553 réponses à ce sujet

[Redbelle]

Auld Wulf wrote...

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.

Auld. Stop writing thing's that another person did not write in their post. If they did not say it..... and they did not imply it...... then you don't get to add your context to their views by adding phrases. If you want their views ask for clarification.

And no. Emboldening it doesn't make it alright. Not when it forces the viewer to have to go back through the pages to find out what is the original posters and what is yours. The quote system is perfectly adequate to discuss another person's views. Leave them untouched or people will start seeing your argument's as weak kneed in that you cannot engage without belittling the person your replying too.

Modifié par Redbelle, 27 mai 2013 - 07:22 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Auld Wulf wrote...

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

Will it do manual labor like yard work, and clean my house and do my dishes? Just so long as it doesn't get any ideas about philosophy and learning or anything like that we're good. I don't want it to be an AI or become an AI.

[TheProtheans]

Auld Wulf wrote...

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

I'm not sure a deranged AI would know what is best for organics.

[xlegionx]

Auld Wulf wrote...

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

Sigh.

Don't talk to me about insults, Auld. That's a discussion you will lose.

As for the rest of your post, you still didn't explain how Synthesis is Science. All you did was point to the Synthesis Compendium and say, "look!" And while that thread does have some well-constructed ideas, they are still almost entirely speculative.

And symbolism is some excuse to avoid logic. That's what Mac Walters did with the original ending, and look how little sense that made. to use your smartphone analogy, the person showing the smartphone to the person from a century ago can explain how it works. On the other hand, you cannot do the same with Synthesis, because even you don't understand it. 

EDIT: Also, if something can't be taken literally, it can't be considered science. Science is not symbolic, it's cold, hard facts, and inference from those facts. Way to destroy your own argument

Modifié par xlegionx, 27 mai 2013 - 04:59 .

[dreamgazer]

Auld Wulf wrote...

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.

You're working yourself into a corner here, Wulfie. 

[Redbelle]

xlegionx wrote...

Auld Wulf wrote...

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

Sigh.

Don't talk to me about insults, Auld. That's a discussion you will lose.

As for the rest of your post, you still didn't explain how Synthesis is Science. All you did was point to the Synthesis Compendium and say, "look!" And while that thread does have some well-constructed ideas, they are still almost entirely speculative.

And symbolism is some excuse to avoid logic. That's what Mac Walters did with the original ending, and look how little sense that made. to use your smartphone analogy, the person showing the smartphone to the person from a century ago can explain how it works. On the other hand, you cannot do the same with Synthesis, because even you don't understand it. 

EDIT: Also, if something can't be taken literally, it can't be considered science. Science is not symbolic, it's cold, hard facts, and inference from those facts. Way to destroy your own argument

The book 'Einststeins Beetle', is perfect to demonstrate that an everyman can be talked to in a way as to understand the basic principles of the universe.

If we're talking symbolic, then we're into the expulsion from paradise territory where it's all apples and serpents.

However, with the Catalyst and crucible, we saw what happened. We heard the logic from the horses mouth. And this begs the question.

Why write something that is symbolic but is poorly portreyed when you have game set environments, a player who is invested in interacting in narrative plots, and visual and audio to convey the idea's you wish to bring out in the narrative?

TBH, the discussion of the endings over the past year could have been the narrative for ME4 with all the milage their getting.

Modifié par Redbelle, 27 mai 2013 - 05:24 .

[Seival]

Redbelle wrote...

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.

If "it all stopped working tomorrow and never started again", then humans will be reduced to the state of the beasts, and will live by the beasts' rules. And this is what humanity must not allow. We have to preserve all our achievements, and go further through the path of evolution. This is what the nature itself wants from us, and humanity will follow the path with or without your approval, just you watch... Even if we will eventually destroy ourselves in the process.

When we have two opposing countries at war, cooperation of some individuals or organizations from both countries just prove that the ones who don't want to fight are in minority.

USA and USSR for example. By your logic, they could co-exist and cooperate. By my logic they would fight till one of them eventually lose. And the winner will force the looser to become less alien to the winner. After some differences will be annihilated, the counties will become less hostile to each other. So, who's logic is closer to reality?

