Aller au contenu

Photo

Could a Synthesis supporter justify the evil of Synthesis?


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
553 réponses à ce sujet

#301
Caldari Ghost

Caldari Ghost
  • Members
  • 5 322 messages

FlamingBoy wrote...

Just because morality is subjective, that is not the "be all and end all" excuse to get out of the argument. Its nothing more than a cop-out to get out of the work of actually having to defend your argument with logic and your own personal take (aka subjectiveness) on the issue at hand.

Discussion is the whole point of Mass Effect, Mass Effect was created to explore complex issues, most notably "how to define a life" . The game exists to make you question your self, your morality, and how you define others. If you played Mass Effect and all you can muster from the experience is that its "subjective", then the experience has been a waste of time.

This whole subjective argument... Its a roadblock to intelligent discussion. The word "idiot" comes from the classical Greek "idoites" which essentially means a person who could not part of the public society (they considered this to be very important), the Ancient Greeks (the origins of most of Western Civilization thought) saw debate and arguing in their government as the highest form of intelligence hence if you were an idoites , it essentially means you have no opinion and you are not worth knowing.

If a question is put to you and the only think you can put forth is that "my opinion is subjective" with out finding the root reason of yours or my "subjectiveness" in the first place, From what cultural, political, personal reasons it comes from..... Well... It is better not to post.

i am copping nothing out of anything.
or anything out of nothing.
or something.

#302
Asharad Hett

Asharad Hett
  • Members
  • 1 492 messages
Could a Synthesis supporter justify the evil of Synthesis?
Could a Control supporter justify the evil of Control?
Could a Destroy supporter justify the evil of Destroy?
Could a Refusal supporter justify the evil of Refusal?

None of the endings are ideal.  None of them are 100% win.  The choice you make is subjective, based on how you personally perceive the endings with limited knowledge.  Unless you meta-game, you only have a few words from the Catalyst to base your decision on.   If you do meta-game, you only have a few slide-shows to base your decision on.  Regardless, all of the endings have problems.

I've said it before, I don't feel like we beat the Reapers.  In the very end, the Reapers weren't the enemy to beat.  It was a misguided AI, who provides 3 misguided magical endings, all of which have some form of "evil".

Modifié par Asharad Hett, 24 mai 2013 - 11:03 .


#303
Caldari Ghost

Caldari Ghost
  • Members
  • 5 322 messages

FlamingBoy wrote...

Just because morality is subjective, that is not the "be all and end all" excuse to get out of the argument. Its nothing more than a cop-out to get out of the work of actually having to defend your argument with logic and your own personal take (aka subjectiveness) on the issue at hand.

Discussion is the whole point of Mass Effect, Mass Effect was created to explore complex issues, most notably "how to define a life" . The game exists to make you question your self, your morality, and how you define others. If you played Mass Effect and all you can muster from the experience is that its "subjective", then the experience has been a waste of time.

This whole subjective argument... Its a roadblock to intelligent discussion. The word "idiot" comes from the classical Greek "idoites" which essentially means a person who could not part of the public society (they considered this to be very important), the Ancient Greeks (the origins of most of Western Civilization thought) saw debate and arguing in their government as the highest form of intelligence hence if you were an idoites , it essentially means you have no opinion and you are not worth knowing.

If a question is put to you and the only think you can put forth is that "my opinion is subjective" with out finding the root reason of yours or my "subjectiveness" in the first place, From what cultural, political, personal reasons it comes from..... Well... It is better not to post.

that is your opinion. and don't talk to me about the greeks. they have infested humanity with their horrible, horrible salads and *ggaaahkhkh

and BTW you built your entire argument on an (unproven and wrong) assumption. i was  using the point for....something else.

Modifié par Caldari Ghost, 24 mai 2013 - 11:02 .


#304
Caldari Ghost

Caldari Ghost
  • Members
  • 5 322 messages

Asharad Hett wrote...

Could a Synthesis supporter justify the evil of Synthesis?
Could a Control supporter justify the evil of Control?
Could a Destroy supporter justify the evil of Destroy?
Could a Refusal supporter justify the evil of Refusal?

assuming........?

#305
deatharmonic

deatharmonic
  • Members
  • 464 messages

Robosexual wrote...

Atemeus wrote...

That's not a choice that is morally sound to present to people. Anyone that tries to perform such experiments on corpses is insane and needs to be stopped. When people die, you should grieve and move on, it is a natural part of life.

