326 réponses à ce sujet

[Liamv2]

Threads like this are hilarious. Mainly due to compleatly moronic posts like this one. 

Reorte wrote...

There are still people who not only don't have a problem with forcing something incredibly invasive on every single living thing in the entire galaxy but actually think it's a great thing to do and would do it without a moment's hesitation? That is sickening. It's the most disgusting idea I've ever heard, far worse than the most hideous thing that's ever been done on Earth in reality (the worst crimes have only affected a small proportion of life on one planet). How dare you defend changing peoples' bodies "for the greater good" and, worse still, changing their minds (if Synthesis is supposed to achieve what it claims). There is no pit in hell deep enough for the proponents of such atrocity. Thank god it's only a game.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Liamv2 wrote...

Threads like this are hilarious. Mainly due to compleatly moronic posts like this one. 

Reorte wrote...

There are still people who not only don't have a problem with forcing something incredibly invasive on every single living thing in the entire galaxy but actually think it's a great thing to do and would do it without a moment's hesitation? That is sickening. It's the most disgusting idea I've ever heard, far worse than the most hideous thing that's ever been done on Earth in reality (the worst crimes have only affected a small proportion of life on one planet). How dare you defend changing peoples' bodies "for the greater good" and, worse still, changing their minds (if Synthesis is supposed to achieve what it claims). There is no pit in hell deep enough for the proponents of such atrocity. Thank god it's only a game.

Let's apply an anti-Destroy spin on it, shall we?

There are still people who not only don't have a problem with committing genocide on a whole realm of perfectly valid life forms throughout the entire galaxy but actually think it's a great thing to do and would do it without a moment's hesitation? That is sickening. It's the most disgusting idea I've ever heard, far worse than the most hideous thing that's ever been done on Earth in reality (the worst crimes have only affected a small proportion of life on one planet). How dare you defend ethnic cleansing "for the greater good" and, worse still, changing their minds (if Destroy is supposed to achieve what it claims). There is no pit in hell deep enough for the proponents of such atrocity. Thank god it's only a game.

That's some neo-Wulfian rhetoric in the actual post right there, only anti-Sync rather than for it.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 03 août 2013 - 02:27 .

[ruggly]

[Liamv2]

Holy **** it is wulfs alter ego

[Reorte]

Liamv2 wrote...

Threads like this are hilarious. Mainly due to compleatly moronic posts like this one. 

Reorte wrote...

There are still people who not only don't have a problem with forcing something incredibly invasive on every single living thing in the entire galaxy but actually think it's a great thing to do and would do it without a moment's hesitation? That is sickening. It's the most disgusting idea I've ever heard, far worse than the most hideous thing that's ever been done on Earth in reality (the worst crimes have only affected a small proportion of life on one planet). How dare you defend changing peoples' bodies "for the greater good" and, worse still, changing their minds (if Synthesis is supposed to achieve what it claims). There is no pit in hell deep enough for the proponents of such atrocity. Thank god it's only a game.

Completely moronic? Care to explain why? If you're going to claim what someone says is moronic you need to actually have some evidence that you've given any thought to the issue whatsoever if you don't want to appear a moron yourself.

[Reorte]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Let's apply an anti-Destroy spin on it, shall we?

There are still people who not only don't have a problem with committing genocide on a whole realm of perfectly valid life forms throughout the entire galaxy but actually think it's a great thing to do and would do it without a moment's hesitation? That is sickening. It's the most disgusting idea I've ever heard, far worse than the most hideous thing that's ever been done on Earth in reality (the worst crimes have only affected a small proportion of life on one planet). How dare you defend ethnic cleansing "for the greater good" and, worse still, changing their minds (if Destroy is supposed to achieve what it claims). There is no pit in hell deep enough for the proponents of such atrocity. Thank god it's only a game.

That's some neo-Wulfian rhetoric in the actual post right there, only anti-Sync rather than for it.

