166 réponses à ce sujet

[Clayless]

robertthebard wrote...

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.

To touch on Refusal, it is allowing the Reapers to commit genocide, on a literally unimaginable scale.  So by choosing that, a case could be made for being an accessory after the fact.  But for killing the Reapers, and thus saving the majority of the galaxy, no.

Oh no you're mistaken, it doesn't matter if your intent was to destroy the Reapers, you intentionally chose destroy knowing full well it would commit genocide.

For example, I intended to kill that guy, so I shot a missile at him knowing full well it would kill everyone else in the crowd he was standing in. It wasn't my intention to kill everyone else, I only wanted to kill him, but I knew it would kill everyone else and I intentionally chose to do it. Don't you see? I did what I intended to do, those other people dying from my actions was just unfortunate. It doesn't change the fact that I intentionally chose to do it knowing full well what would happen.

Same with destroy. You intended to destroy the Reapers, and you chose destroy knowing full well you would commit genocide in the process. You conciously chose it.

[robertthebard]

Robosexual wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

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.

To touch on Refusal, it is allowing the Reapers to commit genocide, on a literally unimaginable scale.  So by choosing that, a case could be made for being an accessory after the fact.  But for killing the Reapers, and thus saving the majority of the galaxy, no.

Oh no you're mistaken, it doesn't matter if your intent was to destroy the Reapers, you intentionally chose destroy knowing full well it would commit genocide.

For example, I intended to kill that guy, so I shot a missile at him knowing full well it would kill everyone else in the crowd he was standing in. It wasn't my intention to kill everyone else, I only wanted to kill him, but I knew it would kill everyone else and I intentionally chose to do it. Don't you see? I did what I intended to do, those other people dying from my actions was just unfortunate. It doesn't change the fact that I intentionally chose to do it knowing full well what would happen.

Same with destroy. You intended to destroy the Reapers, and you chose destroy knowing full well you would commit genocide in the process. You conciously chose it.

I guess in a sense I did at that, I knew it would destroy all the Reapers.  It was definitely intentional, and I did spend 3 whole games trying to figure out how to do it, so systematic too, I guess.

Here we go with bad analogies again:  So you can see him in the crowd, but you chose a missile where a sniper would have been more effective?  You are guilty of being a moron, on top of everything else.  This situation is nowhere near the same, not even close.  Of course, you keep coming back to this like it's pertinent, despite the fact that you have to know it's really not.  At least, I have to hope you know it's really not.

I had no reason to believe that the Catalyst was doing more than moustache twirling exposition.  It said that shooting the tube would kill the Reapers and that it wouldn't differentiate.  It also said that I was mostly synthetic myself, meaning that shooting the tube might well kill me too.  Guess what, I still shot the tube, even knowing that it may well kill me.  Why?  Because it was supposed to kill the Reapers.  As I said, I spent three games trying to figure out how to do it, so yeah, I did it.  That other people died is unfortunate, but we don't have to worry about the Reapers ever again.  Mission accomplished.

Realization:  It doesn't matter what you think I did.  I know what I did.  I saved the most people I could w/out sacrificing my principles.  I didn't buckle under pressure and choose TIM's option, after telling him that we weren't ready for that kind of power, and I didn't bow to the Catalyst and turn everyone into green glowy Reaper variants either.  I ended their threat, once and for all.  Something else the Catalyst said, which is conveniently largely ignored, is that what was lost could be rebuilt.  I guess the galaxy will have a chance to find out.  It's not like all the people we have that understand the tech also died, so they have a shot.

[Phatose]

Well, guess you're really hoping nobody rebuilds the Reapers then.

[AlanC9]

robertthebard wrote...

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?

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".

Oh, OK. I misread your point a bit.

So, yeah. They're all true.

[AlanC9]

robertthebard wrote...
Realization:  It doesn't matter what you think I did.  I know what I did.  I saved the most people I could w/out sacrificing my principles.  I didn't buckle under pressure and choose TIM's option, after telling him that we weren't ready for that kind of power, and I didn't bow to the Catalyst and turn everyone into green glowy Reaper variants either.  I ended their threat, once and for all.  Something else the Catalyst said, which is conveniently largely ignored, is that what was lost could be rebuilt.  I guess the galaxy will have a chance to find out.  It's not like all the people we have that understand the tech also died, so they have a shot.