Synthesis will never create any more "freedom" than Destroy, because both leave the world to it's own devices after the pulse is sent out. Only Control attempts to enfore order and destroy freedom via tyranny.


Kind of the whole "we shouldn't ignore things that make us uncomfortable". It's not inherently good or bad just because you don't like it.

Destroy removes freedom and choice from the Geth forever.

Synthesis grants it to the Husks and doesn't remove it from anyone. Everyone is free to create their future how they see fit.

When it comes down to it, when compared, Destroy simply stops future choice for an entire race, Synthesis grants more.


That's a very narrow view of the concept of choice. You have completely ignored the fact that you are denying every organic species the choice to reject having their DNA altered.

In Both destroy and synthesis you are making the choice for everyone. Synthesis is not just about giving the husks sentience, its about changing everyone without giving them the choice to say no. Destroy on the other hand, you are taking choice away from the geth and synthetics of that calibre.

Taking away choice from every organic species VS taking away choice from synthetics.

You seem to be basing this all on the fact that everyone gets to 'live', rather than how many beings are actually being denied choice in each ending.

#306
FlamingBoy

FlamingBoy
  • Members
  • 3 064 messages

Caldari Ghost wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

Just because morality is subjective, that is not the "be all and end all" excuse to get out of the argument. Its nothing more than a cop-out to get out of the work of actually having to defend your argument with logic and your own personal take (aka subjectiveness) on the issue at hand.

Discussion is the whole point of Mass Effect, Mass Effect was created to explore complex issues, most notably "how to define a life" . The game exists to make you question your self, your morality, and how you define others. If you played Mass Effect and all you can muster from the experience is that its "subjective", then the experience has been a waste of time.

This whole subjective argument... Its a roadblock to intelligent discussion. The word "idiot" comes from the classical Greek "idoites" which essentially means a person who could not part of the public society (they considered this to be very important), the Ancient Greeks (the origins of most of Western Civilization thought) saw debate and arguing in their government as the highest form of intelligence hence if you were an idoites , it essentially means you have no opinion and you are not worth knowing.

If a question is put to you and the only think you can put forth is that "my opinion is subjective" with out finding the root reason of yours or my "subjectiveness" in the first place, From what cultural, political, personal reasons it comes from..... Well... It is better not to post.

that is your opinion. and don't talk to me about the greeks. they have infested humanity with their horrible, horrible salads and *ggaaahkhkh

and BTW you built your entire argument on an (unproven and wrong) assumption. i was  using the point for....something else.


Thats the whole bloody point, I put out an opinion now it must be questioned, analysed, argued, counter points, debated

Sure you can type "thats just your opinion" and be done with it and to be fair if you find it not worth debating that is fine.

But to put such important concepts such as morality and ethics to simple subjectiveness. Then nothing is learned. If anything should be debated it is ethics and morality. Mass effect has given us the opportunity to do that! Thats the whole point of its existence (yes it exists to make money, but it would be worthless as a work of fiction if it did not question complex concepts).

Edit: I have been reading this thread, I posted my orginal work for the purpose of tackling this subjectivness issue which alot of people have fallen back to,

Modifié par FlamingBoy, 24 mai 2013 - 11:07 .


#307
Asharad Hett

Asharad Hett
  • Members
  • 1 492 messages

Caldari Ghost wrote...

Asharad Hett wrote...

Could a Synthesis supporter justify the evil of Synthesis?
Could a Control supporter justify the evil of Control?
Could a Destroy supporter justify the evil of Destroy?
Could a Refusal supporter justify the evil of Refusal?

assuming........?


Assuming that you've read the forums and realize that there is opposition to every ending.  Assuming that you understand that each ending is viewed as evil by some faction.  Assuming that you know my personal opinion that every ending contains some form of injustice.

#308
Redbelle

Redbelle
  • Members
  • 5 399 messages

Caldari Ghost wrote...

Auld Wulf wrote...

What I don't get is why they keep pushing the Synthesis-as-evil thing when it's their problem that they don't get it. Clearly it can be perceived in another way, because many other people do, and there's a mountain of information regarding that in the Synthesis compendium. As I've said before, to see anything evil in Synthesis reflects upon the person, not upon the story.

I think to see evil you have to want to see evil, in which case you tend to see evil with abortion clinics, or smartphones, or computers, or the Internet, or any other technology which has uplifted us above base animals. I mean, the very infrastructure we've created as a society has uplifted us beyond what an animal is capable of -- as I've pointed out, we can phone for medics to come and save a life, we are far above animals because of what we can create.