...USA won, and forced my country to change itself to become closer to USA. I don't blame anyone or anything but human nature for that, this is how the world works after all. War, victory, assimilation, removal of differences, peace. So much trouble for just bringing together humans and humans. For now we are not advanced enough to ruin the entire world because of all conflicts we have on Earth... And now imagine the danger of conflicts in MEU. Asteroid bombardments, genophages, rebel AIs, fleets that can destroy the entire solar systems. I think you can't even grasp the danger of differences such world possesses. And Synthesis removes this danger. In Synthesized universe only small and local conflicts are possible, because the main and most troubling differences were removed completely. Synthesized universe is like one huge galactic-scale country - no one has to be defeated and assimilated anymore. No need for huge bombs, genophages, asteroid bombardments, or AI shackles.

You said "Synthesis removes freedoms"? No, it even adds more freedoms - freedoms of communications between ex-alien creatures. And freedom itself... such thing doesn't exist no matter how hard you what to believe in it.

Modifié par Seival, 27 mai 2013 - 09:14 .

[Redbelle]

Seival wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

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.

If "it all stopped working tomorrow and never started again", then humans will be reduced to the state of the beasts, and will live by the beasts' rules. And this is what humanity must not allow. We have to preserve all our achievements, and go further through the path of evolution. This is what the nature itself wants from us, and humanity will follow the path with or without your approval, just you watch... Even if we will eventually destroy ourselves in the process.

When we have two opposing countries at war, cooperation of some individuals or organizations from both countries just prove that the ones who don't want to fight are in minority.

USA and USSR for example. By your logic, they could co-exist and cooperate. By my logic they would fight till one of them eventually lose. And the winner will force the looser to become less alien to the winner. After some differences will be annihilated, the counties will become less hostile to each other. So, who's logic is closer to reality?

...USA won, and forced my country to change itself to become closer to USA. I don't blame anyone or anything but human nature for that, this is how the world works after all. War, victory, assimilation, removal of differences, peace. So much trouble for just bringing together humans and humans. For now we are not advanced enough to ruin the entire world because of all conflicts we have on Earth... And now imagine the danger of conflicts in MEU. Asteroid bombardments, genophages, rebel AIs, fleets that can destroy the entire solar systems. I think you can't even grasp the danger of differences such world possesses. And Synthesis removes this danger. In Synthesized universe only small and local conflicts are possible, because the main and most troubling differences were removed completely. Synthesized universe is like one huge galactic-scale country - no one has to be defeated and assimilated anymore. No need for huge bombs, genophages, asteroid bombardments, or AI shackles.

You said "Synthesis removes freedoms"? No, it even adds more freedoms - freedoms of communications between ex-alien creatures. And freedom itself... such thing doesn't exist no matter how hard you what to believe in it.

Hold onto your hat. New information incoming.

WW1. Germany was beaten and run into the ground to the point that you needed a wheelbarrow of their currency to buy a loaf of bread. This allowed animosity to fester to the point that Adolf was able to rally them by telling the people that they deserved better.

This eventually resulted in WW2. And to date, is an example of how not to treat a country that has lost a war. This was relatively recently demonstrated by the Iraq war where the countries that invaded it and threw out the old regime took a stake in the responsibilty of rebuilding the country, rather than trying to grind it into the ground as per Germany after WW1. And through co-operation in rebuilding many cultures have been exposed to each other. It's not about forcing understanding. It's about understanding on their terms.

On a similar note. The UK has a rich and diverse culture of many different ethnicities. All of which get along despite being of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Total understanding is not neccessary. Only the willingness to allow such diversity to exist and grow. Sometimes a culture says we should abolish Christmas......  but meh! Christmas is awesome!

By extension. The only reason the USSR became closer to America is because the USSR allowed itself to do so..... Yet if the news service is true, you have a strong leader who refuses to budge on issues and supports the Russian identity. You may not know what the Russian identity is but hey.... join the club. Britain's got Chip shop's, Crochet and a maritine legacy based on genetic piracy.

I think you lack the faith that people can rise above their base instinct's and build a better future on their own. Likewise you lack the historical knowledge of all those times we did indulge those instinct's, and came away realising the mistake in doing so, and the times we did not and prevented damage to others.

You simply refuse to believe in other people.

As for synthesis..... If everyone's the same then there will be no more conflict? No. Org's and Synth's have been shown to be in conflict with both themselves and each other. Therefore if everyone's the same they will eventually conflict with themselves. Becoming Synth'd does not make any of the race's any less alien. They still have their own unique motivation's independent of each other. Geographical location.... circumstances.... the desire to one up another. These thing's all have the potential to cause conflict regardless of being synth'd or not.

