369 réponses à ce sujet

[jtav]

You could however make the argument that the deaths are not proportionate because other means exist for stopping the harvest. Of course you could also argue that the other two choices are more problematic than Destroy, not that I believe that.

[AlanC9]

And if the other choices aren't available because of low EMS, the synthetics are doomed anyway, though they'll die a little slower in Refuse.

Modifié par AlanC9, 28 juin 2013 - 04:48 .

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

And again, making the choice to explicitly target and exterminate all synthetic life is not genocide how?

Because the target is the Reapers, and because the military advantage killing the Reapers gives (winning the war) justifies the cost of the geth and EDI, which would exclude it from genocide based on proportionality, as per the definition above. Now, if Shepard came out and said, "I wanted all synthetic life gone. I was given the choice to either kill just the Reapers or all synthetic life, and I decided that I wanted all synthetics gone," then we'd be in serious genocide territory.

There are multiple definitions of genocide.  All of them horrible.

[CronoDragoon]

If we assume that the principle of proportionality applies to allied forces as well, then that's an interesting counterargument. But the paragraph I gave doesn't speak to hypothetical alternatives, and in any case as you said it's not a 1:1 alternative with the only difference being the loss of allied forces.

[CronoDragoon]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Step 1 would first require we agree on which of the myriad legalscholarly definitions for genocide we accept as law. Me, I  reject out of hand any rendition that suggests that the deliberate, immediate extermination of several species doesn't qualify......though it appears your mileage may vary.

Still problematic, because we don't agree on "deliberate".

In any case, the only reason I could see for you to use your own definition of genocide instead of simply calling it what it is (the destruction of an allied race in order to win the war) is to equate it with historical examples of genocide in order to produce horror in the people reading your sentences. And that I DO have a problem with, because it no longer has anything to do with using the word to debate in good faith, and more to do with grandstanding and intimidating people with scary words.

iakus wrote...

There are multiple definitions of genocide.  All of them horrible.

Choose one and we'll debate it.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 28 juin 2013 - 05:00 .

[Coyotebay]

Well Shepard knows that choosing destroy will kill all synthetic life, which is genocidal by the definition.  And it is a choice because he has two other options where synthetic life is spared.  I don't think this makes him a monster for choosing it, though.  He doesn't know how those other choices will turn out.  Starbrat thinks synthesis is the way to go, but he also thought it was a great idea to have Reapers exterminate advanced races every 50,000 years, so his opinion is dubious at best.  Control sounds good in theory, but the Reapers are still the Reapers, and all it takes is for you to lose control of them and the galaxy gets wiped out again.  So it is reasonable to believe that he could make the destroy choice with great reluctance, knowing that he is wiping out entire synthetic races, but believing that the alternative might be worse.

Modifié par Coyotebay, 28 juin 2013 - 05:13 .

[Reorte]

I've had to explain this numerous times and people still don't seem to get it but for something to be genocide the deaths have to be part of your intention - and intent doesn't simply mean "It's not what I want but I know it'll happen anyway." Without out that a lot of deaths may well still be a huge crime but not one you can label genocide. It's genocide against the Reapers for sure. It's only genocide against the geth if you chose it to kill them but if you wanted then I'm assuming that they'd have died at Rannoch.

A quick skim through the link iakus posted seems to agree with this - for it to be genocide requires the death of the geth to be your purpose and goal.

[CronoDragoon]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Equivocate all you want CronoDragoon, it's not like you have anything of any real substance to contribute now is it?

So far I've grounded my reasoning behind Destroy not being genocide in historical definitions. That is substantive whether you like it or not.

By your use of the word "deliberate" to mean Shepard in Destroy, you are asserting there is no difference in intent between a Shepard that chooses Destroy because he hates synthetics, and a Shepard that chooses Destroy to end the war even though he doesn't want to lose synthetics.

Using deliberate my way - that is defining deliberate to mean that the main and intended goal of the action is to destroy the geth and EDI - makes that distinction which I feel is important when considering the nature of the agent. It also more closely aligns with the statements on collateral damage made by the International Criminal Court in my quote above.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 28 juin 2013 - 05:25 .

[KaiserShep]

Fandango9641 wrote...
Pray tell, what happens when you shoot the tube CronoDragoon ?

The Quarians acquire a rather sizable surplus of recyclable material. 

[CronoDragoon]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Dude, there exists that many divergent definitions as to what constitutes genocide, I don't know what to tell you, beyond stop wasting my time (it's not like I'm going to find a legalhistorical definition that accounts for the sudden, galaxy wide, spawning of sentient forms of synthetic life now am I)?

But somehow you are comfortable using a legal/historical term to describe Destroy. Pick a definition and we can debate it. I have already started doing so by discussing "deliberate".

Also, I'm not wasting any of your time. If you feel this discussion is pointless, just stop reading. I'm not going to be juvenile and claim I "won" or anything, I'll just consider that you got tired of discussing it.

As for your attempts to absolve Shep of all responsibility in making a choice that explicitly targets all synthetics

Dude, I specifically made a post earlier to say that I am NOT doing this. I am NOT saying that because it's not genocide that means it's not morally problematic. I AM saying that genocide is not accurate here, and that if people want to discuss the moral implications of Destroy, they should call it the problem of "sacrificing an allied race to win the war" instead of using a word that is inseperable from it's legal and historical background and has many qualifications that you won't find in the simplistic dictionary definition.

[MegaSovereign]

The epilogue acknowledged all sacrifices made but it's not very specific. The amount of causalities from the war differs from playthrough to playthrough so it makes more sense to just have one general "moment of silience" for all of them.

