553 réponses à ce sujet

[Caldari Ghost]

just STFU already. there is no evil in synthesis. it means peace, at a small price: green eyes. who doesn't find green eyes beautiful?

[Wayning_Star]

but CG, peace supposedly isn't good for business and that is probably evil. On the bright side, most likely there would be/ is so much 'stuff' in the future with space flight and social advances, bully pulpit/ gun boat diplomacy is/will be an old earth toy. Just say'n

(I think that many latch upon the circuitry flowers, more'n green eye syndrome...)

[Caldari Ghost]

Wayning_Star wrote...

but CG, peace supposedly isn't good for business and that is probably evil. On the bright side, most likely there would be/ is so much 'stuff' in the future with space flight and social advances, bully pulpit/ gun boat diplomacy is/will be an old earth toy. Just say'n

(I think that many latch upon the circuitry flowers, more'n green eye syndrome...)

i see. you may proceed.

[Wayning_Star]

Caldari Ghost wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

but CG, peace supposedly isn't good for business and that is probably evil. On the bright side, most likely there would be/ is so much 'stuff' in the future with space flight and social advances, bully pulpit/ gun boat diplomacy is/will be an old earth toy. Just say'n

(I think that many latch upon the circuitry flowers, more'n green eye syndrome...)

i see. you may proceed.

yes dear, what ever you say dear...lol

[Caldari Ghost]

Wayning_Star wrote...

Caldari Ghost wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

but CG, peace supposedly isn't good for business and that is probably evil. On the bright side, most likely there would be/ is so much 'stuff' in the future with space flight and social advances, bully pulpit/ gun boat diplomacy is/will be an old earth toy. Just say'n

(I think that many latch upon the circuitry flowers, more'n green eye syndrome...)

i see. you may proceed.

yes dear, what ever you say dear...lol

by the way, your name is very depressing. stars live for such a long time...........

[TheProtheans]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...


Wherever it is good or bad is irrelevant, it simply is what it is.

This statement means absolutely nothing, at all. It's literally nonsense.

You're trying to handwave morality of the decision while trying to justify it at the same time.

You can't, it's not doable.

A way to rid the galaxy of the Reapers once and for all, however there is a sacrifice.
Destroy is simply necessary...

Basically everything you were saying before about morality not being subjective is crap now.

You're justifying it for subjective/situational reasons.

Sorry, but your idea that everything is black-and-white holds no water when tested, and crap opinions are to be discarded.

That's your opinion and I respect that.
I'm not justifying it as I already said, I just stated what it does.

[TheProtheans]

Caldari Ghost wrote...

just STFU already. there is no evil in synthesis. it means peace, at a small price: green eyes. who doesn't find green eyes beautiful?

Green eyes is not the only price.
It is the peace at price of  your treasured freedom's and your past identity and life and the future of all organics in the galaxy.
You put the entire galaxy in a downward spiral.

I only see evil in oppression.

[Seival]

Redbelle wrote...

Seival wrote...

Synergizer wrote...

Many of the themes in mass effect were about diversity, freedom of expression and self-identity. Synthesis basically denies the galaxy these things, forcing everyone to be the same so they will not be in conflict.

As Legion said to Shepard, the Reapers forced an illogical conclusion on the Geth as it was preferable to a continual schism. Reapers see diversity as conflict, Shepard could unite the diverse races and cultures in the Galaxy proving the reapers were wrong - the reapers solution? Synthesis? I don't buy it.
I REFUSE ALL THESE OPTIONS!

<snip>

Battle for Rannoch proves that too different entities will always end up in full-scale conflict that will devastate the entire worlds. It doesn't matter how hard you try to bring the peace. Memory of that achievement will fade eventually, and a new war will begin. That will happen again and again, while the entities are still alien to each other. 

So for all intents and purposes, the argument is we're in our own cycle and should be forcibly 'upgraded' past this using a psysical and mental conditioning?

Where does that train of thought end? If all living things does not conform to a indivdual's view of what life ought to be like? What? They'll change it again?