One day we'll be able to create Synthesis. As I've said, I just see Synthesis as a positive, optimistic, poetic look at what humanity can be if we just stop all the fighting and killing long enough to create a strong infrastructure of understanding. For some people, that's unimaginable, because they might revel in the conflict, and the evils, and the horrors, but I don't. I actually like where our advancements are taking us. I want to think we have the capacity to become something better.

Synthesis is showing us the 'something better,' but some people see Synthesis as a horror because people aren't running around and killing each other. Personally, I see that as kind of screwed up.

where is that "Image IPB yeeeaahhhhhh" soundclip when you need it?


Technology? Let's back up and get the tech out of the equation...... it is not 'technology' that makes us awesome. Technology is a symptom of a larger afflication........ oppoable thumbs being part of that, but ultimately what humans do that makes us outcompete other species is that we have the ability to think our way around problems. It's the brain that is the root cause of our invention of technology that began the minute a caveman picked up two sticks and rubbed them really hard to make fire.

But it's more than the brain, it's the ambition to keep building. The human race eventually outcompeted just about everything on the planet, (on the condition that a human refuses to compete on the terms of the competitor. Naked Human vs naked  lion? Lion wins. Naked human, up a tree, with a rifle while lion prowls around thinking, 'oooooh, breakfast!' Human wins.) So now that humans can compete on levels above what the natural world has to offer, what is left to compete with?

Each other.

Synthesis, being a great leveler, is not a reason to stop warfare. If anything, it will increase competition. If all life is now synthesised life then it has a commonality that mean's pests and diseases that were once confined to one speices can now cross travel to other species. A disease that hit's a crop now has the potential to travel across to a similar crop, say Dextrose based, that is no longer dextrose based, find similar attachment points to infect that crop and suddenly, due to a reduction in diversity, you lose two crops instead of one.

Medical research would have to be stepped up to find a way to tackle how to stop a potential wave of increased susceptability to diseases that aliens never had to adapt to, being immune thanks to significant differences to their physiology. Meanwhile, while R&D struggles to play catach up, we have the potential for a galaxy wide famine if quarantine fails and a synthesised disease makes it through that was previously, not compatible, but now is as all life has the same DNA.

The short of it, life had adpated and found a balance without synthesis. Synthesis is throwing all that up in the air and trying to sort out the mess that comes after.

I mean..... come on! Synththesis is the solution to Org's and Synth's getting along ONLY!!! The Cat had one problem to solve, how to stop both sides killing each other. It was not tasked to stop both sides from killing each other and....<insert secondary objective here>. Which in this case is to maintain diversity of life so that if a species fails for what ever reason, that reason does not take out all species as diveristy of life will have allowed some species greater resistance to whatever comes along.

The exception to this is the Reaper. A reaper is a military force, not a natural disaster. It exists to hunt.

#309
Redbelle

Redbelle
  • Members
  • 5 399 messages

deatharmonic wrote...


That's a very narrow view of the concept of choice. You have completely ignored the fact that you are denying every organic species the choice to reject having their DNA altered.

In Both destroy and synthesis you are making the choice for everyone. Synthesis is not just about giving the husks sentience, its about changing everyone without giving them the choice to say no. Destroy on the other hand, you are taking choice away from the geth and synthetics of that calibre.

Taking away choice from every organic species VS taking away choice from synthetics.

You seem to be basing this all on the fact that everyone gets to 'live', rather than how many beings are actually being denied choice in each ending.





It's rare that I say this about a game hero character I play. But in this instance, Shep making the choice for everyone seems a bridge to far. It works as an abstract. But but it into action, and it's like America taking over govening the whole world and standardising it to their way of life with no thought or respect for the cultures they are treading on.

But the benefit is!!! We'll all have a burger king in our highstreet.

What do you mean you prefer Cous Cous!!!:pinched:

#310
Archonsg

Archonsg
  • Members
  • 3 560 messages
Or street food.
Gimme my BBQ cuttlefish.

#311
Caldari Ghost

Caldari Ghost
  • Members
  • 5 322 messages

Redbelle wrote...

Caldari Ghost wrote...

Auld Wulf wrote...

What I don't get is why they keep pushing the Synthesis-as-evil thing when it's their problem that they don't get it. Clearly it can be perceived in another way, because many other people do, and there's a mountain of information regarding that in the Synthesis compendium. As I've said before, to see anything evil in Synthesis reflects upon the person, not upon the story.