IOW, you were perwilling to sacrifice millions of lives on the altar of your principles, and you stand by that decision.

Fair enough.

Edit: I meant that sincerely. Some people have principles that require them to  allow very bad things to happen sometimes. Even Refuse, with some sets of principles.

Modifié par AlanC9, 12 avril 2013 - 09:09 .

[robertthebard]

Phatose wrote...

Well, guess you're really hoping nobody rebuilds the Reapers then.

I know that's right.  I guess I better add a footnote to build another crucible just in case...

[Phatose]

robertthebard wrote...

Phatose wrote...

Well, guess you're really hoping nobody rebuilds the Reapers then.

I know that's right.  I guess I better add a footnote to build another crucible just in case...

And another Catalyst, since the crucible needs that.

[robertthebard]

Phatose wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Phatose wrote...

Well, guess you're really hoping nobody rebuilds the Reapers then.

I know that's right.  I guess I better add a footnote to build another crucible just in case...

And another Catalyst, since the crucible needs that.

Not with what I know now it doesn't, I'm just adding a button to the blue prints...

[hawkera_prime]

No, I'd still go for control.

[KingZayd]

PirateMouse wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Actually, as you said, It was necessary to intervene in order to save the galaxy. And unfortunately, the only solution to the Reaper vs non-Reaper conflict  had negative side effects.

That would be a fine argument if it were the only solution, but it wasn't ... so it's not.  It's not even an acceptable excuse.

But it was the only solution. Saving the galaxy is acceptable enough an excuse for me.

[KingZayd]

Phatose wrote...

Well, guess you're really hoping nobody rebuilds the Reapers then.

Why would they?

[Clayless]

robertthebard wrote...

I guess in a sense I did at that, I knew it would destroy all the Reapers.  It was definitely intentional, and I did spend 3 whole games trying to figure out how to do it, so systematic too, I guess.

Here we go with bad analogies again:  So you can see him in the crowd, but you chose a missile where a sniper would have been more effective?  You are guilty of being a moron, on top of everything else.  This situation is nowhere near the same, not even close.  Of course, you keep coming back to this like it's pertinent, despite the fact that you have to know it's really not.  At least, I have to hope you know it's really not.

I had no reason to believe that the Catalyst was doing more than moustache twirling exposition.  It said that shooting the tube would kill the Reapers and that it wouldn't differentiate.  It also said that I was mostly synthetic myself, meaning that shooting the tube might well kill me too.  Guess what, I still shot the tube, even knowing that it may well kill me.  Why?  Because it was supposed to kill the Reapers.  As I said, I spent three games trying to figure out how to do it, so yeah, I did it.  That other people died is unfortunate, but we don't have to worry about the Reapers ever again.  Mission accomplished.

Realization:  It doesn't matter what you think I did.  I know what I did.  I saved the most people I could w/out sacrificing my principles.  I didn't buckle under pressure and choose TIM's option, after telling him that we weren't ready for that kind of power, and I didn't bow to the Catalyst and turn everyone into green glowy Reaper variants either.  I ended their threat, once and for all.  Something else the Catalyst said, which is conveniently largely ignored, is that what was lost could be rebuilt.  I guess the galaxy will have a chance to find out.  It's not like all the people we have that understand the tech also died, so they have a shot.

You do realise that the sniper analogy doesn't work? An analogy has to pertain to the situation. Saying "Oh in my analogy I would simply turn him into ice cream" for example would be a bad analogy, same with "I would create a situation which doesn't relate to any of the ending choices". A good analogy would be you killing someone and knowingly killing others, on a massive scale. Or just plain controlling him and stopping him from killing anyone.

To understand this you only need basic knowledge of what an analogy is. I never addressed your sniper situation the first time because I thought you were taking the ******.

Sure, it desn't matter what I think, it doesn't matter what anyone does, but it's still genocide. Simple as that.

Modifié par Robosexual, 13 avril 2013 - 03:54 .

[robertthebard]

Robosexual wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

I guess in a sense I did at that, I knew it would destroy all the Reapers.  It was definitely intentional, and I did spend 3 whole games trying to figure out how to do it, so systematic too, I guess.

Here we go with bad analogies again:  So you can see him in the crowd, but you chose a missile where a sniper would have been more effective?  You are guilty of being a moron, on top of everything else.  This situation is nowhere near the same, not even close.  Of course, you keep coming back to this like it's pertinent, despite the fact that you have to know it's really not.  At least, I have to hope you know it's really not.

