125 réponses à ce sujet

[KiwiQuiche]

pirate1802 wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

I like this human! She understands.

He.. :|

I place all the blame on your avatar.

[DirtyPhoenix]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

I like this human! She understands.

He.. :|

I place all the blame on your avatar.

*goes to change avatar*

[Sir DeLoria]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

I place all the blame on your avatar.

Hey, no hate for Lilith.

[SpiritMuse]

The geth are not evil. They didn't start the war, the quarians were the agressors. Everyone agrees that the quarians attacked first, because they were afraid that the geth would destroy them, while in fact the geth had no such desire, and still don't.

So no, I do not think Destroy is the most ethical option, because you are sacrificing an entire people in the process. A people that you potentially helped become true individuals, that you helped become true people. Not to mention losing all the knowledge encased in the reapers themselves. I think that actually makes it a very Renegade option - get the job done no matter the casualties along the way.

Also, I never interpreted the reapers as being enslaved by the catalyst. Created by, given purpose, orders and directives by, but not enslaved. So, in the Control ending, not enslaved by Shepard either. Lead by Shepard, certainly, maybe even infused with his/her values and ideals through that pulse, but not enslaved. And I have no reason to think that the Shepard-controller would ever change its mind. For thousands, millions of years, the catalyst didn't either.

(By the way, isn't it exactly that kind of mistrust of synthetics that we have just been shown is the root cause of the antagonism? That it's the organics who turn on the synthetics first because they're afraid the synthetics will turn on them if they don't? Because that's what happened with the quarians and the geth, and we don't actually know that it hasn't always been that way. We're told by the leviathans that the war is inevitable, but not who starts it. They predict that the synthetics will always turn on their organic creators, but remember: they are organics themselves, and so don't necessarily understand synthetics any better than we do. Also, I'm not convinced they actually took the time to really figure out what exactly was going on with all of their slave races and their synthetics. They just found it annoying that they kept getting wiped out by wars and wanted a fix for that. True, the AI they created turned on them, but that was a direct result of the orders they gave it.)

And in the Synthesis ending, I got the impression that the reapers were not controlled by anyone at all anymore. Either because the catalyst was destroyed, or it had lost its purpose, or because they weren't true synthetics anymore and now alive. Of course, the question is how ethical it is to forcibly change everyone's lives, but calling it "genetic rape" is probably going overboard just a bit. I didn't get the impression that anyone was really bothered or unhappy with it, the whole thing did lead to a golden age of galactic civilization, after all. 

I don't think any of the endings are "good" or "bad" endings, really. It's not that black and white. They all have good and bad parts, though how good or bad depends on your interpretation. Even the Refusal ending isn't all bad - Shepard's cycle may lose to the reapers, but thanks to Liara's time capsules the next cycle manages to defeat the reapers once and for all, resulting in galactic peace anyway.

Also, do we really know the nature of the reapers? How do we know that "millions of souls are enslaved" inside? We have the information given to us by the geth, sure, who claim they are made up of millions of minds, but how do we know that they got it right? It could very well be that the reapers simply store all the memories of all the people they've absorbed, while none of them are actually alive anymore, and the geth just interpret that as all separate minds, because that's how the geth consensus works. Or maybe the "minds" they sensed have nothing to do with the people at all and are simply all the sub-programs that operate the reaper body. We're trying to interpret something alien through something equally as alien, so there's bound to be something lost in translation.

[SpiritMuse]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Necanor wrote...

Seival wrote...

liggy002 wrote...

Destroy is the most ethical and humane ending

Not in my ethics.

I prefer to save and calm down everyone instead of killing millions to punish another millions.
So, I chose Control to apply Synthesis later.

Killing millions? They're just Humans, no one cares about Humans. And besides, chances are the Humans have already been destroyed on Earth. I also liked the Normandy more without Joker.

Still feel the same way?

Why would anyone? You changed the post from being about objects to being about people.

But that's the thing, isn't it? Are the geth objects, or people? Does this unit have a soul?

[PsyrenY]

liggy002 wrote...

Also, genetic rape.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

[KaiserShep]

If only Ian Malcolm was here to argue about this.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Optimystic_X wrote...

liggy002 wrote...

Also, genetic rape.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

There's really not a lot to be discerned from it. Genetic rape = genetic rape.

[AlanC9]

Has "rape" gone back to being an all-purpose metaphor for anything nonconsensual? I didn't get the memo; last I heard we were supposed to only use it for, you know, rape.

[PsyrenY]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

There's really not a lot to be discerned from it. Genetic rape = genetic rape.

And how do you define rape?

[Reorte]

Whatever you want to call it it is interfering with your body against your will at the most fundamental level possible. Got a different simple word for such a massive violation?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

AlanC9 wrote...

Has "rape" gone back to being an all-purpose metaphor for anything nonconsensual? I didn't get the memo; last I heard we were supposed to only use it for, you know, rape.

What would you consider a better term for non-consentual?

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 21 juin 2013 - 05:13 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Optimystic_X wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

There's really not a lot to be discerned from it. Genetic rape = genetic rape.