I think to see evil you have to want to see evil, in which case you tend to see evil with abortion clinics, or smartphones, or computers, or the Internet, or any other technology which has uplifted us above base animals. I mean, the very infrastructure we've created as a society has uplifted us beyond what an animal is capable of -- as I've pointed out, we can phone for medics to come and save a life, we are far above animals because of what we can create.

One day we'll be able to create Synthesis. As I've said, I just see Synthesis as a positive, optimistic, poetic look at what humanity can be if we just stop all the fighting and killing long enough to create a strong infrastructure of understanding. For some people, that's unimaginable, because they might revel in the conflict, and the evils, and the horrors, but I don't. I actually like where our advancements are taking us. I want to think we have the capacity to become something better.

Synthesis is showing us the 'something better,' but some people see Synthesis as a horror because people aren't running around and killing each other. Personally, I see that as kind of screwed up.

where is that "Image IPB yeeeaahhhhhh" soundclip when you need it?


Technology? Let's back up and get the tech out of the equation...... it is not 'technology' that makes us awesome. Technology is a symptom of a larger afflication........ oppoable thumbs being part of that, but ultimately what humans do that makes us outcompete other species is that we have the ability to think our way around problems. It's the brain that is the root cause of our invention of technology that began the minute a caveman picked up two sticks and rubbed them really hard to make fire.

But it's more than the brain, it's the ambition to keep building. The human race eventually outcompeted just about everything on the planet, (on the condition that a human refuses to compete on the terms of the competitor. Naked Human vs naked  lion? Lion wins. Naked human, up a tree, with a rifle while lion prowls around thinking, 'oooooh, breakfast!' Human wins.) So now that humans can compete on levels above what the natural world has to offer, what is left to compete with?

Each other.

Synthesis, being a great leveler, is not a reason to stop warfare. If anything, it will increase competition. If all life is now synthesised life then it has a commonality that mean's pests and diseases that were once confined to one speices can now cross travel to other species. A disease that hit's a crop now has the potential to travel across to a similar crop, say Dextrose based, that is no longer dextrose based, find similar attachment points to infect that crop and suddenly, due to a reduction in diversity, you lose two crops instead of one.

Medical research would have to be stepped up to find a way to tackle how to stop a potential wave of increased susceptability to diseases that aliens never had to adapt to, being immune thanks to significant differences to their physiology. Meanwhile, while R&D struggles to play catach up, we have the potential for a galaxy wide famine if quarantine fails and a synthesised disease makes it through that was previously, not compatible, but now is as all life has the same DNA.

The short of it, life had adpated and found a balance without synthesis. Synthesis is throwing all that up in the air and trying to sort out the mess that comes after.

I mean..... come on! Synththesis is the solution to Org's and Synth's getting along ONLY!!! The Cat had one problem to solve, how to stop both sides killing each other. It was not tasked to stop both sides from killing each other and....<insert secondary objective here>. Which in this case is to maintain diversity of life so that if a species fails for what ever reason, that reason does not take out all species as diveristy of life will have allowed some species greater resistance to whatever comes along.

The exception to this is the Reaper. A reaper is a military force, not a natural disaster. It exists to hunt.

only if we refuse to change...........lol

#312
ghost9191

ghost9191
  • Members
  • 2 287 messages

Seival wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Seival wrote...

Good and bad are just words. Each person understands them in his/her/its own way.

Do YOU see any evil in Synthesis?


My own vision of evil tells me that there is nothing evil in Synthesis. But since there are no universal ethical rules, some people will agree, and some will disagree with that. There will be some stubborn and repulsive people among the ones who disagree. They will consider my opinion as an insult, and will try to insult me in reply (as always).


well no offence but that response is deserving of a insult . as true as it may be. 

it may come off as "adult" but it is childish as hell        not to mention you too are both stubborn and repulsive to others . fyi .    the argument can be said for all

#313
Caldari Ghost

Caldari Ghost
  • Members
  • 5 322 messages

Asharad Hett wrote...

Caldari Ghost wrote...

Asharad Hett wrote...

Could a Synthesis supporter justify the evil of Synthesis?
Could a Control supporter justify the evil of Control?
Could a Destroy supporter justify the evil of Destroy?
Could a Refusal supporter justify the evil of Refusal?

assuming........?


Assuming that you've read the forums and realize that there is opposition to every ending.  Assuming that you understand that each ending is viewed as evil by some faction.  Assuming that you know my personal opinion that every ending contains some form of injustice.

oh. well, that depends, then.

#314
Caldari Ghost

Caldari Ghost
  • Members
  • 5 322 messages

FlamingBoy wrote...

