1331 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

Hah, I always thought Veetor was a shifty mofo.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Well, I'm going to be straightforward here, and I sincerely hope that it doesn't come across as flippant or mean-spirited. Often, when I say I'm confused about an argument, it's just a more diplomatic of way of saying that I don't think the argument is any good. You're apparently suggesting that synthetics are different from us in a crucial respect, which is that they are made of machine parts 'n' stuff, where as we're made of flesh 'n' stuff. What I tried to point out in my response is that this difference isn't morally relevant to anything provided that synthetics are just as capable of being conscious as we are. And the in-game evidence overwhelmingly suggests that they are.

 

BioWare really confused this whole issue. They presented synthetics to us like EDI and Legion as sapient, self-aware, and capable of forming their own unique personality... and then posed questions to us if their personhood was "real" or not. Well, everything that the story presents to us as real is real within that fictional world -- the narrative automatically makes it so, and synthetics with personhood is as much a part of this narrative as things like element-zero and bisexual blue babes that can mate with anything. It doesn't make sense to deny the notion of synthetics as people in their own right when the narrative presents and treats them as such anyway.

 

And re: this question, you either you agreed that synthetic life is valid and deserved all the same rights as organics, or you thought they were just an imitation of life and not entitled to any.

 

The question that really needed to be asked was: what rights are synthetic people entitled to (and not)?

[ImaginaryMatter]

BioWare really confused this whole issue. They presented synthetics to us like EDI and Legion as sapient, self-aware, and capable of forming their own unique personality... and then posed questions to us if their personhood was "real" or not. Well, everything that the story presents to us as real is real within that fictional world -- the narrative automatically makes it so, and synthetics with personhood is as much a part of this narrative as things like element-zero and bisexual blue babes that can mate with anything. It doesn't make sense to deny the notion of synthetics as people in their own right when the narrative presents and treats them as such anyway.

 

And re: this question, you either you agreed that synthetic life is valid and deserved all the same rights as organics, or you thought they were just an imitation of life and not entitled to any.

 

The question that really needed to be asked was: what rights are synthetic people entitled to (and not)?

 

I don't think there's any thing wrong with that. Even if the narrative supports that AI are indeed 'alive' it is still a common view of people in the universe that they are not, so I think it's alright for Shepard, as a person in said universe, to have those views and express them. Shepard is still a person, so I think it's reasonable for him to have biases and such if the player so chooses -- I just wish the game reacted more to it.

[shodiswe]

Can't say I'm surprised, Shodiswe, when your headcanon encompasses things like Veetor disabling the defenses of human colonies to enable the Collectors to abduct them without resistance in exchange for Reaper tech to fight the Geth. You're quickly reaching Auld Wulf levels of hilarity.

Also Godwin, but that's par for the course in your posts.

I assume that picture isn't the way you remember history, it would be hillarious if it was.
Also, that link is very much relevant in this discussion since it's a focuspoint of the discussion on what's right and wrong. It's a good example. Godwin is a pointless defence in a thread about genocides and experimentation on prisoners.


//


Corollaries and usage[edit]

There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.[8] This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized corollary that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful.[9]

Godwin's law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Nazis – often referred to as "playing the Hitler card". The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics, or racial superiority, nor, more debatably, to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies, if that was the explicit topic of conversation, since a Nazi comparison in those circumstances may be appropriate, in effect committing the fallacist's fallacy. Whether it applies to humorous use or references to oneself is open to interpretation, since this would not be a fallacious attack against a debate opponent.

While falling afoul of Godwin's law tends to cause the individual making the comparison to lose his argument or credibility, Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate.[10] Similar criticisms of the "law" (or "at least the distorted version which purports to prohibit all comparisons to German crimes") have been made by Glenn Greenwald.[11]


In this case your invocation of godwins law is a missdirection and an atempt at censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate.

