935 réponses à ce sujet

[jstme]

Phatose wrote...

Intent is different from motive. Whatever may be the motive for the crime (land expropriation, national security, territorrial integrity, etc.), if the perpetrators commit acts intended to destroy a group, even part of a group, it is genocide.

Exactly. This is why by destroying the reapers you prevent genocide.
Numeorus cases of genocide,to be precise.

Modifié par jstme, 12 avril 2013 - 08:07 .

[Phatose]

Ecrulis wrote...

WittingEight65 wrote...

So the whole point about this topic is that by choosing Control I am being a good person?

Pretty much, as I said earlier all threads, no matter the intention, of this nature devolve into a select few calling everyone who picks destroy monsters.

To be fair, these things usually include those who choose synthethis being called monsters.  And those who choose control.  And those who choose refuse.

[wright1978]

I'd sacrifice any single race including humans to destroy the reapers. Certainly wouldn't sacrifice all organic life, in that situation i'd putmy faith in future cycles to find a cleaner way of killing the Reapers.

[Phatose]

jstme wrote...

Phatose wrote...

Intent is different from motive. Whatever may be the motive for the crime (land expropriation, national security, territorrial integrity, etc.), if the perpetrators commit acts intended to destroy a group, even part of a group, it is genocide.

Exactly. This is why by destroying the reapers you prevent genocide.

You also intentionally destroy the Geth and all synthetics in the process.  You may prevent genocide, but you commit it as well.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

PirateMouse wrote...

Here's a question for those who picked Destroy ...

Would you still pick Destroy if it required you to kill all quarians?

All asari?

All turians?

All humans?

All organics?

How far are you really prepared to go? How far does the end justify the means for you?

I see what you did there. You want to leave the galaxy to synthetics only. Robot hugger.

Seriously you couldn't target like this either without some serious bippitty boppitty boo !  

But hell, what gives me the right to choose? Let's hypothetically say you could target only advanced civilizations, and NOT just organic civilizations who had achieved spaceflight, those who had ventured beyond their solar systems on their own. And in the interest of fairness let's throw all synthetics into the mix.

This list would include:

Human
Turian
Asari
Salarian
Krogan
Raoli (we'll give them a pass because they destroyed all their tech)
Virtual Aliens
Geth
Batarians
Quarians
Vorcha (they hitched a ride)
Volus
Elcor
Rachni
All AIs
The Reapers and any huskified organics incl collectors
Starbrat
The Leviathans
Anyone I left out.

But it leaves the relay system intact. Sure. Let's wipe the slate clean. Hit it. If you're going to do it. Do it big. Don't be picky about it. Show no preference. The wave doesn't glass the worlds but only turns the people to ash and kills the reapers and stuff.

Queue: 

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

I don't believe killing EDI counts as genocide.

She's the only non-Reaper who dies in Destroy because the Quarians finally corrected their mistake.

[remydat]

DecCylonus wrote...

That's not exactly what I said. I said that if you pick Control, you are agreeing with major parts of the Catalyst's solution. You are agreeing that the synthetic / organic conflict is inevitable. If it isn't, then no solution is necessary, and therefore Control is unnecessary. You are also agreeing that the Reapers are a good solution to the problem. (Genocide of the whole galaxy is a bad solution, but the Reapers themselves have merrit.) If they aren't, then why pick it? I confronted the OP with this dilemma because I wanted to know what he really thought about Control as a solution.

I also allow for the possibility that you may pick Control because the consequences are the least repulsive to you out of all the choices. Many people chose their preferred solution for that reason.

It is odd to complain Control with allows both parties to live is assuming confict is inevitable as if Destroy which eradicates one side of the conflict is not doing so as well only it is arguable worse because you eliminate one side completely. 

I have heard no one claim they choose Control because they want the power.  I have heard plenty people claim they choose control because synthetics aren't alive or are toasters or whatever else.  That logic in and of itself proves that some people choose destroy because they do not value synthetic life the same.  Once you admit that they you are by extension saying conflict is inevitable because you can't end conflict when one side things they are superior to the other to the point they don't respect their right to exist.

Now if I am mistaken and someone has said they choose Control because they like the idea of it then let me know.  I have never seen it honestly.  I have seen more than enough evidence that some people are unconcerned about synthetic lives.

[jstme]

Phatose wrote...

jstme wrote...

Phatose wrote...

Intent is different from motive. Whatever may be the motive for the crime (land expropriation, national security, territorrial integrity, etc.), if the perpetrators commit acts intended to destroy a group, even part of a group, it is genocide.

Exactly. This is why by destroying the reapers you prevent genocide.