A warning of messing around with the nature of the human condition and all it entails can be found in Joss Whedon's Serenity, where making a planet more passive, and easier to rule, resulted in the inhabitant's of that planet abandoning the will to live because someone made them so passive they lost the will to fight for their own lives. This manifested as a person not giving into the need to eat, drink etc.... they just lost their will to live. Stopped where they were, and.... I want to say waited, but they weren't even waiting for death. They just stopped wanting to be alive. And eventually they did. And all because someone botched the math on rewriting the human condition

Synthesis, if you want to go down that route, may be fine for a little while. Until someone else decides that life needs another little tweak here and there to make life more idealised.

You can argue 'Oh we are already governed by other's and have to live according to rules already'...... but the fact is we are ultimately free to live. And free to be alive according to our terms. We can struggle to live on our terms and make our own choices. Synthesis takes away these base freedom's and removes an individuals responsibiltiy that comes with that freedom.

Or to put it another way. Once you give in to an easy fix and relinquish the freedom to choose how to live, under synthesis, you'll never have the option of fighting to get it back.

There are enough of reasons to live after the possibility of large-scale devastating conflicts became equal to zero. In fact, in peaceful environments there are more reasons to live than in aggressive environments. "Survival is the only reason to live" only for the beasts. For advanced intelligent beings this rule is outdated.

In aggressive environment you try to survive and/or deal as much damage to the enemy as you can. Art, music, discovery, the entire culture becomes secondary or unneeded. In peaceful environment culture is primary, and culture is the fountain of life and desires to be happy, respected, and busy with some interesting things. Synthesis guarantees there will be one persistent culture for the entire galactic civilization, and no one will be alien to it.

Modifié par Seival, 26 mai 2013 - 08:39 .

[Paranoidal nemesis]

Just thought I'd throw this in because a lot of people seem to think that evolution is "Survival of the fittest."

Survival of the fittest was a term coined by Herbert Spencer, and it refers to Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is essentially Eugenics.

I can't see how Synthesis isn't the same thing as Eugenics.

If your trying to defend synthesis by making reference to the aforementioned term,

[Caldari Ghost]

TheProtheans wrote...

Caldari Ghost wrote...

just STFU already. there is no evil in synthesis. it means peace, at a small price: green eyes. who doesn't find green eyes beautiful?

Green eyes is not the only price.
It is the peace at price of  your treasured freedom's and your past identity and life and the future of all organics in the galaxy.
You put the entire galaxy in a downward spiral.

I only see evil in oppression.

you're doing it wrong............

[LinksOcarina]

Paranoidal nemesis wrote...

Just thought I'd throw this in because a lot of people seem to think that evolution is "Survival of the fittest."

Survival of the fittest was a term coined by Herbert Spencer, and it refers to Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is essentially Eugenics.

I can't see how Synthesis isn't the same thing as Eugenics.

If your trying to defend synthesis by making reference to the aforementioned term,

If anything, that is what Destroy represents, survival through total extinction to what is superior.

Compound that with control, which is supression by a superior being...yeah...

[Nerevar-as]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Paranoidal nemesis wrote...

Just thought I'd throw this in because a lot of people seem to think that evolution is "Survival of the fittest."

Survival of the fittest was a term coined by Herbert Spencer, and it refers to Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is essentially Eugenics.

I can't see how Synthesis isn't the same thing as Eugenics.

If your trying to defend synthesis by making reference to the aforementioned term,

If anything, that is what Destroy represents, survival through total extinction to what is superior.

Compound that with control, which is supression by a superior being...yeah...

What exactly are you calling superior?

[LinksOcarina]

Nerevar-as wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Paranoidal nemesis wrote...

Just thought I'd throw this in because a lot of people seem to think that evolution is "Survival of the fittest."

Survival of the fittest was a term coined by Herbert Spencer, and it refers to Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is essentially Eugenics.

I can't see how Synthesis isn't the same thing as Eugenics.

If your trying to defend synthesis by making reference to the aforementioned term,

If anything, that is what Destroy represents, survival through total extinction to what is superior.

Compound that with control, which is supression by a superior being...yeah...