By that logic you just lost the argument. Godwin's law has no place in this discussion.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin" data-ipb="nomediaparse" data-cke-saved-href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin" s_law"="">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Then there's the reductio ad Hitlerum argument which is an informal fallacy that consists of trying to refute an opponent's view by comparing it to a view that would be held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party and by doing so proves that the policy is undesirable. When one brings this into the argument, one has lost.

[Dean_the_Young]

It sound like a good idea, similar to Watchmen, I suppose. I would say that it's probably more suited to a somewhat smaller-scale story rather than something like the war against the Reapers. In some ways, the all-out war of extinction is not an innocent scenario; it gives the hard core militarists the best chance to make their case, in the same way that the ticking time bomb scenario gives advocates of torture the best chance to make theirs.

 

 

Well, personally, I've often felt that an appropriate video-game outcome for the ticking time bomb scenario would be for the players who don't choose torture to see the bombs go off... and the players who do choose torture to go to the designated area, find no bomb, and then see the bombs go off.

 

 

Out of amusement, I found that old ME as a love letter to fascism thread. Not technically accurate, nor was it trying to be, but it was amusing to me.

[78stonewobble]

They pursued them off of every world they held, even those with no military value, and killed any who couldn't escape. It isn't that the Geth aren't locked in a war anymore; they simply ran out of people to kill and sat behind their borders for three centuries afterwards, doing the same to anyone who stopped by for a chat.

ME2: "Why haven't the Quarians prepared for war?" "What, just like that? *something about the difficulty associated with arming the entire fleet*. People are afraid, or comfortable, or guilt-ridden over whether we were cruel to the Geth." (On the Alarei, speaking at the console, choose the paragon option discouraging war, then the renegade option asking why they haven't tried taking Rannoch back). The Quarians are locked in this conflict because the Geth occupied the planet they need to survive with no intention of ever returning it - they didn't try to take it back until the Reapers invaded and lit a fire under their collective asses.

"But Legion!..." didn't exist two years ago and makes no attempt to reach out to the Migrant Fleet during his time beyond the veil unless Shepard drags him out there. According to his gaming stats (LotSB), he still kills Quarians for fun. Returned to the veil, severed communication again and was found on the dreadnought in a Reaper egg.

And around and around we go...

 

The first part... Could be argued to be fighting a war so effectively that you weren't threatened again for 300 years. 

 

It's like debating the heavy allied bombings of cities during ww2. 

 

Was it necessary militarily? Was it necessarily to beat ie. the germans enough they became weary of war for 50 years? Does it mean the allies were... teh evulz too? Does that historical act mean that the former allies are still evil?

 

The last part about legion killing quarians for fun as gamerstats. If that is "evil" (TM pending), then all of us gamers are evil. He could be just seeing it as practice, as gaming fun as we do and have little to no motivation to do it without provocation in real life. 

[shodiswe]

Then there's the reductio ad Hitlerum argument which is an informal fallacy that consists of trying to refute an opponent's view by comparing it to a view that would be held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party and by doing so proves that the policy is undesirable. When one brings this into the argument, one has lost.

That's a stupid one in this context, I'm sure Hitler (you brought him into this argument with this post) would have loved that if he had been put to trial


Prosecutor: The defendant Adolf Hit...
Hitler: Objection! Reducio ad Hitlerum!
Prosecutor: The Charges are the Na zi comitted Geno...
Hitler: Objection! Godwin's Law! strike everything he's saying out of the protocoll!

Prosecutor: Hummmm.... well... it seems he can be accused of loosing a war... I'm not sure if there is a law against it, and I can't mention his name. I guess we are out of material!

The thing is, all of those are pointless in a discussion about these things. If we had been discussing Ice cream flavors and the flavor of one side had been accused of affiliation such as you describe then it's a different matter all together.

Forget about it and all similarly inapplicable rules, because, this is at the heart of what we're discussing. It might have twenty more informal names and versions. No point is bringing them up.

[78stonewobble]

Then there's the reductio ad Hitlerum argument which is an informal fallacy that consists of trying to refute an opponent's view by comparing it to a view that would be held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party and by doing so proves that the policy is undesirable. When one brings this into the argument, one has lost.