You also intentionally destroy the Geth and all synthetics in the process.  You may prevent genocide, but you commit it as well.

Well, this is why for me there is  MEHEM canon. The very fact that the only ending i consider valid was written with Shepard passively agreeing to destroy synthetics only because archreaper tells him to is one of the main things that drove me to barricades. 
But even without MEHEM, destroy is the only ending that undoubtedly prevents more "genocides" then it causes.

Modifié par jstme, 12 avril 2013 - 08:13 .

[Ecrulis]

Phatose wrote...

Ecrulis wrote...

WittingEight65 wrote...

So the whole point about this topic is that by choosing Control I am being a good person?

Pretty much, as I said earlier all threads, no matter the intention, of this nature devolve into a select few calling everyone who picks destroy monsters.

To be fair, these things usually include those who choose synthethis being called monsters.  And those who choose control.  And those who choose refuse.

Fair enough, let's just say these threads simply devolve into "NO MY ENDING CHOICE IS SO MUCH BETTER THAN YOURS YOU EMOTIONLESS MONSTER!" screaming matches, it's really quite sad.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Hell the only appealing thing about Control is how badly I could troll Harbinger:

Shreaper: Hey Harbinger I'm assuming direct control!

Harbinger: Awww you suck!

Shreaper: Heh now let's go kill organics so they won't be killed by synthetics!

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

remydat wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Remy, do we really have to go through this AGAIN? If you take a human and you throw the human in a giant blender and turn it on say "grind", what do you have? A dead human shake. This is getting disgusting. If you take say 6 million humans and throw them into a giant blender and grind them up what do you have? A mess of ground up dead humans. Then they take that and add a bunch of their favorite blend of special nanites and herbs and spices to it and pump it through these pipes into this superstructure, which is pretty huge and shaped like a metal human for some reason. Then these nanites go to work and form a webbing inside the slushie along with the herbs and spices. Then their core program gets uploaded into it that gives it purpose*. Legion saw the reaper mind and explains it like this "one ship, many minds, one will." Nazara told you this on Virmire. "We are each a nation, independent, free of all weakness." Legion explains that this means that the reapers have achieved unity.

They are fully aware of what they do, and they do it with purpose. That one will is the harvest. They are not innocent.

So it takes 6 million humans to make a capital reaper, and say they make a few more destroyers out of the rest of the species. What happens to the rest of the people? They die. They all die. All of your friends, your family, everyone you love, they all die. That's what happens. Across the galaxy it ends up to be billions of people who die at the hands of the reapers.

You are being delusional about the reapers.
I cannot think of any other way the thing gets activated other than . It is controlled by Starbrat. Starbrat controls the reapers. They are its solution.

What does any of the above have to do with my post?  The poster said he chooses destroy because the alternative is everyone will die.  I pointed out that no one dies in Control or Synthesis.  No one.  This is stated by the Catalyst and it is proven by the game when you watch the endings.

So exactly how does any of the above relevant to the point being made.  The only way you can conclude that everyone will die in Control or Synthesis is to ignore or think the Catalyst is lying but that for some strange reason he is not lying about Destroy which just so happens to be the option you want to pick, lol.

It is Confirmation Bias plain and simple.  What Reaper shakes have to do with what I said is lost on me.

Everyone else dies during a harvest. That was my point, reaper hugger.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 12 avril 2013 - 08:14 .

[Argolas]

Knowing the consequences of a deed does not mean I intended to do that.

The fact that something is not genocide does not mean it's not a crime. I never said that picking Destroy is morally good beyond doubt. I am saying that it can be justified when facing galactic extinction.

@remydat: The same as I said above about Destroy is true here as well. If you never intended to change everyone, picking Synthesis is not genocide. However, this doesn't mean it isn't a crime. And as said before, Synthesis affects a lot more people than Destroy.

[Gervaise]

Would just point out that according to the definition of genocide (e) forcible transfer of children of group to another troup, then Legion committed genocide in forcibly downloading reaper code and thus making all Geth a different entity from what they were before and Synthesis is also genocide since it unilaterally makes all organics into an organic/synthetic hybrid by changing their DNA permanently.

The slides at the end of Control would appear to show that the Geth at least are now under the control of the Shepard AI since they appear in a slide with a Reaper and a shadowy human figure in the background that I assume is meant to represent Shepard AI. They are certainly not found on Rannoch as they are in Synthesis.