Caldari Ghost wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

Just because morality is subjective, that is not the "be all and end all" excuse to get out of the argument. Its nothing more than a cop-out to get out of the work of actually having to defend your argument with logic and your own personal take (aka subjectiveness) on the issue at hand.

Discussion is the whole point of Mass Effect, Mass Effect was created to explore complex issues, most notably "how to define a life" . The game exists to make you question your self, your morality, and how you define others. If you played Mass Effect and all you can muster from the experience is that its "subjective", then the experience has been a waste of time.

This whole subjective argument... Its a roadblock to intelligent discussion. The word "idiot" comes from the classical Greek "idoites" which essentially means a person who could not part of the public society (they considered this to be very important), the Ancient Greeks (the origins of most of Western Civilization thought) saw debate and arguing in their government as the highest form of intelligence hence if you were an idoites , it essentially means you have no opinion and you are not worth knowing.

If a question is put to you and the only think you can put forth is that "my opinion is subjective" with out finding the root reason of yours or my "subjectiveness" in the first place, From what cultural, political, personal reasons it comes from..... Well... It is better not to post.

that is your opinion. and don't talk to me about the greeks. they have infested humanity with their horrible, horrible salads and *ggaaahkhkh

and BTW you built your entire argument on an (unproven and wrong) assumption. i was  using the point for....something else.


Thats the whole bloody point, I put out an opinion now it must be questioned, analysed, argued, counter points, debated

Sure you can type "thats just your opinion" and be done with it and to be fair if you find it not worth debating that is fine.

But to put such important concepts such as morality and ethics to simple subjectiveness. Then nothing is learned. If anything should be debated it is ethics and morality. Mass effect has given us the opportunity to do that! Thats the whole point of its existence (yes it exists to make money, but it would be worthless as a work of fiction if it did not question complex concepts).

Edit: I have been reading this thread, I posted my orginal work for the purpose of tackling this subjectivness issue which alot of people have fallen back to,

again, i offer you direction in addressing my argument; again you fail to see it.

and i actually don't mind feta cheese in very small quantities.

Modifié par Caldari Ghost, 24 mai 2013 - 11:53 .


#315
Caldari Ghost

Caldari Ghost
  • Members
  • 5 322 messages
bump

#316
ghost9191

ghost9191
  • Members
  • 2 287 messages

Auld Wulf wrote...

What evil? What bad? That's like saying that the cellphone you have with which you can call a paramedic to save your dying grandmother's life is evil. It's ridiculous! It's an upgrade to the human state, that's all. The Internet was such an upgrade, electricity, modern medicine, even the cellphone! It's just change brought on by upgrades, each of them improving our quality of life.

Unless you're some crazy kind of nutty luddite, what evil?

Sigh.

This is what makes normally nice people hate Destroyers, because they're always spewing this bile over other peoples' choices. It's this kind of nonsense all the time that made me so vehemently anti-Destroy.


you  mean like you do lol :blink:

and to point out it was the same in the ME universe. it is when ppl choose to merge with said tech . eh correction , it is when ppl choose to force everyone to merge with said tech when it becomes "evil"

it isn't about the tech but the fact ppl believe in forced evolution so much thtat they lose perspective


and decide to insult others for their choice while pretending they are being insulted



i mean come on, you just pretty much insulted a guy that was wanting to gain perspective on synthesis lol


see bold for the response ^


i have never insulted anyone for their choice. i welcome it, but anytime i put why i chose destroy ppl insult me for it . so personally i feel the oposite i guess. though it is true for each group , but you can't judge a group on a single person

and that is why when you see a support ( insert choice ) , synthesis, destroyers, and controllers will come in to insult ppl for their choice

#317
FlamingBoy

FlamingBoy
  • Members
  • 3 064 messages

Caldari Ghost wrote...

again, i offer you direction in addressing my argument; again you fail to see it.

and i actually don't mind feta cheese in very small quantities.

I was not originally addressing you, I was speaking generally, it just so happened you posted with a different issue near my own and assumed that I was speaking directly to you

I usually use the quote button when I talk to a specific person. As you can see in my orginal post on the issue I did not quote you, you choosed to engage in a debate (well you wrote something about greek salad) and I thought you wanted to discuss MY post, Hence the confusion

#318
Caldari Ghost

Caldari Ghost
  • Members
  • 5 322 messages

FlamingBoy wrote...

Caldari Ghost wrote...

again, i offer you direction in addressing my argument; again you fail to see it.

and i actually don't mind feta cheese in very small quantities.

