326 réponses à ce sujet

[lordhugorune]

Reorte wrote...

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

Shepherd stands at the crucible representing all organic life, and is tasked with making the choice on their behalf. Your Shepherd can choose to genocide synthetic life instead, if the idea of transhumanism repulses you as much as it does for many people. Or you can control the Reapers as a third way out.
You will see though that there are different ways of looking at the issue, which substantially change the value of each choice in different ways, for different players.

For someone who believes that the value of artificial life and organic life are very similar, synthesis and control are obviously preferable choice. For other people who believe that organic life is sacred, and artificial life worthless, they may be jokes.

Modifié par lordhugorune, 03 août 2013 - 06:38 .

[Reorte]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

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.

That's a cop-out answer, just saying "well, they're different." If you don't argue your case then you've not got a case.

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").

I'm not saying that you shouldn't listen to him.

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

And is it impossible that some things deserve that treatment? How much do you shrug off with "Well, it's just a different opinion"?

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.

I think that's slightly tongue-in-cheek but anyway... Whilst that may be true militarily it isn't when it comes to debate.  The first thing it says to me is that this person is either unwilling or unable to defend their position, and if I don't agree with it anyway it's not going to make me view it as any better.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The way I look at it is that I survive the Destroy ending, and since I play the Citadel DLC afterward, I can't have the party if I'm dead. Makes sense, right?

Oh, that EDI thing? They unplugged her and she survived the Destroy wave. No problem. She was powered down in the Citadel DLC, so that works. Don't tell me I shouldn't have taken that line literally.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 03 août 2013 - 06:41 .

[Wayning_Star]

actually OP, synthesis is the basis for the MEU, so it's a given to implement its function in the end. That's probably why no matter what choice is made in the current MEU,eventually, synthesis is be acquired via technology and the organic "mind" need for that. Being is that sentience/sapience is the deciding factor, or close enough.

(don't forget evolution, as it's part of the "programming"..)

[lordhugorune]

Fandango9641 wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The way I look at it is that I survive the Destroy ending, and since I play the Citadel DLC afterward, I can't have the party if I'm dead. Makes sense, right?

Oh, that EDI thing? They unplugged her and she survived the Destroy wave. No problem. She was powered down in the Citadel DLC, so that works. Don't tell me I shouldn't have taken that line literally.

What about the Geth?

Well, technically, people can headcanon whatever they like. I've got no problem with anyone doing that, people should do whatever helps them enjoy the game the most!

[Reorte]

lordhugorune wrote...

Reorte wrote...

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

Shepherd stands at the crucible representing all organic life, and is tasked with making the choice on their behalf. Your Shepherd can choose to genocide synthetic life instead, if the idea of transhumanism repulses you as much as it does for many people. Or you can control the Reapers as a third way out.
You will see though that there are different ways of looking at the issue, which substantially change the value of each choice in different ways, for different players.

The idea of transhumanism does not repulse me. The idea of forcing it on every single living thing does. There is only one valid way of looking at it - what stops the threat at the least cost, balanced with the possibility of it not actually succeeding in stopping the threat? It is entirely a "least evil" choice. Affecting every living creature in the galaxy vs. losing a very small proportion of them (that could be rebuilt, whereas the effects of Synthesis last forever), or losing none but having a very real risk that it'll all start again.

The idea that one person can meaningfully represent all organic life
is absurd. Shepard just happens to be the person thrust into the
position of having to make a decision. (S)he is not a representative in
any meaningful way.

It probably wouldn't be quite as irksome if the negatives of Destroy, or Synthesis at all, actually made any sense. At least then I could respect them being in the game.

[lordhugorune]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Someone?

Not quite sure what you're trying to achieve here.

[Wayning_Star]

uh, morals have little to nothing to do with evolution...do they?

[Wayning_Star]

Reorte wrote...

lordhugorune wrote...

Reorte wrote...

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

Shepherd stands at the crucible representing all organic life, and is tasked with making the choice on their behalf. Your Shepherd can choose to genocide synthetic life instead, if the idea of transhumanism repulses you as much as it does for many people. Or you can control the Reapers as a third way out.
You will see though that there are different ways of looking at the issue, which substantially change the value of each choice in different ways, for different players.

The idea of transhumanism does not repulse me. The idea of forcing it on every single living thing does. There is only one valid way of looking at it - what stops the threat at the least cost, balanced with the possibility of it not actually succeeding in stopping the threat? It is entirely a "least evil" choice. Affecting every living creature in the galaxy vs. losing a very small proportion of them (that could be rebuilt, whereas the effects of Synthesis last forever), or losing none but having a very real risk that it'll all start again.