Take Wreav.... If he live's and Bakura's not there to stop him his desire is to wage war, as opposed to Wrex. How does Synthesis stop him from wanting to do this? The only way it could is if Synthesis altered the way he made decision's, so that a resolute desire to wage war, became an aversion to war. Suddenly Wreav is not who he was. And if he is not the person he was born and nurtured to be then who is he?

And who has the right to bend a person to another's way of thinking and then multiply that across a galactic community? That is a loss of freedom right there. To be who we are, not to be what another want's us to be.

[Redbelle]

Seival wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

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.

If "it all stopped working tomorrow and never started again", then humans will be reduced to the state of the beasts, and will live by the beasts' rules. And this is what humanity must not allow. We have to preserve all our achievements, and go further through the path of evolution. This is what the nature itself wants from us, and humanity will follow the path with or without your approval, just you watch... Even if we will eventually destroy ourselves in the process.

When we have two opposing countries at war, cooperation of some individuals or organizations from both countries just prove that the ones who don't want to fight are in minority.

USA and USSR for example. By your logic, they could co-exist and cooperate. By my logic they would fight till one of them eventually lose. And the winner will force the looser to become less alien to the winner. After some differences will be annihilated, the counties will become less hostile to each other. So, who's logic is closer to reality?

...USA won, and forced my country to change itself to become closer to USA. I don't blame anyone or anything but human nature for that, this is how the world works after all. War, victory, assimilation, removal of differences, peace. So much trouble for just bringing together humans and humans. For now we are not advanced enough to ruin the entire world because of all conflicts we have on Earth... And now imagine the danger of conflicts in MEU. Asteroid bombardments, genophages, rebel AIs, fleets that can destroy the entire solar systems. I think you can't even grasp the danger of differences such world possesses. And Synthesis removes this danger. In Synthesized universe only small and local conflicts are possible, because the main and most troubling differences were removed completely. Synthesized universe is like one huge galactic-scale country - no one has to be defeated and assimilated anymore. No need for huge bombs, genophages, asteroid bombardments, or AI shackles.

You said "Synthesis removes freedoms"? No, it even adds more freedoms - freedoms of communications between ex-alien creatures. And freedom itself... such thing doesn't exist no matter how hard you what to believe in it.

Hold onto your hat. New information incoming.

WW1. Germany was beaten and run into the ground to the point that you needed a wheelbarrow of their currency to buy a loaf of bread. This allowed animosity to fester to the point that Adolf was able to rally them by telling the people that they deserved better.

This eventually resulted in WW2. And to date, is an example of how not to treat a country that has lost a war. This was relatively recently demonstrated by the Iraq war where the countries that invaded it and threw out the old regime took a stake in the responsibilty of rebuilding the country, rather than trying to grind it into the ground as per Germany after WW1.And through co-operation in rebuilding many cultures have been exposed to each other. It's not about forcing understanding. It's about understanding on their terms.

And frankly the various interpretation's are eye opening to say the least.

On a similar note. The UK has a rich and diverse culture of many different ethnicities. All of which get along despite being of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Total understanding is not neccessary. Only the willingness to allow such diversity to exist and grow. Sometimes a culture says we should abolish Christmas......  but meh! Christmas is awesome!

By extension. The only reason the USSR became closer to America is because the USSR allowed itself to do so..... Yet if the news service is true, you have a strong leader who refuses to budge on issues and supports the
Russian identity. You may not know what the Russian identity is but hey.... join the club. Britain's got Chip shop's, Crochet and a maritine legacy based on genetic piracy.

I think you lack the faith that people can rise above their base instinct's and build a better future ontheir own. Likewise you lack the historical knowledge of all those times we did indulge those instinct's, and came away realising the mistake in doing so, and the times we did not and prevented damage to others.

You simply refuse to believe in other people.

As for synthesis..... If everyone's the same then there will be no more conflict? No. Org's and Synth's have been shown to be in conflict with both themselves and each other. Therefore if everyone's the same they will eventually conflict with themselves. Becoming Synth'd does not makeany of the race's any less alien. They still have their own unique motivation's independent of each other. Geographical location.... circumstances.... the desire to one up another. These thing's all have the potential to cause conflict regardless of being synth'd or not.

