935 réponses à ce sujet

[remydat]

robertthebard wrote...

http://social.biowar...472/34#16564860
http://social.biowar...472/34#16564915
http://social.biowar...472/34#16566896
http://social.biowar...472/33#16561871
Ok, got bored finding references, I'm quite sure more exist.  Every time you wave your AI around, you are sending the message "you people are monsters, look what you allowed to happen".  Since you do it quite often, I'm sure that "screaming it from the highest peaks" is an applicable metaphor.  What is it that you thought people were going to think?  Oh, look, a headcanon AI that destroys organics, we should re-evaluate our ending choice?  As you can see, some people took it to mean "you people are monsters".  I had decided to just pretend you weren't here, but in re-reading posts to answer something else, this post was bothering me.  It bothers me to leave unwarranted accusations at myself unanswered, even if the person making them avoids answering points or counter points to say things like "super AI that doesn't care why..."  I don't care why you feel like you do.  I don't care why, or how you chose your ending.  You could have spent a week on youtube and it wouldn't affect my game in the slightest.  I do, however, object to the implication that I am a monster for, when I allow myself to get past Harbinger, blowing up the Reapers because somebody feels like my collateral damage is something other than what it is.

Find a post where I called you a monster not one where you head canon me calling you one.  I don't have to head canon anything.  This is laughable.  

http://social.biowar...dex/16519472/26

Here is where you basically call me a genetic rapist

http://social.biowar...dex/16519472/19

And here is where you say synthesis is genocide.  So you crying about me rings hollow.  Especially when your entire basis for claiming I called you a monster does not actually include me using the term or the term genocide.  So let's say, I called you a monster because I have a different opinion and so in your head canon that must mean I think you are a monster.  You actually use the terms genocide and genetic rape but no problem there.

Modifié par remydat, 21 avril 2013 - 07:26 .

[robertthebard]

remydat wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

http://social.biowar...472/34#16564860
http://social.biowar...472/34#16564915
http://social.biowar...472/34#16566896
http://social.biowar...472/33#16561871
Ok, got bored finding references, I'm quite sure more exist.  Every time you wave your AI around, you are sending the message "you people are monsters, look what you allowed to happen".  Since you do it quite often, I'm sure that "screaming it from the highest peaks" is an applicable metaphor.  What is it that you thought people were going to think?  Oh, look, a headcanon AI that destroys organics, we should re-evaluate our ending choice?  As you can see, some people took it to mean "you people are monsters".  I had decided to just pretend you weren't here, but in re-reading posts to answer something else, this post was bothering me.  It bothers me to leave unwarranted accusations at myself unanswered, even if the person making them avoids answering points or counter points to say things like "super AI that doesn't care why..."  I don't care why you feel like you do.  I don't care why, or how you chose your ending.  You could have spent a week on youtube and it wouldn't affect my game in the slightest.  I do, however, object to the implication that I am a monster for, when I allow myself to get past Harbinger, blowing up the Reapers because somebody feels like my collateral damage is something other than what it is.

Find a post where I called you a monster not one where you head canon me calling you one.  I don't have to head canon anything.  This is laughable.  

http://social.biowar...dex/16519472/26

Here is where you basically call me a genetic rapist

http://social.biowar...dex/16519472/19

And here is where you say synthesis is genocide.  So you crying about me rings hollow.  Especially when your entire basis for claiming I called you a monster does not actually include me using the term or the term genocide.  So let's say, I called you a monster because I have a different opinion and so in your head canon that must mean I think you are a monster.  You actually use the terms genocide and genetic rape but no problem there.

Again, reading comprehension is important where reading is required for communication.  Read the post you quoted, read the posts I linked, make the connection.  If you are unable to do so, there is really no need for you to further attempt to engage me in dialog.  I laid it out as simply as I could w/out being condescending.  If you can't make the connection, I can only assume that you don't want to make the connection.  I haven't twisted any of your words, I linked 4 posts doing exactly what you asked, and this is the best reply you can come up with?  Really?

[remydat]

Mangalores

1.  I agree it gets constantly interrupted and I agree it is a short sighted plan.   I am not advocating his solution as correct.  I am saying that if he is right about this AI then that AI is worse because it will show no restraint.  As horrific as the harvest it, it still allows organic life to develop for millions of years.  This AI allegedly will simply stamp out all life primitive or advanced.

No, the Geth were targeted because the Council had laws that said AI should not exist.  They had these laws because they feared the AI surpassing them and becoming a threat to it.  In Terminator, humans tried to shut down Skynet and it decided all humans were a threat.  In I Robot, Vicki concluded humans would be a threat to it.  In the Matrix, same deal.  And I don't believe it is inevitable ie 100%.  I believe it is possible.  There is a difference.