And I would agree with the thrust of that (but not all of the specifics because you word it as if it were a deliberate action to target synthetic life forms and not to stop the Reapers) if the alternatives weren't even worse. There seem to be lots of Synthesis supporters who would go ahead and do it whether the Reapers were threatening us or not. Anyway, the very idea that Destroy could kill all synthetic life (but not a load of other tech) is extremely dubious - it would have to be designed to very deliberately do that, it would actually be easier to target the Reapers, although admittedly if you accept that Synthesis is possible at all then you've opened the door to "absolultey anything whatsoever is possible" (which should therefore include a much better option than any of them).

The "minds" part doesn't work there either.

Wulfie's problem was defending something atrocious with his rhetoric. Sometimes there are concepts thta fully merit it though.

Also, it's better to actually defend your position instead of resorting to no defence of it but attacking something else instead. That type of tactic is one reason I'm sick of politicians.

Modifié par Reorte, 03 août 2013 - 04:45 .

[Reorte]

StreetMagic wrote...

I might choose Synthesis if I knew there was a godawful intergalactic conflict coming, and we might need some kind of unified front.

I couldn't care less about doing it for galactic peace, and just that alone. There are more interesting ways to that.

I'll concede that it's better than the complete extermination of all life in the galaxy, so might be an option should that have ever been a threat.

[Liamv2]

Reorte wrote...

Liamv2 wrote...

Threads like this are hilarious. Mainly due to compleatly moronic posts like this one. 

Reorte wrote...

There are still people who not only don't have a problem with forcing something incredibly invasive on every single living thing in the entire galaxy but actually think it's a great thing to do and would do it without a moment's hesitation? That is sickening. It's the most disgusting idea I've ever heard, far worse than the most hideous thing that's ever been done on Earth in reality (the worst crimes have only affected a small proportion of life on one planet). How dare you defend changing peoples' bodies "for the greater good" and, worse still, changing their minds (if Synthesis is supposed to achieve what it claims). There is no pit in hell deep enough for the proponents of such atrocity. Thank god it's only a game.

Completely moronic? Care to explain why? If you're going to claim what someone says is moronic you need to actually have some evidence that you've given any thought to the issue whatsoever if you don't want to appear a moron yourself.

It is funny because 3 reasons.First there is no mind changing only body, second the changes to the body's are so miniscule it is almost unnoticeable and third because you think that worse atrocitys have not been committed on earth there is no pain in synthesis and there is nothing emotionally traumatic. There is just a microscopic change to the body's of organics. If you where saying something like this about destroy you whould be branded as a troll.

Modifié par Liamv2, 03 août 2013 - 05:20 .

[Reorte]

Liamv2 wrote...

It is funny because 3 reasons.First there is no mind changing only body, second the changes to the body's are so miniscule it is almost unnoticeable and third because you think that worse atrocitys have not been committed on earth there is no pain in synthesis and there is nothing emotionally traumatic. There is just a microscopic change to the body's of organics. If you where saying something like this about destroy you whould be branded as a troll.

If you'd just said that in the first place...

If it doesn't change the mind then it's not done anything that the Catalyst claims it's supposed to do. The changes to the body are about as fundamental as it's possible to be - if it's tinkering around at the DNA level then by just about all definitions you won't even be the same species any more. Such invasive alterations forced upon someone are despicable no matter whether there's any pain involved or not.

If Synthesis really doesn't change anything as you claim then what has it actually done?

[Iakus]

Liamv2 wrote...

It is funny because 3 reasons.First there is no mind changing only body, second the changes to the body's are so miniscule it is almost unnoticeable and third because you think that worse atrocitys have not been committed on earth there is no pain in synthesis and there is nothing emotionally traumatic. There is just a microscopic change to the body's of organics. If you where saying something like this about destroy you whould be branded as a troll.

1) There is, since this is supposedly how organics and synthetics can achieve "perfect understanding" with each other.  That heavilly imples something changes in the mind.

2) DNA is miniscule, yet affects every aspect of our bodies.  The Catalyst himself calls Synthesis the final stage of evolution, or somesuch.  This is not a minor change.  

3) Synthesis violates the physical identity of every living being without their knowledge or consent.  This is an atrocity to me.  Just as much as committing a synthetic holocaust.  Do we really want to parse out which is the worse atrocity?  They're both awful.

Modifié par iakus, 03 août 2013 - 05:45 .