TakeWreav.... If he live's and Bakura's not there to stop him his desire isto wage war, as opposed to Wrex. How does Synthesis stop him from wanting to do this? The only way it could is if Synthesis altered the way he made decision's, so that a resolute desire to wage war, became an aversion to war. Suddenly Wreav is not who he was. And if he is not the person he was born and nurtured to be then who is he?

And who has the right to bend a person to another's way of thinking and then multiply that across a galactic community? That is a loss of freedom right there. To be who we are, not to be what another want's us to be.

BTW, freedom does exist..... Because if someone tries to pressure you into something and you can resist.... that is you fighting for your freedom to live according to your own free will.

Modifié par Redbelle, 27 mai 2013 - 09:52 .

[Seival]

Redbelle wrote...

Seival wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

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.

If "it all stopped working tomorrow and never started again", then humans will be reduced to the state of the beasts, and will live by the beasts' rules. And this is what humanity must not allow. We have to preserve all our achievements, and go further through the path of evolution. This is what the nature itself wants from us, and humanity will follow the path with or without your approval, just you watch... Even if we will eventually destroy ourselves in the process.

When we have two opposing countries at war, cooperation of some individuals or organizations from both countries just prove that the ones who don't want to fight are in minority.

USA and USSR for example. By your logic, they could co-exist and cooperate. By my logic they would fight till one of them eventually lose. And the winner will force the looser to become less alien to the winner. After some differences will be annihilated, the counties will become less hostile to each other. So, who's logic is closer to reality?

...USA won, and forced my country to change itself to become closer to USA. I don't blame anyone or anything but human nature for that, this is how the world works after all. War, victory, assimilation, removal of differences, peace. So much trouble for just bringing together humans and humans. For now we are not advanced enough to ruin the entire world because of all conflicts we have on Earth... And now imagine the danger of conflicts in MEU. Asteroid bombardments, genophages, rebel AIs, fleets that can destroy the entire solar systems. I think you can't even grasp the danger of differences such world possesses. And Synthesis removes this danger. In Synthesized universe only small and local conflicts are possible, because the main and most troubling differences were removed completely. Synthesized universe is like one huge galactic-scale country - no one has to be defeated and assimilated anymore. No need for huge bombs, genophages, asteroid bombardments, or AI shackles.

You said "Synthesis removes freedoms"? No, it even adds more freedoms - freedoms of communications between ex-alien creatures. And freedom itself... such thing doesn't exist no matter how hard you what to believe in it.

Hold onto your hat. New information incoming.

WW1. Germany was beaten and run into the ground to the point that you needed a wheelbarrow of their currency to buy a loaf of bread. This allowed animosity to fester to the point that Adolf was able to rally them by telling the people that they deserved better.

This eventually resulted in WW2. And to date, is an example of how not to treat a country that has lost a war. This was relatively recently demonstrated by the Iraq war where the countries that invaded it and threw out the old regime took a stake in the responsibilty of rebuilding the country, rather than trying to grind it into the ground as per Germany after WW1.And through co-operation in rebuilding many cultures have been exposed to each other. It's not about forcing understanding. It's about understanding on their terms.

And frankly the various interpretation's are eye opening to say the least.

On a similar note. The UK has a rich and diverse culture of many different ethnicities. All of which get along despite being of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Total understanding is not neccessary. Only the willingness to allow such diversity to exist and grow. Sometimes a culture says we should abolish Christmas......  but meh! Christmas is awesome!

By extension. The only reason the USSR became closer to America is because the USSR allowed itself to do so..... Yet if the news service is true, you have a strong leader who refuses to budge on issues and supports the
Russian identity. You may not know what the Russian identity is but hey.... join the club. Britain's got Chip shop's, Crochet and a maritine legacy based on genetic piracy.

I think you lack the faith that people can rise above their base instinct's and build a better future ontheir own. Likewise you lack the historical knowledge of all those times we did indulge those instinct's, and came away realising the mistake in doing so, and the times we did not and prevented damage to others.

You simply refuse to believe in other people.

As for synthesis..... If everyone's the same then there will be no more conflict? No. Org's and Synth's have been shown to be in conflict with both themselves and each other. Therefore if everyone's the same they will eventually conflict with themselves. Becoming Synth'd does not makeany of the race's any less alien. They still have their own unique motivation's independent of each other. Geographical location.... circumstances.... the desire to one up another. These thing's all have the potential to cause conflict regardless of being synth'd or not.