And how do you define rape?

A violation of a person in a physical manner, typically sexual.

Perhaps molestation would be a better word for you? 

[AlanC9]

Like I said, I didn't get the memo. Last I heard we were supposed to reserve rape for sexual assault.

But it's been a while since I was a copyeditor. Maybe the old usage is coming back?

Modifié par AlanC9, 21 juin 2013 - 05:31 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

AlanC9 wrote...

Like I said, I didn't get the memo. Last I heard we were supposed to reserve rape for sexual assault.

But it's been a while since I was a copyeditor. Maybe the old usage is coming back?

In that case, what do you call something that is worse than rape? Even murder? Even genocide?

Among other things and reasons for why I don't choose it, that's still how I view it. I do view the execution of the synthesis in game as worse than rape, murder, and genocide. 

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Like I said, I didn't get the memo. Last I heard we were supposed to reserve rape for sexual assault.

But it's been a while since I was a copyeditor. Maybe the old usage is coming back?

It's certainly the most common usage of the word, but it's not the only definition.  And in the older vernacular (where rape also meant to capture or despoil, such as "rape and pillage") it's not an innacurate definition

But to avoid confusion, I use the term "violation" for Synthesis.

[in it for the lolz]

Necanor wrote...

in it for the lolz wrote...

Too bad Destroy did not rid the galaxy of the Xenos scum.

Thought of the day: Suffer not the Alien to live.

Hehe, I used to love 40k when I was a kid. It's nice and dark, but you basically only get to choose between fighting for the Holy Cult of Space N*zis(Imperium) or the Sado-Maso Satanists(Chaos).

The Imperium would have wiped the floor with the Reapers. And they would have beaten them without dooming the galaxy to the same fate as the Necrons.

[FlamingBoy]

Optimystic_X wrote...

liggy002 wrote...

Also, genetic rape.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

I think hes using the connotation of being "violated" in a way that is non consensual, hence "rape" is an appropriate metaphor.

[nevar00]

liggy002 wrote...


  I don't know what Bioware was thinking but all of these endings are horrible and don't really have a happy ending because someone gets the shaft in all of them.

I imagine the thought process went along the lines of "well everyone's going to pick destroy, better put some random bs in there to make them think twice". 

I would say Control is still the most 'ethical' though.  Yes you enslave the Reapers but their consiouses have melded together to become that of the Reaper.  I don't imagine they're aware any longer.

[Shaftell]

I completely agree... I really think the other 2 choices were curve balls to test our morality. I don't even consider "refuse" a choice, I consider it planetary suicide.

[ATiBotka]

liggy002 wrote...

Synthesis:  The Reaper minds are still enslaved but even worse, by the Catalyst itself .  Also, genetic rape.

The Citadel exploded, the Catalyst is dead.

[Cainhurst Crow]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

liggy002 wrote...

Also, genetic rape.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

There's really not a lot to be discerned from it. Genetic rape = genetic rape.

How does one ejaculate into a persons amino and dextro acid?

It's not a very good analogy, espically since rape really does only mean non-consensual sexual intercourse.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 21 juin 2013 - 11:29 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

Necanor wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...
Why yes they did, in fact I'd say the number is more in the billions than the millions really, or at least the hundreds of millions.

And destroying the citadel? Well, I wouldn't say that. Humanity's councilor and apointed representative did try to murder his fellow councilmen in order to make a human dictatorship though. And it was our special forces group who tried to kill everyone else and somehow leave humanity left over to rule the entire galaxy after gaining control of the reapers, a plan which required the sacrifice of large numbers of aliens and humans in order to be accomplished.

Humanity, next to batarians and geth, has had an equal if not greater hand in this war than either one of those other races, or possibly any race besides the leviathans.

You're right, let's destroy humans and batarians too. Turian-Quarian alliance ftw!

Nay! None shall stop the hanar, elcor, and volus triumvirate from rising.

[KiwiQuiche]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

liggy002 wrote...

Also, genetic rape.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

There's really not a lot to be discerned from it. Genetic rape = genetic rape.

How does one ejaculate into a persons amino and dextro acid?

It's not a very good analogy, espically since rape really does only mean non-consensual sexual intercourse.

It does not, that's just the mainstream use for that word in this day-and-age but it doesn't just mean that.

[Cainhurst Crow]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

liggy002 wrote...

Also, genetic rape.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

There's really not a lot to be discerned from it. Genetic rape = genetic rape.

How does one ejaculate into a persons amino and dextro acid?

It's not a very good analogy, espically since rape really does only mean non-consensual sexual intercourse.

It does not, that's just the mainstream use for that word in this day-and-age but it doesn't just mean that.

1. How do you figure that, and why is it that this modern person, using the word in it's modern understanding, shouldn't be held accountable in applying the words modern definition?

2. How far back exactly do you plan on taking the word rape? Because if it's something like it's origin, I doubt you could really apply the word accurately, unless you figure out how someone can seize, abduct, or take by force, someones dna.