[Liamv2]

Synthesis if very badly explained but the gist i got from it is that it gives organics something synthetic and synthetics something organic (god knows what). This creates a bridge between them so that they have something in common so there is hate just because they are synthetic. I admit it is slightly pessimistic the assumption that we will always fight things that are different from us however there is to much evidence showing that is true both in real life and in the MEU that i find destroy to risky and i do not trust myself with the power of control.

[Eryri]

StreetMagic wrote...

I have a good way of grossing everyone out and ending this thread, but I probably should refrain.

Might it involve Banshees, perchance? If so I think I know what you're referring to.

On-topic, most of what I feel on synthesis has already been said in this thread. It's embarrassingly bad on a number of levels; the Doctor Who levels of Space Magic, the ethical considerations, the disconnect with the story's themes, the Cyborg Trees...  

Modifié par Eryri, 03 août 2013 - 09:27 .

[lordhugorune]

I personally have always favoured Synthesis, at the end of everything, but I understand why others hate it. That's OK. That's their prerogative. For me, I can't do Destroy. Every ME3 player is different and when faced with dilemmas some of us will make choices that are anathema to others.

[Iakus]

Liamv2 wrote...

Synthesis if very badly explained but the gist i got from it is that it gives organics something synthetic and synthetics something organic (god knows what). This creates a bridge between them so that they have something in common so there is hate just because they are synthetic. I admit it is slightly pessimistic the assumption that we will always fight things that are different from us however there is to much evidence showing that is true both in real life and in the MEU that i find destroy to risky and i do not trust myself with the power of control.

Organics fight organics all the time.  Look at the merc groups roaming the terminus.  look at the batarians raiding human colonies.  The krogan vs...everyone.  

Would a valid alternative to the genophage have been merging salarians and krogan DNA so they had "something in common?'

Heck, the True Geth and the Heretics show that even synthetics are capable of fighting other synthetics.

And on the other hand, we have Joker and EDI.  One organic, one synthetic and are able to overcome their differences and even fall in love without green space magic.

Synthesis undoes all that.  It's telling the player that nothing Shepard has done to unite the races, they are incapable of solving their own problems.  They can't make a lasting peace, that we are incapable of bettering ourselves, or finding our own path without outside influence.  We need some sort of cosmic Beam of Trancendendant Understanding to expand our horizons 

Synthesis isn't just green space magic, it's outright Hippimancy.

Edit:  And I hate Destroy and Control as well.  Control because, again, we can't solve our own problems.  And Destroy because we have to become what we fight against in order to survive.

Modifié par iakus, 03 août 2013 - 06:05 .

[lordhugorune]

Fandango9641 wrote...

I thought Reorte's post was bang on. Care to explain why it tickled you so?

Because he's trying to personally attack other people for preferring different choices in a video game? 

There's a friendly way, and a troll way, to discuss this. Reorte was choosing the dark side.

[Reorte]

lordhugorune wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

I thought Reorte's post was bang on. Care to explain why it tickled you so?

Because he's trying to personally attack other people for preferring different choices in a video game? 

There's a friendly way, and a troll way, to discuss this. Reorte was choosing the dark side.

Discussions about the technicalities of it tend to be more "civilised". Discussions around the morality and ethics are inevitably going to sound like that when faced with something like this. I'd hope you'd sound the same about something just about everyone agrees is horrific.

Whether it's a game or not I couldn't care less (other than that it's something you couldn't put into practice in reality).

[Reorte]

Liamv2 wrote...

Synthesis if very badly explained but the gist i got from it is that it gives organics something synthetic and synthetics something organic (god knows what). This creates a bridge between them so that they have something in common so there is hate just because they are synthetic. I admit it is slightly pessimistic the assumption that we will always fight things that are different from us however there is to much evidence showing that is true both in real life and in the MEU that i find destroy to risky and i do not trust myself with the power of control.

How do you do that without changing how people think? Plus as has already been mentioned that wouldn't stop conflict anyway, it's not as if the real world is free of it when we're all the same species.

Anyway, big differences aren't the cause of conflict. Aside from fighting over resources the most bitter fights usually seem to be between groups with only small differences. The assumption that we'll find things that are different is optimistic, not pessimistic. It's the assumption that we need them removed to prevent armageddon that's very pessimistic.