TakeWreav.... If he live's and Bakura's not there to stop him his desire isto wage war, as opposed to Wrex. How does Synthesis stop him from wanting to do this? The only way it could is if Synthesis altered the way he made decision's, so that a resolute desire to wage war, became an aversion to war. Suddenly Wreav is not who he was. And if he is not the person he was born and nurtured to be then who is he?

And who has the right to bend a person to another's way of thinking and then multiply that across a galactic community? That is a loss of freedom right there. To be who we are, not to be what another want's us to be.

BTW, freedom does exist..... Because if someone tries to pressure you into something and you can resist.... that is you fighting for your freedom to live according to your own free will.

The simple observation of most recent events like "killing a soldier to record a message of anger and show it to everyone" disproves all your assumptions about peacefully co-existing differences. Look around. Countries fight countries, people fight inside the countries and kill each other. True allies are only the ones who have almost no differences - USA and UK are a nice example of such allies. What are USA and UK doing in the Middle East? Fighting the aliens, and forcing them to stop being aliens. Cooperation there is impossible, there are only different dirty ways to win the war.

What are conflicts inside USA for example compared to WW2? Now imagine the entire Earth is USA - this will give you some explanation of how being one persistent society reduces probability of global conflicts to zero. This is not possible while there are still different countries and religions existing. One country plus no religions is the only guarantee of global peace. In short - Wreav would never provoke something global in Synthesized universe - he would eventually become a local criminal punished by his own kind.

Synthesis doesn't brainwash anyone. It improves everyone to the state, where no one is alien anymore. And like I said, no radical differences = no global conflicts.

Your society, people around you pressure you to do something (or not to do something) each day. Some sort of resistance to it will harm you or someone else, some other sort of resistance can kill you or someone else. You are bound, controlled completely by other people and environment. Freedom is just a beautiful word designed to control crowds and individuals. Freedom does not exist.

[DirtySHISN0]

mass perfection wrote...

 I see good in Synthesis but the bad in it seems to outweigh it.Convince meto believe otherwise or try to justify it.

No.

[Redbelle]

Seival wrote...


The simple observation of most recent events like "killing a soldier to record a message of anger and show it to everyone" disproves all your assumptions about peacefully co-existing differences. Look around. Countries fight countries, people fight inside the countries and kill each other. True allies are only the ones who have almost no differences - USA and UK are a nice example of such allies. What are USA and UK doing in the Middle East? Fighting the aliens, and forcing them to stop being aliens. Cooperation there is impossible, there are only different dirty ways to win the war.

Seiv...... fer the love of.....

Open your model of thinking to area's outside of armed conflict and actually see people living together in peace in communities in areas around the world.

Your thinking is heavily weighed in favour of militaries that are the most likely of national institution's to come into conflict at some point in time. Had you modeled your argument on civilian life in the East or West the outcome of your thought exercise would swing the other way......

Not only that but you do not seem to understand what the purpose of a military is. Certainly it's a protective peace keeping force whose doctrine seemingly mandates that defence is based served in offence. But it's also a political tool. It's an emergency service of last resort. It's a self contained culture of discipline and obedience to an authority. Militaries are so many thing's and perform so many action's that involve thing's other than killing.

As for what the UK and USA are doing ithe middle east. Read the news and discover that the UK are not forcing people to become more western. They were attempting to disrupt terrorist training cells through military force that was incited by the USA on account that they had an suspicion that WMD's were present and this initiitive was spearheaded by a president whose father had tried something similar in the past and failed and.......

Do you actually understand anything of what has been going on over there in the last ten years? Have you heard the debates raging of those who support and those who do not support these endevours? Or have you simply wrapped yourself in a cocoon of your own opinion that these argument's can not pierce?

You seem willfully blind to the good in the world and choose to embrace only the bad. Then use that as justification for this idea of enforced transhumanisation.

Cherry picking your argument's to rationalise your stance that being physically altered is the only solution to creating a peaceful community of transhuman's, assumes that doing so will bring about peace.

You have not factored in the finite resources wieghed against the infinite want's of the galacitc community. Just being altered by synthesis will not eliminate the need to consume resources. Nor will it eliminate the responsibilty of the leaders of the time to care for their own people by acquring those resources. Sharing may seem like a nice ldeal, but if the resources available will not satisfy those that need them if shared then conflcit is likely to erupt in the procurement of siad resources. Finite resources vs infinite needs. That's basic economic theory based on reality that synthesis cannot hope to alter.