No ending is perfect. I chose destroy because that had been my aim from the beginning of the series. Garrus had made the point earlier to me that I wanted to save everyone but ultimately that might not be possible. He had been willing to sacrifice his own people on Palavan so that the Turian forces would be kept in tact to help the push on earth with the Crucible. Would you accuse Garrus of genocide because he had been willing to sacrifice his own people in this way? I didn't choose Destroy because I wanted to destroy all synthetic life - I did it because I wanted to remove the Reapers from the galaxy permanently. I believed from what I had been told by my own side that the Crucible had been designed to target Reapers. Why should I allow my enemy to talk me into choosing another option?

Effectively choosing anything but Destroy means I am sacrificing the freedom of all organics and all synthetics. When the Geth joined our side, like every other ally, they did so knowing it could result in their destruction but it was apparently it was a risk they were willing to take to rid the galaxy of the Reapers. EDI had said the same. If it turned out that the Catalyst was telling the truth about the affects of the Crucible, then that would be a regrettable side effect of the cure but not a sufficiently good reason not to take it.

I would also point out that with low EMS you get no choice. If you destroyed the Collectors (which at the time was seen as the paragon option), then you destroy the Reapers and a large number of organics as well as the synthetics if the affects on earth are anything to go by.   The only alternative would be to refuse, in which case every organic race dies but the Reapers survive.

Modifié par Gervaise, 12 avril 2013 - 08:19 .

[remydat]

fr33stylez wrote...

I accept your logic. So going by baseline affect, Destory affects one group, Synthesis affects the whole galaxy. Therefore, Synthesis is worse.

Destroy affects one group with the outcome being death.  Synthesis affects everyone with the outcome that everyone lives.  Not only that people like Joker might be able to hug someone without breaking a bone.  People who are sick and dying might not be sick and dying.

You are free to choose to what you deem to be the least amount of people ie Destroy.  That is math.  However, affecting the least amount of people with death while affecting everyone in a manner that they all live is where morality comes it.  Morality isn't just about math.  It is about actually looking at the end result and judging what is morally worse.  A few billion machine deaths or everyone living.  Living being the key world here.

This would be like saying well it is better to kill on race that it is give them all vaccines (ie a potentialy good thing) because I am forcing a decision on everyone in the latter case.  Let me just ignore the fact that what I am imposing on everyone equally does not result in their death but my targeting one group for extermination does, lol.  Ok then.

Modifié par remydat, 12 avril 2013 - 08:18 .

[Phatose]

Only, it doesn't. It prevents future Reaper genocides, and opens the way for genocides from everyone else. Just like the other two endings, it certainly stops the cycle, but everything else is huge question mark.

As for MEHEM....figure it's no surprise it starts with "Meh". It replaces problematic endings with a single ending that's just as problematic. Magic win button and all. All that's missing is the Krogan baking Shepard a birthday cake.

[fr33stylez]

remydat wrote...

Destroy affects one group with the outcome being death.  Synthesis affects everyone with the outcome that everyone lives.  Not only that people like Joker might be able to hug someone without breaking a bone.  People who are sick and dying might not be sick and dying.

You are free to choose to what you deem to be the least amount of people ie Destroy.  That is math.  However, affecting the least amount of people with death while affecting everyone in a manner that they all live is where morality comes it.  Morality isn't just about math.  It is about actually looking at the end result and judging what is morally worse.  A few billion machine deaths or everyone living.  Living being the key world here.

If you know morality, then you know there's more to life than just being alive or dead.

This is why we respect the choices of people that would rather die before getting a blood transfusion or organ transplant or chemotherapy. This is why it is immoral (and illegal) to force people against their will to do so.

"Everyone lives" is your spin on the issue. You are not a moral person if you force a transfusion on someone that refuses. You are not a moral person if you force someone to be on a respirator against their will.

In synthesis though, you did this to the entire galaxy. Trillions of people. Much worse in my opinion.

Modifié par fr33stylez, 12 avril 2013 - 08:23 .

[remydat]

jstme wrote...

But even without MEHEM, destroy is the only ending that undoubtedly prevents more "genocides" then it causes.

Can you clarify how you arrived at this conclusion?  Are we making an in-game conclusion or a meta-game conclusion?

[Phatose]

fr33stylez wrote...

remydat wrote...

Destroy affects one group with the outcome being death.  Synthesis affects everyone with the outcome that everyone lives.  Not only that people like Joker might be able to hug someone without breaking a bone.  People who are sick and dying might not be sick and dying.

You are free to choose to what you deem to be the least amount of people ie Destroy.  That is math.  However, affecting the least amount of people with death while affecting everyone in a manner that they all live is where morality comes it.  Morality isn't just about math.  It is about actually looking at the end result and judging what is morally worse.  A few billion machine deaths or everyone living.  Living being the key world here.

If you know morality, then you know there's more to life than just being alive or dead.