[ioannisdenton]

Synthesis ending is the most emotional for me.
EDI's voice all of a sudden features emotion. Pay attention to it. Most of you haven't.
This detail makes a lot of sense in the synthesis's theme.
Other than that i find pretty awkward for one to dismiss th EC which is official and accepting MEHEM as a better fitting ending.
It is a HAPPY ENDING for god's sake.
I do not want a happy anding and di not want at all.
From i Me1 i knew that shepard eventually was going to die, it just does not add up that shepard managed to live after all that adventure of his.
As for the synthesis 's concept i can see why many dislike it; it defies the universe's diversity by shepards will. However there are 2 more endings. Some like destroy some like synthesis.
Myself i ve beggining to like synthesis more due to edi's narative. Others are just like me.
Accept that many many people choose synthesis and they love it.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Reorte wrote...

And I would agree with the thrust of that (but not all of the specifics because you word it as if it were a deliberate action to target synthetic life forms and not to stop the Reapers) if the alternatives weren't even worse.

It was deliberate.

if the alternatives weren't even worse.

Guess what? I think Destroy is the worst of the three.

You're quick to excuse yourself for its negative consequences because you see it as the least bad; I reserve the same defense onto myself. I say hyperbole tomato, you say hyperbolee tomahto. That's what the Israeli lobby bulk of Destroyers on this site don't seem to get. They have this false-consensus among them and they're appalled at mere disagreement.

And like you don't need my validation, I don't need yours either. I don't actually attack Destroy, though.

The "minds" part doesn't work there either.

> Joker happily walking out of the ship despite EDI's death just moments ago.

Sure, you could always say it's an oversight or writing/design-issue, but that would actually be rational.

If we're not going to apply sense to other reasoning, why apply it here? Ergo, Joker's mind has been changed.

Wulfie's problem was defending something atrocious with his rhetoric. Sometimes there are concepts thta fully merit it though.

If you ask Wulf, Destroy is atrocious. If I ask you, Sync is atrocious.

It's a subjective matter, at the end of the day. Why should I listen to you and not him? Where I'm standing, all I see is the same vitriol being spewed against what is considered "atrocious" (hence the label of "neo-Wulfian rhetoric").

Same ish, different toilet. He was invoking Godwin, you're damning people to hell. Mad dogs are all the same.

Also, it's better to actually defend your position instead of resorting to no defence of it but attacking something else instead. That type of tactic is one reason I'm sick of politicians.

The best defense is a good offense, and special-teams.

[lordhugorune]

Reorte wrote...

Discussions about the technicalities of it
tend to be more "civilised". Discussions around the morality and ethics
are inevitably going to sound like that when faced with something like
this. I'd hope you'd sound the same about something just about everyone
agrees is horrific.

You're dealing in absolutes, though, and calling everyone who doesn't have the same values as yourself 'sick'. Not everyone has the same moral compass as yourself - that doesn't mean they're any more or less moral per se, but they come at difficult problems from a different direction. The Mass Effect universe throws a number of tricky concepts at people, such as cybernetics, organic vs synthetic life, genocide (both nonviolent and violent), and I could go on. At the end of the day, what is right and wrong in the real world does not translate the same way when you go through everything in that universe, and end up at the tip of the crucible. Not for me, anyway.

Modifié par lordhugorune, 03 août 2013 - 06:27 .

[Reorte]

lordhugorune wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Discussions about the technicalities of it
tend to be more "civilised". Discussions around the morality and ethics
are inevitably going to sound like that when faced with something like
this. I'd hope you'd sound the same about something just about everyone
agrees is horrific.

You're dealing in absolutes, though, and calling everyone who doesn't have the same values as yourself 'sick'. Not everyone has the same moral compass as yourself - that doesn't mean they're any more or less moral per se, but they come at difficult problems from a different direction. The Mass Effect universe throws a number of tricky concepts at people, such as cybernetics, organic vs synthetic life, genocide (both nonviolent and violent), and I could go on. At the end of the day, what is right and wrong in the real world does not translate the same way when you go through everything in that universe, and end up at the tip of the crucible. Not for me, anyway.

The right not to be interferred with at the most fundamental level possible seems a pretty hard value to argue against.