I had no reason to believe that the Catalyst was doing more than moustache twirling exposition.  It said that shooting the tube would kill the Reapers and that it wouldn't differentiate.  It also said that I was mostly synthetic myself, meaning that shooting the tube might well kill me too.  Guess what, I still shot the tube, even knowing that it may well kill me.  Why?  Because it was supposed to kill the Reapers.  As I said, I spent three games trying to figure out how to do it, so yeah, I did it.  That other people died is unfortunate, but we don't have to worry about the Reapers ever again.  Mission accomplished.

Realization:  It doesn't matter what you think I did.  I know what I did.  I saved the most people I could w/out sacrificing my principles.  I didn't buckle under pressure and choose TIM's option, after telling him that we weren't ready for that kind of power, and I didn't bow to the Catalyst and turn everyone into green glowy Reaper variants either.  I ended their threat, once and for all.  Something else the Catalyst said, which is conveniently largely ignored, is that what was lost could be rebuilt.  I guess the galaxy will have a chance to find out.  It's not like all the people we have that understand the tech also died, so they have a shot.

You do realise that the sniper analogy doesn't work? An analogy has to pertain to the situation. Saying "Oh in my analogy I would simply turn him into ice cream" for example would be a bad analogy, same with "I would create a situation which doesn't relate to any of the ending choices". A good analogy would be you killing someone and knowingly killing others, on a massive scale. Or just plain controlling him and stopping him from killing anyone.

To understand this you only need basic knowledge of what an analogy is. I never addressed your sniper situation the first time because I thought you were taking the ******.

Sure, it desn't matter what I think, it doesn't matter what anyone does, but it's still genocide. Simple as that.

The analogy was yours, not mine.  You chose to launch a missile into a crowd to kill one guy, instead of just getting a sniper to do it.  I didn't invent the half baked idea, I just responded to it.  If I need to kill one guy in a crowd, I'm sniping, not launching a missile.  Get why it's a bad analogy now?  Oh, wait, you don't view it as bad, because if it is, you can't go on with your character assassination, and have to try to think of something else.

I'll tell you what's really funny about your position though, in none of the slides after the Destroy ending does it say that Shepard was brought up on charges for genocide.  Surely Xen would bring Shepard up on charges, eh?  I mean, Shepard did just kill her prospective slaves.  Maybe it was just an oversight?

[Aaleel]

Nope, I'm confident most of my squad would say shoot that tube. Aside from Joker for obvious reasons.

[Clayless]

robertthebard wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

You do realise that the sniper analogy doesn't work? An analogy has to pertain to the situation. Saying "Oh in my analogy I would simply turn him into ice cream" for example would be a bad analogy, same with "I would create a situation which doesn't relate to any of the ending choices". A good analogy would be you killing someone and knowingly killing others, on a massive scale. Or just plain controlling him and stopping him from killing anyone.

To understand this you only need basic knowledge of what an analogy is. I never addressed your sniper situation the first time because I thought you were taking the ******.

Sure, it desn't matter what I think, it doesn't matter what anyone does, but it's still genocide. Simple as that.

The analogy was yours, not mine.  You chose to launch a missile into a crowd to kill one guy, instead of just getting a sniper to do it.  I didn't invent the half baked idea, I just responded to it.  If I need to kill one guy in a crowd, I'm sniping, not launching a missile.  Get why it's a bad analogy now?  Oh, wait, you don't view it as bad, because if it is, you can't go on with your character assassination, and have to try to think of something else.

I'll tell you what's really funny about your position though, in none of the slides after the Destroy ending does it say that Shepard was brought up on charges for genocide.  Surely Xen would bring Shepard up on charges, eh?  I mean, Shepard did just kill her prospective slaves.  Maybe it was just an oversight?

First things first lets break down the analogies:

The situation:

Kill the Reapers and knowingly commit genocide on the Geth in your attempts to kill them.

The analogies:

Kill the bad guy and knowingly kill the crowd of people he's standing in in your attempts to kill him.

Kill the bad guy and no one else.

Now, which one is the bad analogy? Give me your honest answer here and explain why.

[Jon The Wizard]

Maybe. I'd love to know Tali's thoughts on the partial-synthetic thing in particular. I'd also like to know Ashley's thoughts on Control, if only because it's pretty much ascension to demi-godhood.