The Geth need resources for their dreadnaughts.  For their mobile platforms.  For data storage.  For space stations.  For their megastructure.  These these require metals and other resources.  And once again, the Geth are primitive AI because they were created before the the harvest.  Like any sentient species they may be content with their lot in life or they may not.  That is the beauty of free will.  Again, I am not saying it is inevitable like the Catalyst claims.  I am saying it is possible.  Again, it is a common theme.

The difference with the Geth conflict is that they have the ability to far surpass their enemy.  The RC Geth if they wanted to could become a serious threat to organic existance.  They are only constrained by whether they want to or not.  Their race was like less than a year old and laid waste to billions of quarians ie an organic race that is millions of years old.  Imagine now if they continue to evolve over thousands or millions of years?  That is the problem from the Catalyst's perspective.  Of course, it doesn't mean they will come into conflict as if I believed that then I would pick Destroy.  I don't.  However, the risk is there because they evolve much faster than humanity and would not be constrained by the twisted desire to preserve life if they did decide to attack.

[remydat]

robertthebard wrote...

Again, reading comprehension is important where reading is required for communication.  Read the post you quoted, read the posts I linked, make the connection.  If you are unable to do so, there is really no need for you to further attempt to engage me in dialog.  I laid it out as simply as I could w/out being condescending.  If you can't make the connection, I can only assume that you don't want to make the connection.  I haven't twisted any of your words, I linked 4 posts doing exactly what you asked, and this is the best reply you can come up with?  Really?

There is no connection to make.  You made a specific accusation that I called you a monster.  You have yet to provide any evidence I did.  Meanwhile you throw around terms like genocide and genetic rape.  I asked for examples of me actually calling you a monster.  Not you inferring I did from statements that said no such thing. 

You are arguing with yourself.  You created an offense in your head based on statements that did not say what you claim.  Obviously anyone who chooses synthetis or control in large part does so because they don't want to kill the Geth or EDI.  By your logic, that must mean they think you are a monster.  No, it means they have a different opinion.  Just like if I have an opinion that there is a threat of an advanced AI post destroy as the Catalyst said that does not mean I think you are a monster.  My opinion has nothing to do with you. All you are doing is basically saying if someone disagrees with me, they must think I am a monster despite them not actually saying it.  It is silly as you seem to have some persecution complex with respect to a fictional game.

Modifié par remydat, 21 avril 2013 - 07:59 .

[bukkfizzman]

would i yes because i would want to wake up.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Remy might not have the sheer level of arrogant delusion that Wulfie does, but his mental gymnastics still make for entertaining reading.

[remydat]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Remy might not have the sheer level of arrogant delusion that Wulfie does, but his mental gymnastics still make for entertaining reading.

Right because the guy throwing around terms like genocide and genetic rape to describe synthesis then crying about I think he is a monster when I said no such thing is mental gymnastics.  

[robertthebard]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Remy might not have the sheer level of arrogant delusion that Wulfie does, but his mental gymnastics still make for entertaining reading.

I'm not sure if it's amusing or sad that now I'm the one crying about things.  I guess he really did expect the AI to make everyone change their minds.  I do love the evasion though, we should all be taking notes.  It is literally impossible for me to believe he can't see what I pointed out, so I have to believe he either doesn't want to admit it, or really is so far into his world about it that he can't see it.  Either way, it was a hell of a ride, but I'm done with the emotional rollercoaster that is the "but you killed EDI and the geth, and opened the door for superAI that's mad, lolz" argument.  I'll continue reading, and commenting on worthy entries, but frankly, I grow bored with explaining simple concepts, it's counterproductive at best.

[Reptilian Rob]

N7Avin180 wrote...

All organics? No. A single race? Yes.

"Alexi, are you prepare to go all the way?"

"Yes, yes...I am prepared to go ALL the way."

[Argolas]

Maybe you’re right. Maybe we can’t win this. But we will fight you regardless, just like we did Sovereign. Just like I’m doing now. Yes, people will die. Maybe we’ll lose half the galaxy. Maybe more. But I will do whatever it takes to rid the galaxy of the Reaper threat! However “insignificant” we might be. We will fight, we will sacrifice and we will find a way. That’s what humans do.

[robertthebard]

Argolas wrote...

Maybe you’re right. Maybe we can’t win this. But we will fight you regardless, just like we did Sovereign. Just like I’m doing now. Yes, people will die. Maybe we’ll lose half the galaxy. Maybe more. But I will do whatever it takes to rid the galaxy of the Reaper threat! However “insignificant” we might be. We will fight, we will sacrifice and we will find a way. That’s what humans do.

