?
This is the equivalent to saying "Use Google". You still haven't linked any sources that shows the Catalysts lies, and I can't stress this part enough, random unsourced accusations aren't sources. If your entire argument falls apart the moment someone asks you for a source, then it's about time you stopped arguing it.As to my source on Genocide, I have linked the page in the dictionary more than once, but here, I'll do it again for you: http://www.merriam-w...ionary/genocide Now, how about my documentation of deliberate and systematic destruction you imply happened. Oh wait, that's right, you said "shooting the tube is committing genocide". Despite the fact that the results of shooting the tube more accurately fit the definition of http://www.merriam-w...llateral damage . There's my links, where are yours supporting the unintended deaths of EDI, and possibly the geth, who may already be dead, is really genocide. Are we going to go back to "because I said so, despite seeing a definition that doesn't fit what actually happened"?
It's right there in your link:
Deliberate - Done consciously and intentionally.
AKA
Consciously and intentionally choosing destroy knowing full well it will commit genocide.
Your collateral damage analogy has fallen apart on these past pages when the distiction between collateral damage and intentionally killing was made clear.
robertthebard wrote...
Yes, and I call your attention to your own bolded statement above. So choosing to misuse a word to support an argument, and you are choosing to misuse the word, isn't proof. You're saying that the intent to kill the Reapers is the same as intent to kill the geth, if they are even a factor, or EDI, is your opinion, being superimposed on everyone else as fact.
Modifié par Robosexual, 12 avril 2013 - 08:17 .
No. In your opinion, it has. The only reason you think it has is because you choose to assign a desire to kill the Reapers as a desire to kill EDI and the geth. I have yet to see anything systematic about "oh crap, EDI, and maybe the geth died when I shot the tube". I have yet to see anything other than your opinion that choosing to end the Reaper threat is choosing to end EDI and the geth. Come to think of it, I've seen this sort of position before, from all the people that thought Cerberus was an altruistic organization with nothing but humanity's best interest at heart. I guess you feel like the Reapers are just misunderstood too? Sorry, but I'll take Sovereign at his word: You exist because we allow it, you will die because we demand it. Possibly very poorly paraphrased. When I do choose, I choose destroy. My intent is to destroy the Reapers before they harvest the entire galaxy. Now, the burden of proof is on you to prove that my intent was more than what I stated. In court, my defense would simply be: Look, no more Reapers. I did what I intended to do. That other combatants died is unfortunate, but are you also going to hold me responsible for every soldier that died on the way to the beam? How about every soldier that died on the way to the FOB? Am I also responsible for every death on Earth, Thessia, Palaven, and every other Reaper controlled planet? Bear in mind here that noncombatants died as well as combatants.Robosexual wrote...
robertthebard wrote...
Do I really have to go through every ending thread since the beginning of the ME 3 forum to pull them? Actually, no, as you know as well as I do that these accusations against the Catalyst exist, and I bet if I search your post history, I am likely to find that you have either used it yourself or quoted someone that did, eh?
This is the equivalent to saying "Use Google". You still haven't linked any sources that shows the Catalysts lies, and I can't stress this part enough, random unsourced accusations aren't sources. If your entire argument falls apart the moment someone asks you for a source, then it's about time you stopped arguing it.As to my source on Genocide, I have linked the page in the dictionary more than once, but here, I'll do it again for you: http://www.merriam-w...ionary/genocide Now, how about my documentation of deliberate and systematic destruction you imply happened. Oh wait, that's right, you said "shooting the tube is committing genocide". Despite the fact that the results of shooting the tube more accurately fit the definition of http://www.merriam-w...llateral damage . There's my links, where are yours supporting the unintended deaths of EDI, and possibly the geth, who may already be dead, is really genocide. Are we going to go back to "because I said so, despite seeing a definition that doesn't fit what actually happened"?
It's right there in your link:
Deliberate - Done consciously and intentionally.
AKA
Consciously and intentionally choosing destroy knowing full well it will commit genocide.
Your collateral damage analogy has fallen apart on these past pages when the distiction between collateral damage and intentionally killing was made clear.
Retour en haut