The idea that one person can meaningfully represent all organic life
is absurd. Shepard just happens to be the person thrust into the
position of having to make a decision. (S)he is not a representative in
any meaningful way.

It probably wouldn't be quite as irksome if the negatives of Destroy, or Synthesis at all, actually made any sense. At least then I could respect them being in the game.

define: Making Sense

(I've heard that terminology on here a lot, but, the sense of that makes no sense, as applied. Seems flippant.

[Reorte]

Wayning_Star wrote...

uh, morals have little to nothing to do with evolution...do they?

Evolution doesn't have much, if anything, to do with this discussion (other than if you take the Catalyst's words at face value Synthesis will end it, which would be a disaster).

[dreamgazer]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

It's a noble idea when you factor in the highly-interpretive support from the ending's backers.

If you really want to explore that area, ask the syn-pathisers to replace the words 'organic' and 'synthetic' with two new variables - two that fundamentally differentiate RL human beings (race, gender, sexual orientation, religious denomination, whatever). Then ask them to justify the morally repugnant proposition of removing that distinction without the permission of a single, solitary person.

Someone?

What else do you want them to say, other than that the end result has its share of very intriguing advantages that could circumvent the lack of "permission"? Only a few think that it's not a big deal. 

[Reorte]

dreamgazer wrote...

What else do you want them to say, other than that the end result has its share of very intriguing advantages that could circumvent the lack of "permission"? Only a few think that it's not a big deal. 

It really frightens me that anyone could think that  any advantages could ever circumvent the lack of permission, aside from the advantage of "we won't all die" if it were the only option. Even then it's possible to argue against that, since the people dying are only a very small proportion of all life - lesser of two evils position.

[Wayning_Star]

Reorte wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

uh, morals have little to nothing to do with evolution...do they?

Evolution doesn't have much, if anything, to do with this discussion (other than if you take the Catalyst's words at face value Synthesis will end it, which would be a disaster).

well, we're dependent upon all those 'unethical' things in the MEU to survive. Apparently the only "ethical" thing to do is to become as those we're so associated with, but/and inferior to, synthetic life forms. Ends the chaos/strife in the MEU some super computer as forecast as the never ending fate of evolution in the MEU. It gives the choices that permit change or demands no change, or no evolution, in regard to synthetic life forms and their creator races/dependents.

Organics are caught in the very cycle they created because they evolved to do so. This is what makes synthesis inevitable.

[dreamgazer]

Fandango9641 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

It's a noble idea when you factor in the highly-interpretive support from the ending's backers.

If you really want to explore that area, ask the syn-pathisers to replace the words 'organic' and 'synthetic' with two new variables - two that fundamentally differentiate RL human beings (race, gender, sexual orientation, religious denomination, whatever). Then ask them to justify the morally repugnant proposition of removing that distinction without the permission of a single, solitary person.

Someone?

What else do you want them to say, other than that the end result has its share of very intriguing advantages that could circumvent the lack of "permission"? Only a few think that it's not a big deal. 

Good grief.

(shrugs)

You're talking to someone who doesn't choose it, never would, but understands where the positive interpretation could come from. 

[Bfler]

In Synthesis, if someone develops a weapon, which targets the synthetic part of the hybrids, e.g. sends out an EMP blast through the relays, he could eliminate all life in the galaxy.

[Reorte]

Bfler wrote...

In Synthesis, if someone develops a weapon, which targets the synthetic part of the hybrids, e.g. sends out an EMP blast through the relays, he could eliminate all life in the galaxy.

If Synthesis is possible at all then whatever process was used to create it could be used to kill everything whether or not it was chosen. It doesn't take much tinkering at a subcellular level to be fatal (and would be a lot easier to achiever).

[Arcian]

Wayning_Star wrote...

uh, morals have little to nothing to do with evolution...do they?

You should probably look up the definition of evolution before you talk. Synthesis is not a form of evolution.

[dreamgazer]

Arcian wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

uh, morals have little to nothing to do with evolution...do they?

You should probably look up the definition of evolution before you talk. Synthesis is not a form of evolution.

That reminds me of an argument I heard one time about the execution of synthesis being tantamount to a "force of nature" similar to the Big Bang.  Now that was a WTF moment. 

[Reorte]

Arcian wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

uh, morals have little to nothing to do with evolution...do they?

You should probably look up the definition of evolution before you talk. Synthesis is not a form of evolution.

The Catalyst calls it the end point of evolution, or something similar. The only reasonably valid interpretation I can see of that is that it'll stop all evolutio, not implausible if it's interfering at the subcellular level and that interference can prevent mutation - no more cancer at any rate.