 

I'd argue that that gang did such bad stuff, that if it's even remotely comparable to something today, we owe it to ourselves to make that comparison and see for ourselves whether there is anything to it and really reexamine our arguments and morality. 

 

Nothing wrong with that. We either confirm our existing oppinions are valid or come to discover they were in some way wrong. 

 

Which in my humble oppinion is better than not allowing them to be tested and continuing blindly. 

[shodiswe]

I'd argue that that gang did such bad stuff, that if it's even remotely comparable to something today, we owe it to ourselves to make that comparison and see for ourselves whether there is anything to it and really reexamine our arguments and morality. 
 
Nothing wrong with that. We either confirm our existing oppinions are valid or come to discover they were in some way wrong. 
 
Which in my humble oppinion is better than not allowing them to be tested and continuing blindly.

In deed, it's a rules set for civil discourse on topics not related to those issues however. Like I mentioned, people discussing unrelated topics like Ice cream flavours.

At one point I think Fidel Castro said that "a man who orders Strawbery Icecream when there is Chocolate icecream available must be gay" something along those lines, can't recall the exact words.
That sure makes for a mature argument. Eitherway, he had ordered the production of both flavors /shrug.

The idea of this netiquete is to keep the discussion civil and relevant. They don't apply to a situation where they are relevant to a discussion.

[Jorji Costava]

@HYR 2.0:

 

There are all sorts interesting questions you could ask going in this direction. For instance, given the unique nature of Geth consciousness, who or what are the bearers of rights? Individual platforms? The Geth as a whole? Subsets of runtimes? There are also a lot of rights concepts you won't be able to apply to the Geth, such as those having to do with individuality, privacy, etc.

 

@Dean_the_Young:

 

That thread was pretty hilarious. If you wanted, you could add even more stuff, like the plot of ME2 being about siding with an ultra-nationalist paramilitary organization because civilian governments don't have what it takes to deal with the colony abductions.

[AlanC9]

Well, personally, I've often felt that an appropriate video-game outcome for the ticking time bomb scenario would be for the players who don't choose torture to see the bombs go off... and the players who do choose torture to go to the designated area, find no bomb, and then see the bombs go off.

 

 

Yeah. I always wanted to see Jack Bauer get some really bad intel from torture. Couldn't happen, of course.

[DeinonSlayer]

The first part... Could be argued to be fighting a war so effectively that you weren't threatened again for 300 years.

It's like debating the heavy allied bombings of cities during ww2.

Was it necessary militarily? Was it necessarily to beat ie. the germans enough they became weary of war for 50 years? Does it mean the allies were... teh evulz too? Does that historical act mean that the former allies are still evil?

The last part about legion killing quarians for fun as gamerstats. If that is "evil" (TM pending), then all of us gamers are evil. He could be just seeing it as practice, as gaming fun as we do and have little to no motivation to do it without provocation in real life.

Let's look at the classic example: Dresden, Germany. Official population of 350,000, unknown number of refugees (thousands) on top of that. Estimated deaths between 35,000 and 135,000 - let's go straight down the middle at 85,000. If we were to say those 85,000 came straight out of the documented population of 350,000 and pretend no refugees added to their numbers, that comes out to 24% casualties.

If that's the best argument you can come up with, a complete failure to recognize the difference between 24% casualties in a series of bombing raids and the 100% extermination of an entire populace (Quarians are extinct on Rannoch), I can already tell there's no point in trying to discuss the subject with you.

By the way, no, the Allies' hands are not clean. Those directly responsible remained responsible for the rest of their lives. In that same vein, the Geth we see now are the same entity which exterminated the Quarians 300 years ago ("we are immortal, our 'gods' disowned us").

And as for Shodiswe, you've shown that you're not content to merely take a scalpel to the lore and cut out any elements inconvenient to your argument ("cultural and physiological necessity," the key part of that being the one you consistently ignore), you also toss in a convoluted headcanon to demonize them yet further. I'm not surprised you see them that way given the lengths you're willing to go to. If you want to see them that way, you will, no matter what I say.