What exactly are you calling superior?

In the way it was presented, Shepard in the case of Control. 

I mean, its literally ascending to a sort of "godhood" that is protecting the galaxy then. What is not superior about that in terms of Shepard's newfound role? The potential for good and bad is high in that scenario, honestly. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 26 mai 2013 - 10:10 .

[Redbelle]

Seival wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

Seival wrote...

Synergizer wrote...

Many of the themes in mass effect were about diversity, freedom of expression and self-identity. Synthesis basically denies the galaxy these things, forcing everyone to be the same so they will not be in conflict.

As Legion said to Shepard, the Reapers forced an illogical conclusion on the Geth as it was preferable to a continual schism. Reapers see diversity as conflict, Shepard could unite the diverse races and cultures in the Galaxy proving the reapers were wrong - the reapers solution? Synthesis? I don't buy it.
I REFUSE ALL THESE OPTIONS!

<snip>

Battle for Rannoch proves that too different entities will always end up in full-scale conflict that will devastate the entire worlds. It doesn't matter how hard you try to bring the peace. Memory of that achievement will fade eventually, and a new war will begin. That will happen again and again, while the entities are still alien to each other. 

So for all intents and purposes, the argument is we're in our own cycle and should be forcibly 'upgraded' past this using a psysical and mental conditioning?

Where does that train of thought end? If all living things does not conform to a indivdual's view of what life ought to be like? What? They'll change it again?

A warning of messing around with the nature of the human condition and all it entails can be found in Joss Whedon's Serenity, where making a planet more passive, and easier to rule, resulted in the inhabitant's of that planet abandoning the will to live because someone made them so passive they lost the will to fight for their own lives. This manifested as a person not giving into the need to eat, drink etc.... they just lost their will to live. Stopped where they were, and.... I want to say waited, but they weren't even waiting for death. They just stopped wanting to be alive. And eventually they did. And all because someone botched the math on rewriting the human condition

Synthesis, if you want to go down that route, may be fine for a little while. Until someone else decides that life needs another little tweak here and there to make life more idealised.

You can argue 'Oh we are already governed by other's and have to live according to rules already'...... but the fact is we are ultimately free to live. And free to be alive according to our terms. We can struggle to live on our terms and make our own choices. Synthesis takes away these base freedom's and removes an individuals responsibiltiy that comes with that freedom.

Or to put it another way. Once you give in to an easy fix and relinquish the freedom to choose how to live, under synthesis, you'll never have the option of fighting to get it back.

There are enough of reasons to live after the possibility of large-scale devastating conflicts became equal to zero. In fact, in peaceful environments there are more reasons to live than in aggressive environments. "Survival is the only reason to live" only for the beasts. For advanced intelligent beings this rule is outdated.

In aggressive environment you try to survive and/or deal as much damage to the enemy as you can. Art, music, discovery, the entire culture becomes secondary or unneeded. In peaceful environment culture is primary, and culture is the fountain of life and desires to be happy, respected, and busy with some interesting things. Synthesis guarantees there will be one persistent culture for the entire galactic civilization, and no one will be alien to it.

I know there is a point in there somewhere. But on this occasion I'm giving up teasing it out. The syntax of this is illegible. I'm not about to try and debate something when the return argument is incoherant

*Edit **d it. I'll have a go anyway.

Seiv, if you think that just because we have technology and institution's of law and order, that this somehow makes us above all other life on the planet. Ask yourself what would happen if it all stopped working tomorrow and never started again..... Surivavl of the fittest is not outdated for the human race. Humans have simply used ingenuity to lift themselves above it to a degree. Yet the concpet still applies as thing's such as job interviews, where candidate's can handle pressure. Athlete's, where the individual compete's in friendly competition to see who is the best at a sporting event. etc..... We as a species are not as devorced from the natural world as you think.

And just because we enter a state of war does not mean ar is the over riding concern to the detriment of art and literature. Albert Einstein was kicking around during WW2 carrying out his experiment's that led to the theory of relativity and had his theories tested by a foreigner on the opposite side of the war who used his calculation's to build the most accurate model of how the planet's moved around the sun at that time.

