1483 réponses à ce sujet

[Steelcan]

You don't need examples for a valid logical argument.

If he wants to make his argument anything more than a hypothesis he needs to provide some evidence

[CronoDragoon]

If he wants to make his argument anything more than a hypothesis he needs to provide some evidence

 

We're using scientific method? I thought we were arguing about his logic.

 

Besides that, the Catalyst himself is the evidence. He's only defeated because he let lesser species grow to become advanced. Had he desired he could have wiped out everyone.

 

I'd agree though that his argument is hypothetical, since the truth-value of one of his premises is dependent on future events. But it's equally hypothetical to state that synthetics won't ever wipe out organics, so this discredits both sides.

[Steelcan]

We're using scientific method? I thought we were arguing about his logic.

 

Besides that, the Catalyst himself is the evidence. He's only defeated because he let lesser species grow to become advanced. Had he desired he could have wiped out everyone.

His logic is based on presumptions that may not be true, namely that organics will inevitably be destroyed by their synthetic creations.  Therefore I am hesitant to say his logic is valid.

 

The Catalyst didn't wipe out everyone though when he tried, Javik survivied, Ilos survived, the Leviathans survived, not because the Reapers let them

[themikefest]

I liked to of asked the Levaithan turd to proved it controls the reapers. It says there's not enough time to explain who designed the Crucible, but yet has the time to explain the choices. Is it in a rush to be somewhere? Why can't it stop the reapers from  firing on the fleets while it tells us who designed the Crucible. Not that it matters, but it would be nice to know.

[CronoDragoon]

His logic is based on presumptions that may not be true, namely that organics will inevitably be destroyed by their synthetic creations.  Therefore I am hesitant to say his logic is valid.

 

Again, validity has nothing to do with what's true. It's about whether the argument is internally consistent, which is what I'm arguing. I'm not saying he's right, I'm saying he doesn't contradict himself.

[Steelcan]

Again, validity has nothing to do with what's true. It's about whether the argument is internally consistent, which is what I'm arguing. I'm not saying he's right, I'm saying he doesn't contradict himself.

 

That I agree with

[CronoDragoon]

Sorry if I didn't make that clear before. Having taken formal logic classes I tend to use those definitions of validity and soundness.

[Steelcan]

Sorry if I didn't make that clear before. Having taken formal logic classes I tend to use those definitions of validity and soundness.

Fair enough

[Obadiah]

So to stop that from happening, the Reapers kill advanced life in the universe....


The Roman Empire stopped people from self-mutilating by removing people's limbs, its the same faulty logic

Its more like removing a cancerous tumor. Are you pro cancer?

[KaiserShep]

Its more like removing a cancerous tumor. Are you pro cancer?

 

Wait, advanced civilizations = tumors? Or did the Romance [try to] remove cancer by removing limbs?

[MSandt]

I do indeed disagree. In fact, I'll ask why you have a problem with fascism and self-righteousness? Why are you defining people in different terms there? What is really off limits? Why is your morality more valid in interpreting the ending than anyone else? Do you think that the destruction towards an entire domain of life in Destroy is any more 'right' than the supposed fascist tendencies of control and synthesis?
 
You're being rather abrasive and dismissive towards my arguments for starters. And yes, calling people fascists for choosing an ending that appeals to them that you disagree with on your own selfish and self-centered perspective is rather insulting. As is inferring a PC who is, well, a PC under the control of the player being a moron. If I take as much agency as I think I do over my Shepard, then yes, you are calling me a moron.

Forcing a genetic solution on all living things is fascist and utterly totalitarian. As I said, this is what the Nazis tried to do through eugenics, race laws and extermination. After all, if mankind's issues resulted from the presence of Untermenschen among the Übermenschen, then the solution would be to get rid of that diversity. (Communists actually tried to do the same thing, only through "social" rather than racial means. But they were just as fascist and totalitarian as the Nazis were.) Self-righteousness is pretty much a prerequisite for such a solution: You (and I don't mean you) have no faith in the ability of individuals to solve their own problems so you force a solution on all of them, a solution that grossly violates their sovereignty. Edit: Morally speaking, this is quite a bit different from saving everyone from an external threat at the cost of only yourself.
 

Destruction isn't much better as you are imposing genocide on an entire form of life...
 