And finally, the husk and soldier in the ECDLC synthesis ending demonstrates a strong indication that, if not brainwashing, then mental conditioning, to some degree, takes place. The husk and the soldier stop trying to kill each other. Just like that. They both cease....... Why? Before the adrenaline was pumping, the soldier was protecting a friend, a husk appears out of nowhere and is nearly upon them. They've been fighting since they landed in hostile territory...... Then the wave hits and the solider looks up and the husk is still there...... Does having green eye's in that instant automatically mean., 'Oh, he's not a threat anymore'?

The wave had to have had some impact on their mental faculties to override their immediate situation which resulted in a ceasation of hostile intent. Otherwise the soldier's first thought on getting up would be......'Husk, shock troop, technologically altered to be an unrepentent killer who attacks his victims with teeth and claws. No known instances of a husk showing mercy on account that it's capacity for mercy no longer exists.Nearly had me, but it's down and vunerable, Second chance, <bang>

Modifié par Redbelle, 27 mai 2013 - 11:27 .

[Redbelle]

Seival wrote...
Freedom does not exist.

Freedom of speech does. <_<

And if that exist's then it stands to reason that your sentence is false, allowing for other freedoms to be permissable.

Unless you feel that by stripping everything back to a base line os basic that you feel hat we are living according to rules like physic's...... Seiv, that is not the freedom we are talking about. WE are talking about social freedom and that kind of freedom is a responsibilty. Meet that responsibilty and your free. Don't and you'll proabably end up in jail.

That's just a basic flavour of how social freedom in a society works.

Modifié par Redbelle, 27 mai 2013 - 11:32 .

[Red Panda]

Redbelle wrote...

Seival wrote...
Freedom does not exist.

Freedom of speech does. <_<

As an illusion drilled into one. It is nothing more than an artificial concept.

[Redbelle]

OperatingWookie wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

Seival wrote...
Freedom does not exist.

Freedom of speech does. <_<

As an illusion drilled into one. It is nothing more than an artificial concept.

So your saying someone can take away your freedom of speech?

Like me for instance?

Alright. How would I go about it so you could not post on BSN again?

I can't. Your free to talk about the topic without fear that I or another poster could stop you.

The only one's who could are the mods and as long as you keep to the topic in question.... (or not as many a thread have sometimes shown) you can talk.

That is your freedom.

As for artificial...... OF course it's artificial. Just as liberté is artificial. Or Freiheit. or ελευθερία

They are made up words that mean something. And I nkow you understand what they mean because you know what I 'm talking about when I use the word freedom.

You are simply pretending not too. Whether that is something you believe in is down to you to tell me.

Modifié par Redbelle, 27 mai 2013 - 11:40 .

[Red Panda]

Redbelle wrote...

OperatingWookie wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

Seival wrote...
Freedom does not exist.

Freedom of speech does. <_<

As an illusion drilled into one. It is nothing more than an artificial concept.

So your saying someone can take away your freedom of speech?

Like me for instance?

Alright. How would I go about it so you could not post on BSN again?

I can't. Your free to talk about the topic without fear that I or another poster could stop you.

The only one's who could are the mods and as long as you keep to the topic in question.... (or not as many a thread have sometimes shown) you can talk.

That is your freedom.

Not terribly sure what we're arguing, but it seemed important. Wait, does synthesis take away freedom of speech?

[Redbelle]

OperatingWookie wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

OperatingWookie wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

Seival wrote...
Freedom does not exist.

Freedom of speech does. <_<

As an illusion drilled into one. It is nothing more than an artificial concept.

So your saying someone can take away your freedom of speech?

Like me for instance?

Alright. How would I go about it so you could not post on BSN again?

I can't. Your free to talk about the topic without fear that I or another poster could stop you.

The only one's who could are the mods and as long as you keep to the topic in question.... (or not as many a thread have sometimes shown) you can talk.

That is your freedom.

Not terribly sure what we're arguing, but it seemed important. Wait, does synthesis take away freedom of speech?

I thought you were debating the notion of freedom using the freedom of speech as an example. FoS does not tie directly into synthesis. But the wider principle that freedom's are real does.

As for being an artificial concept.... why does that matter? The concept is what it is and people understand it. Therein we have an understanding that exist between others. And no one had to be synthesised to attain it.

Seriously, does anyone not understand the fundamental principle of the term freedom?