Let's just pause and reflect on what happened there. Two opposing countries at war had two of their citzen's join forces to develop, test and prove a scientific concept that was built upon and is still used to date. By your logic this should not have happened as they were alien to each other.

Indeed, they were.

But despite their difference's they possessed enough similaraties to overcome those diferences and ultimately worked together in peace and harmony during a time when their countries were bombing each other. Thereby proving a principal that in times of great war, there is still hope for peace through togetherness.

Modifié par Redbelle, 26 mai 2013 - 10:54 .

[Paranoidal nemesis]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Paranoidal nemesis wrote...

Just thought I'd throw this in because a lot of people seem to think that evolution is "Survival of the fittest."

Survival of the fittest was a term coined by Herbert Spencer, and it refers to Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is essentially Eugenics.

I can't see how Synthesis isn't the same thing as Eugenics.

If your trying to defend synthesis by making reference to the aforementioned term,

If anything, that is what Destroy represents, survival through total extinction to what is superior.

Compound that with control, which is supression by a superior being...yeah...

There has always been suppression by a superior being (the catalyst), and with synthesis you have all the reapers with free will. Given the fact that the Leviathans were narcissistic monsters who suppressed all other life in the galaxy, do you think Harbinger, would be any less malicious?

I don't understand what you mean when you say destroy represents survival through total extinction to what is superior.  

[Red Panda]

mass perfection wrote...

Seival wrote...

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

Do YOU see any evil in Synthesis?

Evil is an artificial concept. There is only change. There is only progress.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

TheProtheans wrote...

That's your opinion and I respect that.
I'm not justifying it as I already said, I just stated what it does.

No, it is fact.

[Redbelle]

OperatingWookie wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Seival wrote...

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

Do YOU see any evil in Synthesis?

Evil is an artificial concept. There is only change. There is only progress.

Not all progress is progressive.

By that I mean, skill's and expertise can be lost as the requirement for them dimishes.... only for a time when those skills are required but those who possessed them are retired.

Progress sounds nice. But to lose what you once had is regressive. Britain has largely lost it's steel industry, yet has a steel production facility in Port Talbot that is pushed to capacity, and still Britain has to purcahse foreign steel because someone allowed the other steel factories to close. We could be making and exporting instead.

However due to the Labour government of the past's venture to be more service's based rather than goods based, not only has Britain lost much of it's manufacturing expertise, but also it's manufacturing infrastructure.

A progressive policy that regressed the goods industry of a country.

Progress is not alway's a good thing.

btw, technically everything you can mention is an artificial concept, going by how you use the term. However, these concepts must operate as universal truths to some degree. It is no good to tell two people something is evil if both those individauls view the concept differently. There has to be a base line concept of the term to allow for understanding. As well as a lack of resolve to argue incessently over the term, lest nothing be done on the issue that involves the concept in question.

There are, if not universal truth's, then base line truth's to allow people to understand one another. Or you could just split hair's till the cows come home, if you think that sort of thing is fun.

Modifié par Redbelle, 26 mai 2013 - 11:19 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

OperatingWookie wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Seival wrote...

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

Do YOU see any evil in Synthesis?

Evil is an artificial concept. There is only change. There is only progress.

But there is also positive change, and there is negative change. Not all change is good. I don't believe synthesis is an example of positive change.

[LinksOcarina]

Paranoidal nemesis wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Paranoidal nemesis wrote...

Just thought I'd throw this in because a lot of people seem to think that evolution is "Survival of the fittest."

Survival of the fittest was a term coined by Herbert Spencer, and it refers to Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is essentially Eugenics.

I can't see how Synthesis isn't the same thing as Eugenics.

If your trying to defend synthesis by making reference to the aforementioned term,

If anything, that is what Destroy represents, survival through total extinction to what is superior.

Compound that with control, which is supression by a superior being...yeah...

There has always been suppression by a superior being (the catalyst), and with synthesis you have all the reapers with free will. Given the fact that the Leviathans were narcissistic monsters who suppressed all other life in the galaxy, do you think Harbinger, would be any less malicious?