But... EDI and the geth...

[remydat]

robertthebard wrote...

I'm not sure if it's amusing or sad that now I'm the one crying about things.  I guess he really did expect the AI to make everyone change their minds.  I do love the evasion though, we should all be taking notes.  It is literally impossible for me to believe he can't see what I pointed out, so I have to believe he either doesn't want to admit it, or really is so far into his world about it that he can't see it.  Either way, it was a hell of a ride, but I'm done with the emotional rollercoaster that is the "but you killed EDI and the geth, and opened the door for superAI that's mad, lolz" argument.  I'll continue reading, and commenting on worthy entries, but frankly, I grow bored with explaining simple concepts, it's counterproductive at best.

Sorry I committed genocide and genetic rape accorindg to you.  Those were your actual words.  When you said those actual words, I did not cry about you calling me a monster.  So it is a bit of a persecution complex to say someone committed gencodie and genetic rape and then cry about the fact that I choose to not kill EDI and the Geth and because I choose not to do so in my game as is my right to do in my game, you claim I called you a monster.  Forgive me but in my game I made the choice without knowing who you were Robert.  And you cryging about something you imagined I mean is all very hypocritical when you actually used the terms genocide and genetic rape.  I don't have to imagine, interpret, or imply anything from your posts.  Your position on people who pick synthesis is clear as day.  But sure I called you a monster because I don't want to kill EDI and the Geth in my game, lol.  Does the world revolve around you too?

[carrmatt91]

 why does everyone who is anti destroy claim that destroy is genocide?

by definition genocide is 'the deliberate, systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group'

sure, it would be genocide if you went into the ending choice thinking to yourself- ' i want an ending in which all synthetics like the geth die' because that's deliberate.

in reality the destroy option is more likely to be collateral damage/ruthless calculus which by definition is - 'injury inflicted on something other than an intended target'

i think this because i went into the ending thinking that i want an ending in which the reapers are destroyed, it just so happens that the geth were that 'something other than the intended target'.

sources for definitions : http://www.merriam-w...llateral damage
http://www.merriam-w...ionary/genocide

Modifié par carrmatt91, 22 avril 2013 - 01:25 .

[robertthebard]

carrmatt91 wrote...

 why does everyone who is anti destroy claim that destroy is genocide?

by definition genocide is 'the deliberate, systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group'

sure, it would be genocide if you went into the ending choice thinking to yourself- ' i want an ending in which all synthetics like the geth die' because that's deliberate.

in reality the destroy option is more likely to be collateral damage/ruthless calculus which by definition is - 'injury inflicted on something other than an intended target'

i think this because i went into the ending thinking that i want an ending in which the reapers are destroyed, it just so happens that the geth were that 'something other than the intended target'.

sources for definitions : http://www.merriam-w...llateral damage
http://www.merriam-w...ionary/genocide

Yeah, I linked those earlier in the conversation, the response was equivalent to "nuh uh".

[silverexile17s]

remydat wrote...

Silver,

How is it that you quote me and then ramble on about my brother when the very post you quoted says my cousin?

In any event, all you are doing is repeating youself. The game does not say Synthesis leads to destruction of culture. If it does, please link me to vids that say this.

Otherwise, all you are doing is giving me your interpretation which you are free to believe. I believe something different. Such is life.

Because now, you have no refute. I layed out everything as best I could, because explaining everything in depth is the only way to show you just where the flaws in your reasononing are. There are THAT many flaws in your premise.
Just think about that.

And AGAIN, Mordin Solus already gave his sylibus in ME2 about how removal of limitations on life and hyperadvancing culture before it's ready (BOTH things that Synthesis does) is priming sociaty for collapse in generations.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJIQfmWx3dI
Play from 144.
Mordin clearly explains how both of the things presant in Synthesis are priming the cultures affected for collapse.

And AGAIN, you ignroed my question asking YOU how you know that Synthesis IS the utopia senerio you think it is.

[remydat]

Silver

There is nothing to refute.  You are providing an opinion just as Mordin was.  EDI disagrees as does it appear most of the races who seem fine with Synthesis.  Mordin is not infallible.  Hell he admitted he was wrong about the Genophage.  The game does not tell me Synthesis destroys culture.  It does not.  It does not tell me it will lead to societal collapse.  The Collectors ie the race Mordin was referring two basically were slaves.  No one is said to be slaves in synthesis.  Furthermore the Catalyst says he tried synthesis before and it failed because organics are not ready.  He know says they are ready so again the game makes a distinction between the Collectors and now because the Calalyst claims organics are ready.  You either believe him or you don't.