Modifié par Redbelle, 27 mai 2013 - 11:45 .

[Seival]

Redbelle wrote...

Seival wrote...


The simple observation of most recent events like "killing a soldier to record a message of anger and show it to everyone" disproves all your assumptions about peacefully co-existing differences. Look around. Countries fight countries, people fight inside the countries and kill each other. True allies are only the ones who have almost no differences - USA and UK are a nice example of such allies. What are USA and UK doing in the Middle East? Fighting the aliens, and forcing them to stop being aliens. Cooperation there is impossible, there are only different dirty ways to win the war.

Seiv...... fer the love of.....

Open your model of thinking to area's outside of armed conflict and actually see people living together in peace in communities in areas around the world.

Your thinking is heavily weighed in favour of militaries that are the most likely of national institution's to come into conflict at some point in time. Had you modeled your argument on civilian life in the East or West the outcome of your thought exercise would swing the other way......

Not only that but you do not seem to understand what the purpose of a military is. Certainly it's a protective peace keeping force whose doctrine seemingly mandates that defence is based served in offence. But it's also a political tool. It's an emergency service of last resort. It's a self contained culture of discipline and obedience to an authority. Militaries are so many thing's and perform so many action's that involve thing's other than killing.

As for what the UK and USA are doing ithe middle east. Read the news and discover that the UK are not forcing people to become more western. They were attempting to disrupt terrorist training cells through military force that was incited by the USA on account that they had an suspicion that WMD's were present and this initiitive was spearheaded by a president whose father had tried something similar in the past and failed and.......

Do you actually understand anything of what has been going on over there in the last ten years? Have you heard the debates raging of those who support and those who do not support these endevours? Or have you simply wrapped yourself in a cocoon of your own opinion that these argument's can not pierce?

You seem willfully blind to the good in the world and choose to embrace only the bad. Then use that as justification for this idea of enforced transhumanisation.

Cherry picking your argument's to rationalise your stance that being physically altered is the only solution to creating a peaceful community of transhuman's, assumes that doing so will bring about peace.

You have not factored in the finite resources wieghed against the infinite want's of the galacitc community. Just being altered by synthesis will not eliminate the need to consume resources. Nor will it eliminate the responsibilty of the leaders of the time to care for their own people by acquring those resources. Sharing may seem like a nice ldeal, but if the resources available will not satisfy those that need them if shared then conflcit is likely to erupt in the procurement of siad resources. Finite resources vs infinite needs. That's basic economic theory based on reality that synthesis cannot hope to alter.

And finally, the husk and soldier in the ECDLC synthesis ending demonstrates a strong indication that, if not brainwashing, then mental conditioning, to some degree, takes place. The husk and the soldier stop trying to kill each other. Just like that. They both cease....... Why? Before the adrenaline was pumping, the soldier was protecting a friend, a husk appears out of nowhere and is nearly upon them. They've been fighting since they landed in hostile territory...... Then the wave hits and the solider looks up and the husk is still there...... Does having green eye's in that instant automatically mean., 'Oh, he's not a threat anymore'?

The wave had to have had some impact on their mental faculties to override their immediate situation which resulted in a ceasation of hostile intent. Otherwise the soldier's first thought on getting up would be......'Husk, shock troop, technologically altered to be an unrepentent killer who attacks his victims with teeth and claws. No known instances of a husk showing mercy on account that it's capacity for mercy no longer exists.Nearly had me, but it's down and vunerable, Second chance, <bang>

Sorry, but all those conflicts overweight everything peaceful I can see in the world. Each year we become more and more advanced, but human society is still too close to the primitive beasts ways. Toleration will never remove the possibility of global conflicts where too powerful weapons will be used. Nuclear weapons for example. USA already used the weapon during the WW2. Unification and assimilation is the only way to 100% stop the final global tragedy. One planetary-scale country, no signs of any religion - and we are saved. And this is not a matter of military intervention (even through it might begin with one). This is the matter of understanding. Humans have to accumulate enough self-consciousness for that.

Your view of my understanding of military is incorrect. Those are only you assumptions, you don't know me.

You are so easily fell into a trap of misinformation about "disrupting terrorist training cells". Those are just words. USA doesn't care about those cells much, because those cells were created by USA to oppose USSR at first place. USA just embraced consequences of their own dirty war tactics - their ex-anti-USSR-puppets became their headache. There are only two main reasons why USA is waging a war in Middle East - resources, plus an attempt to conquer and assimilate alien people. But on public they call it "the war against terrorists" of course, otherwise their own people would become a little... confused.