I don't understand what you mean when you say destroy represents survival through total extinction to what is superior.  

Simple really. You destroy the reapers fully, and to an extant synthetic life, to preserve the rest of the galaxy. 

Survival of the fittest by a "superior" race, in this case, organics as a whole surviving against synthetics. 

[Auld Wulf]

How could Synthesis possibly be eugenics?

Just so we're all on the same page.

Eugenics is essentially selective breeding, in order to enforce a particular genetic line. It insists that there are undesirable genesets which lead to 'less desirable' people which should be phased out through selective breeding and other similar techniques. This also means removing the diversity of genetics. Synthesis (unless you have some rabid headcanon going on) doesn't do that at all.

Synthesis empowers people who're different by allowing everyone to have an equal chance by curing ailments and allowing people to upgrade themselves as they choose. See, to say that Synthesis is eugenics would be to point at the eventual, inevitable cure for cancer and scream "That's eugenics! Bad Scientists, bad!" which is... silly.

As I keep saying -- Synthesis is Science, it's just a poetic look at what we are and where we're going. I mean, to people a century ago, smartphones would have been Synthesis considering the, quite frankly, supernatural understanding of the world around us that they give us. With smartphones we have greater situational awareness, that's an upgrade. Synthesis is simply taking that to the next level.

[Auld Wulf]

TheProtheans wrote...

Green eyes is not the only price [according to my headcanon].

It is the peace at price of your treasured freedoms [according to my headcanon] and your past identity [according to my headcanon] and life and the future of all organics in the galaxy [according to my headcanon].

Bolded text as emphasis is mine. Just pointing that out. The only thing that the Catalyst empirically says Synthesis is is that it's an upgrade which will give us what we find desirable about synthetics.

What do we find desirable about synthetics? Ask yourself that.

Modifié par Auld Wulf, 27 mai 2013 - 12:22 .

[xlegionx]

Auld Wulf wrote...

Synthesis is Science

Best Joke I've heard all week.

Please, O Great one, tell us How Synthesis works. How a single wave of "energy" (we'll call it that since they don't explain what exactly it is the Crucible sends out) can alter both the physical DNA of organics and the digital code of synthetics.

If you can't tell me that, then I will have proved my point that Synthesis isn't science, as there is no even remotely possible explanation given. It's just a bunch of nonsense.

[Faust1979]

why should I have to convince you of anything?  if you don't like it don't choose it.  I'm not a Synthesis supporter persay depends on how I think the character feels at the time that's the ending I pick

[Auld Wulf]

xlegionx wrote...

Best Joke I've heard all week. [Opening with a weak insult, to try to draw attention away from a weak post.]

Please, O Great one, [Continuing with base sarcasm, in the hopes that it detracts from a weak post.] tell us How Synthesis works. How a single wave of "energy" (we'll call it that since they don't explain what exactly it is the Crucible sends out) can alter both the physical DNA of organics and the digital code of synthetics.

If you can't tell me that, then I will have proved my point that Synthesis isn't science, as there is no even remotely possible explanation given. It's just a bunch of nonsense.

Bold text is mine. I love drawing attention to this stuff.

There are numerous ways. Reading the latest few pages of the Synthesis compendium brings up a bunch of ideas, but what you don't understand (and never will) is that Mass Effect is a story. Thus it's dealing with the symbolism and the idealism of Science. It's an idealistic look at what we hope to achieve with it, and it's a symbolic representation of what we already have achieved with it.

Look back at my smartphone comment, and how that's related to Synthesis. How, to a person a century ago, a smartphone would be a form of Synthesis as it's something distinctly unnatural that gives us a superhuman sense of spatial awareness, and knowledge that we couldn't possess otherwise. Synthesis is a symbolic representation of that. That's why I say that to hate Synthesis is to hate Science.

So then, let me say it again... Synthesis, with me so far? Synthesis is symbolic. It's not meant ot be taken literally. It's stupid to take it literally.

Modifié par Auld Wulf, 27 mai 2013 - 06:21 .