This is why we respect the choices of people that would rather die before getting a blood transfusion or organ transplant or chemotherapy. This is why it is immoral (and illegal) to force people against their will to do so.

"Everyone lives" is your spin on the issue. You are not a moral person if you force a transfusion on someone that refuses. You are not a moral person if you force someone to be on a respirator against their will.

In synthesis though, you did this to the entire galaxy. Trillions of people. Much worse in my opinion.

Questionable.  It is illegal in most places to give a blood transfusion to someone who resists it.  However, it typically is not legally or morally required to check whether or not a person is OK with resusitation before giving CPR for example.  Medical professionals in hospital situations are - though the paramedics that show up when you have a heart attack in the mall aren't, nor are bystanders.

In cases where checking with an individual is impossible, it's widely accepted as moral to err in the direction of life.

Modifié par Phatose, 12 avril 2013 - 08:29 .

[remydat]

fr33stylez wrote...

If you know morality, then you know there's more to life than just being alive or dead.

This is why there are people that would die before getting a bloog transfusion or organ transplant or chemotherapy. This is why it is immoral (and illegal) to force people against their will to do so.

"Everyone lives" is your spin on the issue. You are not a moral person if you force a transfusion on someone that refuses. You are not a moral person if you force someone to be on a respirator against their will.

In synthesis though, you did this to the entire galaxy. Trillions of people. Much worse in my opinion.

You are not a moral person if you exterminate people when you don't have to.  All the choices represent moral dillemmas.  ALL.  The difference is in synthesis everyone is alive to agree or disagree with my decision.  For everyone who hates it there are probably sick, dying or injured people who like it.  With destroy you conveniently kill the people most likely to object.  

Incidentally, I had a classmate who nearly died because her parents refused her a blood transfusion on religious grounds.  She and her parents are estranged to this day because of it.

So I am not sure that is really a convincing argument in this case.  If my choice is healthy people pissed at me for giving them synthesis versus sicked, injured and dying people being happy I did because it allows them to live, I choose the latter.

Modifié par remydat, 12 avril 2013 - 08:31 .

[DarthRic]

Modifié par DarthRic, 14 avril 2013 - 12:01 .

[jstme]

Phatose wrote...

Only, it doesn't. It prevents future Reaper genocides, and opens the way for genocides from everyone else. Just like the other two endings, it certainly stops the cycle, but everything else is huge question mark.

As for MEHEM....figure it's no surprise it starts with "Meh". It replaces problematic endings with a single ending that's just as problematic. Magic win button and all. All that's missing is the Krogan baking Shepard a birthday cake.

Krogan baking Shepard a cake is closer to Citadel DLC theme ,in my opinion. Shame it was not included actually. I wonder whether Wrex can bake....

Closer to the topic, destroy 100% prevents future genocides commited by reapers (same reapers that are designed and built to commit genoicdes,mind you) while synthesis and especially control cannot ensure even that. None of RGB can (or should) ensure lack of future genocides. 
However,reapers hold the record for commiting most genocides in ME universe so removing reapers is the only possible way to reduce number of future genocides.  

As for MEHEM, it is fan made mod, you can't expect it to fix all the problems of ME3. However it without any hint of a doubt fixes the forced genocide of Geth, which i am sure you find a positive thing given your opinions on destroy ending. 

[Spartas Husky]

jstme wrote...


Krogan baking Shepard a cake is closer to Citadel DLC theme ,in my opinion. Shame it was not included actually. I wonder whether Wrex can bake....

They drink ryncol like some drink beer... I sure as hell not getting anywhere near their good unless my cerberus food tester tries it first.

[Phatose]

Guess you didn't get the reference there, huh?

Not having the Geth die I would prefer. But turning the whole ending into an "I win" button? Nah. It's cheap, and if it had been the original ending, I would've screamed.

[robertthebard]

Phatose wrote...

jstme wrote...

Phatose wrote...

Intent is different from motive. Whatever may be the motive for the crime (land expropriation, national security, territorrial integrity, etc.), if the perpetrators commit acts intended to destroy a group, even part of a group, it is genocide.

Exactly. This is why by destroying the reapers you prevent genocide.

You also intentionally destroy the Geth and all synthetics in the process.  You may prevent genocide, but you commit it as well.

I don't think that anyone is really going to view the destruction of the Reapers as genocide, but more likely self defense, and that any collateral damage, deaths not intended by my actions, such as EDI and the get, if applicable, would be seen as just that, collateral damage.  Like you said in the embedded quote, commit acts intended to destroy, and since my intent wasn't to destroy EDI or the geth, it's purely a side effect.

[Phatose]

Negative. Your motive wasn't to destroy the Geth. It was your intent.