I was not originally addressing you, I was speaking generally, it just so happened you posted with a different issue near my own and assumed that I was speaking directly to you

I usually use the quote button when I talk to a specific person. As you can see in my orginal post on the issue I did not quote you, you choosed to engage in a debate (well you wrote something about greek salad) and I thought you wanted to discuss MY post, Hence the confusion

ok then, sorry! D: peace!

Modifié par Caldari Ghost, 24 mai 2013 - 12:04 .


#319
FlamingBoy

FlamingBoy
  • Members
  • 3 064 messages
Removed

Modifié par FlamingBoy, 24 mai 2013 - 12:04 .


#320
Caldari Ghost

Caldari Ghost
  • Members
  • 5 322 messages
for understanding: could a person choosing synthesis (as i do from time to time) be compared to why the starchild chose to inform shepard of how to destroy it?

#321
TheProtheans

TheProtheans
  • Members
  • 1 622 messages

Seival wrote...

Good and bad are just words. Each person understands them in his/her/its own way.


That confirms Synthesis is evil.

#322
Caldari Ghost

Caldari Ghost
  • Members
  • 5 322 messages

TheProtheans wrote...

Seival wrote...

Good and bad are just words. Each person understands them in his/her/its own way.


That confirms Synthesis is evil.

prove it.

#323
TheProtheans

TheProtheans
  • Members
  • 1 622 messages

Caldari Ghost wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

Seival wrote...

Good and bad are just words. Each person understands them in his/her/its own way.


That confirms Synthesis is evil.

prove it.


When a supporter claims it is good or bad based on perspective then you know they're twisted and are evil. 
And hence Synthesis is indeed wrong and evil, the pattern repeats itself.

#324
ghost9191

ghost9191
  • Members
  • 2 287 messages

Caldari Ghost wrote...

Asharad Hett wrote...

Could a Synthesis supporter justify the evil of Synthesis?
Could a Control supporter justify the evil of Control?
Could a Destroy supporter justify the evil of Destroy?
Could a Refusal supporter justify the evil of Refusal?

assuming........?


direct control ?    :?

it is about the ends justifying the means. simple . 

war isn't pretty . i mean think of the hundreds of thousands lost during the frontal attack on the reapers both in space and on the ground. yet no one brings that up lol . or the worlds being lost  to the reapers.  destroy is ( if the geth are still around ) just sacrificing a few more to stop the reapers


control can be seen as a power grab and a police state to reward the sacrifices, to which ppl would probably be upset about .... few believe there is freedom in control

synthesis, is a upgrade to all organics , one that is forced but has its ups i suppose. i personally can't justify that choice . sorry and no offence to those that pick it , but it is not one that i can choose

it is not about being a luddite ( which btw insulting someone for their belief , nice <_< to anyone that uses that as a insult . why don't we go beat up some amish while we are at it :devil: ) it is more about the denying the ppl the choice to do it. when you choose it you are no better then the catalyst. not in the sense that you are turning everyone into a reaper but you are taking away choice.forcing it on ppl because it is "good" for them.  the same thing the catalyst did.  It may be for the better but forcing it on the entire galaxy is not exactly right  , but to each their own

that is what i come up with when i try to justify synthesis lol    dislike all choices but easier to stomach destroy . sacrifice for the better, threat gone, galaxy working together to rebuild blah blah blah....
 
that is just why i see synthesis as the "bad" option. and why control and destroy are somewhat ok

YAY ramble

think of this post what you will . i did say no offence

and to those that would respond with a argument to my views ( on the off chance that happens ) i  will take it as a insult to my choice :huh:  and be sad i will :crying:

P.S  last thing was a joke at the expense of those who think what i said was a insult towards them just because my views differ from theirs :police:

Modifié par ghost9191, 24 mai 2013 - 12:35 .


#325
ghost9191

ghost9191
  • Members
  • 2 287 messages

TheProtheans wrote...

Caldari Ghost wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

Seival wrote...

Good and bad are just words. Each person understands them in his/her/its own way.


That confirms Synthesis is evil.

prove it.


When a supporter claims it is good or bad based on perspective then you know they're twisted and are evil. 
And hence Synthesis is indeed wrong and evil, the pattern repeats itself.


that actually has some truth in it

when that is the first thing you go to to justify your actions. you obviously can't prove it isn't evil or good

when you open with that then obviously it is evil to some . from my perspective they are all evil lol hence the lesser of 4 evils thing