Or what about Control, pre-EC Control allowed Shepard to activate the Crucible without the Relays or Crucible blowing up (which based on previous experience was a very bad thing) and allows Shepard to destroy the Reapers (fly them into the sun!) without sacrificing the Geth, which was much better than Destroy?

The Geth were gone by the time I made it to the Crucible so "sacrificing" EDI certainly wasn't a problem at that point.

The problem with control is hubris: You think you can control the Reapers, but there are no guarantees. The starchild might believe you have what it takes, seeing how you got that far (thus proving the starchild's fallibility), but of course he has no way of knowing that with certainty. The risks, however, are incredibly high: If you, at some point, lose control, the Reapers will be back to business as usual. You could fail minutes after assuming control. So, why risk it?

[ImaginaryMatter]

The problem with control is hubris: You think you can control the Reapers, but there are no guarantees. The starchild might believe you have what it takes, seeing how you got that far (thus proving the starchild's fallibility), but of course he has no way of knowing that with certainty. The risks, however, are incredibly high: If you, at some point, lose control, the Reapers will be back to business as usual. You could fail minutes after assuming control. So, why risk it?

 

How do you know the Catalyst has no way of knowing?

 

Also, you seem to be holding a double standard for the ending options. You talk about risks yet Destroy has the same risks Control has, namely that the Catalyst could be wrong or deceptive and it's word is the sole thing Shepard has to work off of. If we assume the Catalyst can be wrong or deceptive about Control then we have to assume the same about Destroy as well. At the end of the day the Catalyst says we can Control, same as it says we can Destroy or Synthesize. The only guarantee that any of these options will work is from the Catalyst.

[Mordokai]

it's alright Mordokai..


14,000 posts and it's still over Steelcan's head. Don't feel bad.

 

Mmmmm... I do love it when you act condescending.

 

The issue is that it oversimplifies the argument so much that it no longer represents what is actually happening.

 

I admit, I long ago gave up on trying to understand larger implications that are supposedly being there. Now, I just get there, blow up the red tube, headcanon my happy ending in there and forget about everything until next time.

 

From my point, Xzibit is pretty much on point. So, do me a favor and explain what he's missing?

[MSandt]

A realist would also know that the Reapers are known to lie and deceive. A realist would not trust its word.

Yes we know now that things worked out now but at that point in time there is no way a 'realist' would kill themselves. Why drag Shepard up there? Well Shepard was right next to that handy control panel.

You seem to be looking at those scenes with the knowledge of what comes after, not putting yourself in it with only the knowledge Shepard has at that point.

A realist Shepard at that point would not believe hologram kid.

Why are you forcing me to repeat myself? Shepard doesn't have to believe the kid. And if she doesn't, that's her problem. She has no control over the situation: She cannot shape the circumstances into anything better. She has no ability to fight back and realizes quite clearly that her best option, given the circumstances, is to go for the one solution that is the very reason for her being there. She may not like it, but her alternatives are worse. Accepting that you're powerless beyond the three (or four, if you will) options presented is realism.

And no, I'm not considering this with the gift of hindsight. When I made it up there, I had very little reason to doubt the starchild's sincerity, even if I didn't agree with its logic. The fact that I had made it all the way up there had to mean something.
 

       
 
Railroading the player is not "brilliant storytelling"
 
And I think we've all seen the results of making the fanbase feel "bitter and disappointed"

Where's the downside? You think this is going to hurt ME4's sales?

[MSandt]

How do you know the Catalyst has no way of knowing?
 
Also, you seem to be holding a double standard for the ending options. You talk about risks yet Destroy has the same risks Control has, namely that the Catalyst could be wrong or deceptive and it's word is the sole thing Shepard has to work off of. If we assume the Catalyst can be wrong or deceptive about Control then we have to assume the same about Destroy as well. At the end of the day the Catalyst says we can Control, same as it says we can Destroy or Synthesize. The only guarantee that any of these options will work is from the Catalyst.

Because the Catalyst is not omnipotent. How could it predict the future? It didn't expect Shepard to get there. This is not about deception: I wasn't suggesting the starchild might trick Shepard into choosing the control option (what would be the point of that?). I believe that it believes that Shepard can control the Reapers. However, we also know that the starchild is fallible.