EDI and the Geth are shown in the epilogue as part of those causalities.

[KaiserShep]

As I see it from Shepard's perspective, there's a two-fold problem inherent with two of the three options that makes this "genocide" anything but simple: instant death and sparing the reapers. Whatever the Catalyst has to say at this point does not just make these two problems go away, if you are to see it from a role-playing point of view. So it's not just a matter of sparing or killing the synthetics, but rather a matter of risking trillions to save a few billion. Didn't Shepard just ask the Illusive Man if he was willing to risk humanity's existence on controlling the reapers? It doesn't instantly become the no-brainer option, neither does its alternative. Point is, simply calling it genocide does not really seem fair. If presented with these options yourself, with actual lives on a galactic scale at stake, you may be responsible for the lives lost as a result, but you are not wrong for putting your priorities in saving the majority either. As Crono said, being deliberate or not really is important, for the same reason why laws revolving around punishment for the death of another person varies with intention/circumstances.

Fandango9641 wrote...

Ok then, if I indulge you for a moment and concede that one might reasonably consider destroy 'sacrifice', what say you about ME3's failure to barely acknowledge that 'sacrifice'?

The way I see it, ME3's endings were designed to be as idyllic as possible, should you meet all the criteria to get the most "positive" aspects of each epilogue. That said, denying an actual sacrifice scene of EDI and the geth is cheap, and like I said before, even EDI may only be a name on the wall if you befriended her, and got her flashback before using the Crucible is activated. The fact that the geth are not shown is the very worst of it, since there is ZERO mention of them anywhere. However, considering how haphazardly the epilogues are constructed, it's tough to determine what was deliberate for sake of brevity or balancing out the positivity of each, or just a serious oversight. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 28 juin 2013 - 06:17 .

[CronoDragoon]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Ok then, if I indulge you for a moment and concede that one might reasonably consider destroy 'sacrifice', what say you about ME3's failure to barely acknowledge that 'sacrifice'?

By acknowledgement what would you have liked to see? If I can get an idea of what you would have preferred the Destroy epilogue to do I'd feel better about responding.

If Hackett had said a line or two specifically about your synthetic allies, voicing over a scene of people finding geth remains and Joker finding EDI's shell, would that have been "acknowledging the sacrifice?"

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 28 juin 2013 - 06:24 .

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Choose one and we'll debate it.

Genocide is any act that puts the very existence of a group in jeopardy. (Locating the Holocaust on the genocide spectrum: towards a methodology of definition and categorization, [/i]Holocaust and Genocide Studies. Vol 3, No 3, pp 289–303.)

Modifié par iakus, 28 juin 2013 - 06:24 .

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Ok then, if I indulge you for a moment and concede that one might reasonably consider destroy 'sacrifice', what say you about ME3's failure to barely acknowledge that 'sacrifice'?

By acknowledgement what would you have liked to see? If I can get an idea of what you would have preferred the Destroy epilogue to do I'd feel better about responding.

Hackett mention EDI and the geth by name, acknowledging their sacrifice.

EDI getting a final moment with Joker

The geth doing something brave or heroic in their final moments.

[KaiserShep]

Eh, Hackett mentioning EDI would seem kind of cheap too. An actual moment where you see her go would probably be better. As for the geth, they wouldn't even need a mention. When the wave hits the ground and the husks disappear, it simply takes the geth that are fighting them as well. After all, they are in the fray with everyone else. It's simple and straightforward, and requires very little exposition. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 28 juin 2013 - 06:30 .

[CronoDragoon]

Okay, so I take it this is separate from drayfish's argument about the EC slides being too happy?

Personally what iakus suggests falls into the realm of "would have been nice" to me. More scenes of anything would have been great, but their absence doesn't fundamentally change the message of the epilogue.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 28 juin 2013 - 06:39 .

[KaiserShep]

Adding more to the ending (that doesn't properly resolve the characters) as it is doesn't really make a difference to me. The stuff people complained about the most have little or nothing to do with these issues, so that aside, the EC does work on some level.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 28 juin 2013 - 06:32 .

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...

Genocide is any act that puts the very existence of a group in jeopardy. (Locating the Holocaust on the genocide spectrum: towards a methodology of definition and categorization, [/i]Holocaust and Genocide Studies. Vol 3, No 3, pp 289–303.)

That definition is so broad that it doesn't even consider intent. Are you of the opinion that intent is irrelevant when considering an action?

[MegaSovereign]

iakus wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Ok then, if I indulge you for a moment and concede that one might reasonably consider destroy 'sacrifice', what say you about ME3's failure to barely acknowledge that 'sacrifice'?

By acknowledgement what would you have liked to see? If I can get an idea of what you would have preferred the Destroy epilogue to do I'd feel better about responding.

Hackett mention EDI and the geth by name, acknowledging their sacrifice.

EDI getting a final moment with Joker

The geth doing something brave or heroic in their final moments.

I love these suggestions. Though I don't know if you would have honestly liked the ending even with these implemented because of how seemingly uncompromising you are to the idea of consequence. Or maybe I misjudged you.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 28 juin 2013 - 06:31 .

[Clayless]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Sure, but what does 'there is no correct choice' mean exactly? Moreover, even ignoring the saccharine sentimentality of those EC slides, does setting things up in such a way make that final choice easier or harder?

I elaborate on that in the rest of my post, it boils down to each choice being equally morally grey. One decision doesn't stand out as being the go-to choice or being the lesser choice, you have to weigh up all the decisions as the weight they all carry is great. You ultimately save the galaxy though, the hard part is how you save them.