[Obadiah]

The memories within the Geth server are meant to be anecdotal of the larger conflict. Extrapolated to the grander level of the Morning War, you will probably find that Quarians killed a lot of other Quarians and Geth before the Geth responded.

[DeinonSlayer]

The memories within the Geth server are meant to be anecdotal of the larger conflict. Extrapolated to the grander level of the Morning War, you will probably find that Quarians killed a lot of other Quarians and Geth before the Geth responded.

I'd be astonished if Quarian-on-Quarian deaths accounted for even one percent (read: more than seventeen million) of the casualties.

[Obadiah]

I wouldn't be surpised. You're the guys that keep bringing up the 99% number, then claim the Geth are soley responsible for such a ridiculously large number, and that this "proves" how guilty they are and should be judged. When the Geth were nameless enemies to be shot in ME 1, that type of narrative was easy enough to accept, but don't you find interaction with the Geth a bit too... reasonable... for that to really be true, or all there is to the story just on the face of it?

I know I know, of course you don't.The Geth did it all. Carry on.

[ImaginaryMatter]

I wouldn't be surpised. You're the guys that keep bringing up the 99% number, then claim the Geth are soley responsible for such a ridiculously large number, and that this "proves" how guilty they are and should be judged. When the Geth were nameless enemies to be shot in ME 1, that type of narrative was easy enough to accept, but don't you find interaction with the Geth a bit too... reasonable... for that to really be true, or all there is to the story just on the face of it?

I know I know, of course you don't.The Geth did it all. Carry on.

 

So the Quarians gunned down much more than tens of millions of their own people?

[Obadiah]

Is there really a percent that is acceptable? 1%? 0.1%? 0.01%?

[TheOneTrueBioticGod]

Is there really a percent that is acceptable? 1%? 0.1%? 0.01%?

Well, when compared to 99%, yeah. 

There is. 

[DeinonSlayer]

I wouldn't be surpised. You're the guys that keep bringing up the 99% number, then claim the Geth are soley responsible for such a ridiculously large number, and that this "proves" how guilty they are and should be judged. When the Geth were nameless enemies to be shot in ME 1, that type of narrative was easy enough to accept, but don't you find interaction with the Geth a bit too... reasonable... for that to really be true, or all there is to the story just on the face of it?
I know I know, of course you don't.The Geth did it all. Carry on.

Tali: "The Geth killed billions and drove us from our homeworld."

Shepard: "The Quarian story of the war is well known, but what about the Geth's side?"
Legion: "It is largely the same."

Legion: "We accept their hate. We did them great harm in the Morning War."

What this boils down to, in the simplest terms, is that the Geth killed them off and you don't want to believe it. The fact that the writers went out of their way to avoid any direct mention of it in ME3 doesn't erase it.

[Obadiah]

What if it was 5%, or 10%? Still peanuts compared to 99%...

[Obadiah]

@DeinonSlayer
Oh I could believe it. They're machines prone to taking somewhat drastic action when desperate. What you don't want to believe is that the Quarians may have killed thousands or millions of their own, along with millions or billions of Geth before that happened.

[Daemul]

*sigh* 

 

This discussion continues to go in circles I see. 

[DeinonSlayer]

What if it was 5%, or 10%? Still peanuts compared to 99%...

Approximately sixty million people died in the second world war. If the Quarians had a civil war amongst themselves on that scale, holocaust et al, it would come out to three percent of a population of two billion.

*headdesk* It's like talking to a potted plant. What would that three percent tell you, compared to the remaining 97% of the population on Rannoch? Why are you so desperate to split the difference that you'll leap to such figures with no support for them?

[Obadiah]

That's nice. I don't really see the relevance of WW2 to the discussion of a fictional scifi war of a technologically advanced society with weapons that are far more powerful, but please... continue.