Of course you could assume the Destruction option might not work either due to some technical glitch, but it'd be completely unreasonable (and cowardly) to walk away from the solution based on such a stupid assumption. You'd figure the starchild had built the option as a fail-safe solution in case it lost control of the Reapers.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Why are you forcing me to repeat myself? Shepard doesn't have to believe the kid. And if she doesn't, that's her problem. She has no control over the situation: She cannot shape the circumstances into anything better. She has no ability to fight back and realizes quite clearly that her best option, given the circumstances, is to go for the one solution that is the very reason for her being there. She may not like it, but her alternatives are worse. Accepting that you're powerless beyond the three (or four, if you will) options presented is realism.

And no, I'm not considering this with the gift of hindsight. When I made it up there, I had very little reason to doubt the starchild's sincerity, even if I didn't agree with its logic. The fact that I had made it all the way up there had to mean something.

 

She has quite a bit of control. Supposedly the Catalyst no longer believes its solution will work anymore and for whatever reason needs Shepard (and just Shepard) to initiate a new solution. This gives Shepard leverage which she does not use.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Because the Catalyst is not omnipotent. How could it predict the future? It didn't expect Shepard to get there. This is not about deception: I wasn't suggesting the starchild might trick Shepard into choosing the control option (what would be the point of that?). I believe that it believes that Shepard can control the Reapers. However, we also know that the starchild is fallible.

Of course you could assume the Destruction option might not work either due to some technical glitch, but it'd be completely unreasonable (and cowardly) to walk away from the solution based on such a stupid assumption. You'd figure the starchild had built the option as a fail-safe solution in case it lost control of the Reapers.

 

Well then how does it know shooting a tube will cause the Crucible to activate? This is what I mean by double standard. The chances of Shepard Controlling the Reapers by touching two sparking electrical knobs is the same as the one that shooting a fuel line will Destroy them. The only guarantee of both working is from the Catalyst who can be either wrong or deceptive. You seem to be suggesting that in this case choosing Destroy is smarter than choosing Control, which it isn't. The ending choices are a subjective issue, there is not right answer or anything like that, there is no way to objectively state one solution is better than the other.

[voteDC]

Why are you forcing me to repeat myself? 

Because you are applying your knowledge of events onto a situation where the character present does not have that knowledge.

A person with no knowledge of what is to come would not accept the "truths" that the Catalyst is telling them. They would not believe their enemy that killing themselves will stop that enemy. You do not take the word of something that quite clearly wants you dead that killing yourself accomplishes your goal.

To believe the Catalyst is not realism but idiocy.

Yes, you and I can look back at the situation and agree. Those choices are genuine. No arguments.

But we are not talking about us. We are talking about Shepard. We are talking about a person whose only knowledge of this situation is what a hologram is telling them.

It is not realism for Shepard, with only the knowledge present at that time, to trust the Catalyst and act solely on its word.

[Mcfly616]

So, do me a favor and explain what he's missing?

He just did, quite plainly.

[Mcfly616]

Wait, advanced civilizations = tumors? Or did the Romance [try to] remove cancer by removing limbs?

advanced civilizations are the cancer of 'Life'.

[KaiserShep]

Well that's a nice thought. It only makes me like Destroy all the more.

[Lyria]

I hear he's pretty tough on higher difficulties. I should have tried that.

 

OMG he is a pain on Insanity.  Actually he is the hardest thing on Insanity.  I breezed through the game and spent two hours trying to finish him.  The feels, I still feel them.

[themikefest]

I just treat the Leviathan turd like a UFO, I saw/heard something and not sure what it is and just go destroy the flying giant hands.

[KaiserShep]

I just treat the Leviathan turd like a UFO, I saw/heard something and not sure what it is and just go destroy the flying giant hands.

 

It's probably better we wipe the giant hands from the face of the galaxy, because you never know when they might strike against us.

 

[rekn2]

I hope you're not assigning me as a "groupie" of massively.  We both agree that the endings were absolutely awful, but we disagree on far more things.

 

The thing is:  we generally don't insult each other when we do disagree.  And (I hope) respsect each others' opinions.

 

Shocking, I know.

why would i assign you as a groupie? i also agree that the endings were awful.