People in USA need resources each day. Is there any full-scale war inside the country? No, people find the way to use resources they have peacefully enough, because they are not too alien to each other. But they fight for resources with other countries. Now imagine, all people on the Earth are USA citizens - there are no global wars over resources anymore. Synthesis will do the similar thing, but it will be done in much more complicated system than Earth society (were only humans are intelligent beings) - in the system where conventional methods of bringing peace do not work well enough.

Husk and soldier scene in the Synthesis epilogue shows the victory of understanding, nothing more.
Another nice scene on the matter:  - do you think those two are brainwashed? It's a pity this is a very rare sign of understanding in reality.

Modifié par Seival, 28 mai 2013 - 10:00 .

[ghost9191]

@Seival

and yet the USA does not force it on them without their consent. and don't give me bs that they do because you do have the choice and freedom to choose another way of life

and you do know what the U.N is right?

there is a possibility to come together despite differences . synthesis doesn't have to happen for it to happen., it is just a a way to force those who can't

want to use Mass effect as a example? just look at the end , all the races coming together to stop the reaper threat

if you see appeasing and surrendering as a viable option then so be it, surrender guarantees peace right? "the greater risk lies in appeasement",

it is a acceptable choice but is no more right then another . and you can't get what you want out of synthesis by forcing it on everyone . as seen with the krogan , I mean there may be "peace" , which there isn't. but when it comes down to it, it had to be forced on everyone. they didn't achieve it on their own



i am not saying it is the worse choice or whatever. just destroy ( and control ) is just as viable. synthesis brings ppl together in the way you put seival, destroy has everyone come together willingly , albeit at a great cost. but that is the case for each choice



and as for the last link. pretty sure that outcome isn't possible in any of the endings lol . unless i missed the one where you shake the hand of the catalyst and agree not to kill each other so that both sides can live . synthesis is close yes. but you change everything to the catalysts version of " perfection " in order to stop the fighting. you will have to change everything to achieve that , hence the comment about appeasement. 

  Note : i don't even know what that vid is from. so i only have the 40 secs to go on . i don't know why they are fighting in the first place


P.S. ramblings for the most part , but the simple response is that the synthesis ending can be achieved without having to choose synthesis. minus the reapers and geth =) i just prefer giving ppl the chance to determine their own fate. whatever that fate may be

and if you just focus on the bad , then yes the world looks pretty sh*tty , at least ppl try. which is why i brought up the U.N . is it perfect ? no but we are still young lol

think what you will though , i am not trying to dismiss your argument or choice, we both have our personal views and opinions. just saying both are viable . 

Modifié par ghost9191, 29 mai 2013 - 05:35 .

[shodiswe]

Synthesis is the evil of curing and healing a person without their consent.

They are still the same people afterwards.

[KaiserShep]

Political discussions on forums are always titillating. Its even better with heaping spoonfuls of cynicism.

[KaiserShep]

shodiswe wrote...

Synthesis is the evil of curing and healing a person without their consent.

They are still the same people afterwards.

Or rather, using an untested drug on someone who is not actually sick.

[shodiswe]

I have to say that all the "green" stuff on everything was a bad graphical design decision though.

[ghost9191]

shodiswe wrote...

I have to say that all the "green" stuff on everything was a bad graphical design decision though.

what are you saying? that you didn't like the kick a*s leaves?

[shodiswe]

KaiserShep wrote...

shodiswe wrote...

Synthesis is the evil of curing and healing a person without their consent.

They are still the same people afterwards.

Or rather, using an untested drug on someone who is not actually sick.

The Rannoch arch did kind of prove the Quarians sick. Their violent ways and cynicism.

They however would say, HEY! we like it this way! More killing and genocide FTW!

Not claiming the Geth were much better with their general attitudes. (they wern't the agressors though, which in my book nets them a few points)

TBH though, I think the writers had problems explaining how Synthesis woudl work since they don't know themselves, they are speculating in Utopian possibilities that noone has been able to come up with in a satisfying way.

Understanding and knowledge helps but it's not the cure all end all strife. But coupled with a booming economy and the elimination of poverty it could help eliminate most of the agression that commes from base instincts that are triggered by basic needs. Which could pull the support for most major conflicts even if there will still be a few unhappy individuals who keep wanting more.