And I did not ignore your question.  You question is simply pointless because I never claimed synthesis is a Utopia.  Like anything in life, what it becames is done to the people.  A Krogan hybrid as I have said many times may in fact still want to kill a Salarian hybrid.  It is not a Utopia.  I am simply saying it is not the hell you claim it to be.

Modifié par remydat, 22 avril 2013 - 02:50 .

[remydat]

carrmatt91 wrote...

 why does everyone who is anti destroy claim that destroy is genocide?

by definition genocide is 'the deliberate, systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group'

sure, it would be genocide if you went into the ending choice thinking to yourself- ' i want an ending in which all synthetics like the geth die' because that's deliberate.

in reality the destroy option is more likely to be collateral damage/ruthless calculus which by definition is - 'injury inflicted on something other than an intended target'

i think this because i went into the ending thinking that i want an ending in which the reapers are destroyed, it just so happens that the geth were that 'something other than the intended target'.

sources for definitions : http://www.merriam-w...llateral damage
http://www.merriam-w...ionary/genocide

Who is everyone?  I certainly don't recall making the claim of genocide.  I don't pick destroy because I have options to avoid the collateral damage you speak of.  Why would I accept collateral damage if I don't have to?  If you believe Control and Synthesis are so wrong that the collateral damage is acceptable to you then that is your choice.  However, I don't think they are genocide or genetic rape as my friend Robert likes to call them so I choose them.

[robertthebard]

Oh really?

[redbaron76]

@ Piratemouse

Your post is irrellevant. And to answer your hypocritical hypothetical question yes I would chose destroy no mather what. To parafrase Garrus Vakarian " If even one organic survives it is a victory, against reapers." Hope that answers your irrelevant question. It is irrelevant simply do to fact that you are trying to defend your pro control bias.

[Weltea]

Well the entire point of destroying the Reapers is to keep the Galaxy safe from them...there really is no point in destroying all organics. That's more than the Reapers would have killed. (But there's always the Refuse choice)
But if I had to sacrifice the Asari? Yeah totally. Any other race? No. (I mean I'm already killing the Geth but at least I can headcanon that one....)

[Xilizhra]

Argolas wrote...

Maybe you’re right. Maybe we can’t win this. But we will fight you regardless, just like we did Sovereign. Just like I’m doing now. Yes, people will die. Maybe we’ll lose half the galaxy. Maybe more. But I will do whatever it takes to rid the galaxy of the Reaper threat! However “insignificant” we might be. We will fight, we will sacrifice and we will find a way. That’s what humans do.

It'd be nice if you sacrificed something that was, you know, yours to sacrifice.

[Argolas]

Xilizhra wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Maybe you’re right. Maybe we can’t win this. But we will fight you regardless, just like we did Sovereign. Just like I’m doing now. Yes, people will die. Maybe we’ll lose half the galaxy. Maybe more. But I will do whatever it takes to rid the galaxy of the Reaper threat! However “insignificant” we might be. We will fight, we will sacrifice and we will find a way. That’s what humans do.

It'd be nice if you sacrificed something that was, you know, yours to sacrifice.

Mine or not, whatever it takes for the greater good. And freeing the galaxy of the greatest terror it has ever seen is an obvious greater good.

[Xilizhra]

Argolas wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Maybe you’re right. Maybe we can’t win this. But we will fight you regardless, just like we did Sovereign. Just like I’m doing now. Yes, people will die. Maybe we’ll lose half the galaxy. Maybe more. But I will do whatever it takes to rid the galaxy of the Reaper threat! However “insignificant” we might be. We will fight, we will sacrifice and we will find a way. That’s what humans do.

It'd be nice if you sacrificed something that was, you know, yours to sacrifice.

Mine or not, whatever it takes for the greater good. And freeing the galaxy of the greatest terror it has ever seen is an obvious greater good.

Something that happens in every ending. And you sacrifice too much for it to be the greatest possible good.

[Argolas]

Xilizhra wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Mine or not, whatever it takes for the greater good. And freeing the galaxy of the greatest terror it has ever seen is an obvious greater good.

Something that happens in every ending. And you sacrifice too much for it to be the greatest possible good.

Death before comprimising with the reapers is a principle that about everyone seems to stand for. Edi and the geth included.

Accepting the reapers as a galaxy-wide police fore or allowing them to alterate the very nature of life as they see fit- not so sure.

[ofarrell]

If it killed any civilizations other than that which it already does then I would be forced to choose a different ending.

Modifié par ofarrell, 22 avril 2013 - 03:02 .