1331 réponses à ce sujet

[Obadiah]

What's genocide? Would we perhaps hold a different view of it compared to some other species? It might be the same in principle. But in definition? He's referencing an event that is completely outside of the scope of the Convention's intended constituency.

This is actually why I think the Quarians never bring it up with Shepard.

[themikefest]

Is destroying machines genocide? No

 

Is killing the Quarians genocide? Yes.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Is destroying machines genocide? No

 

Is killing the Quarians genocide? Yes.

 

What is a machine? Are we not organic biological machines?

[78stonewobble]

I'm referring to the part where you're defeating your own position by even bothering to mention the Convention in relation to a fictional, alien event completely divorced from the reality of the Earth at the time and the Convention.

 

Actually I seem to be the only one capable of using the convention as a guideline of morality, based on it's somewhat broad representation of human morality standards. 

 

And then extrapolate this guideline to a fictional situation, in which there are aliens and thinking robots, without corrupting the basic principles of morality contained therein. 

 

Otherwise we wouldn't have people claiming that the following should define genocide:

Number of casualties, because where do we set the line? At one casualty? Or 5 million? Which would lead alot of gaps or make everything genocides. 

That percentages matter, because where do we set the line? If the population is big enough 1 percent might mean tens of millions. 

If it's especially brutal combat, that includes children as casualties (ageism btw.), then it must be genocide, because I've got tears in my eyes. 

 

Or following through on other arguments I've seen that would lead to the following rather comedic scenarios: 

If you happen to dislike some group, but have to defend yourself against one of them, then it's attempted genocide.

If you accidentally run over a whole busfull of the last members of some tribe, it's genocide.

If you purposefully run over a bunch of idiots, which happens to be the last members of some tribe, but you don't know that, because they're in the middle of the road. Then it's genocide and supposedly much worse than just murder. 

 

 

Yeah, I can really see that throwing away the only reference point, we have brought out the intelligentsia here. Because obviously those sideeffects of these new definitions are pure gold. 

[DeinonSlayer]

This is actually why I think the Quarians never bring it up with Shepard.

Or because the writers wanted to cast the Geth in a sympathetic light and were hoping we'd forget about it, hence the weaseling around any direct mention after ME1.

ME1: "The Geth killed billions and drove us from our homeworld."
ME2: "The Geth killed billions and drove us from our homeworld!" "Of course they did. We tried to kill them."
ME3: "The Geth killed billions and drove us from our homeworld secured freedom."

In any event, I recall this thread was supposed to be about the problems with the writing, not another QvG mashup. Eh, fighting the tide I guess.

[themikefest]

What is a machine? Are we not organic biological machines?

I don't consider myself or organics to be any type of machine.

[78stonewobble]

In any event, I recall this thread was supposed to be about the problems with the writing, not another QvG mashup. Eh, fighting the tide I guess.

 

For that I actually am sorry and agree that there are plenty of them. As you illustrate the writers, throughout the series, didn't know what they wanted to do with the geth. 

[ImaginaryMatter]

I don't consider myself or organics to be any type of machine.

 

Where do you draw the line then?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Actually I seem to be the only one capable of using the convention as a guideline of morality, based on it's somewhat broad representation of human morality standards. 

 

And then extrapolate this guideline to a fictional situation, in which there are aliens and thinking robots, without corrupting the basic principles of morality contained therein. 

 

Otherwise we wouldn't have people claiming that the following should define genocide:

Number of casualties, because where do we set the line? At one casualty? Or 5 million? Which would lead alot of gaps or make everything genocides. 

That percentages matter, because where do we set the line? If the population is big enough 1 percent might mean tens of millions. 

If it's especially brutal combat, that includes children as casualties (ageism btw.), then it must be genocide, because I've got tears in my eyes. 

 

Or following through on other arguments I've seen that would lead to the following rather comedic scenarios: 

If you happen to dislike some group, but have to defend yourself against one of them, then it's attempted genocide.

If you accidentally run over a whole busfull of the last members of some tribe, it's genocide.

If you purposefully run over a bunch of idiots, which happens to be the last members of some tribe, but you don't know that, because they're in the middle of the road. Then it's genocide and supposedly much worse than just murder. 

 

 

Yeah, I can really see that throwing away the only reference point, we have brought out the intelligentsia here. Because obviously those sideeffects of these new definitions are pure gold. 

 

Ah, a moral absolutionist I see: "My morals are right! And nobody else's! That's why I define things my way and dismiss nothing else! Haha!" 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I don't consider myself or organics to be any type of machine.

 

Why?

[themikefest]

Where do you draw the line then?

What line?

[ImaginaryMatter]

What line?

 

The line between being organic and machine.

[Obadiah]

Or because the writers wanted to cast the Geth in a sympathetic light and were hoping we'd forget about it, hence the weaseling around any direct mention after ME1.

ME1: "The Geth killed billions and drove us from our homeworld."
ME2: "The Geth killed billions and drove us from our homeworld!" "Of course they did. We tried to kill them."
ME3: "The Geth killed billions and drove us from our homeworld secured freedom."

In any event, I recall this thread was supposed to be about the problems with the writing, not another QvG mashup. Eh, fighting the tide I guess.

The reason this progression is there is because this is a narrative, not a treatise on galactic history. In a narrative, usually we get initial information, then subsequent information that is supposed to shed light on that initial information, perhaps even re-frame it as something else. I think the writers did a pretty good job with this. It's clear that you don't like this progression, but that doesn't make it an illegitimate understanding of the events.

[themikefest]

Why?

Unlike a machine, I have to eat, sleep, see a doctor if sick or injured. I get older and slower. I eventually will die. A machine stays the same or improved with upgrades. It breaks, it can be repaired back to the way it was. If destroyed, it can be rebuilt or just go get another one.

[themikefest]

The line between being organic and machine.

For me there is no line. Machines/robots or whatever name you want to give them, I don't care. If I destroy them, I will rebuild them if I choose. I can't do that with organics.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Unlike a machine, I have to eat, sleep, see a doctor if sick or injured. I get older and slower. I eventually will die. A machine stays the same or improved with upgrades. It breaks, it can be repaired back to the way it was. If destroyed, it can be rebuilt or just go get another one.

 

And how is that basis for determining whether genocide can happen or not? All those points have little relevance with your assurance that you aren't a machine. Or that a machine can't be life.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

For me there is no line. Machines/robots or whatever name you want to give them, I don't care. If I destroy them, I will rebuild them if I choose. I can't do that with organics.

 

Yes you can. You can clone them. You can have more children.

[von uber]

Just out of interest are there a finite number of geth? Or do they themselves create new programs?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Just out of interest are there a finite number of geth? Or do they themselves create new programs?

 

It's never defined, but I believe that they are both.

[themikefest]

And how is that basis for determining whether genocide can happen or not? All those points have little relevance with your assurance that you aren't a machine. Or that a machine can't be life.

How are you a machine?

 

For me machines aren't life.

[78stonewobble]

Ah, a moral absolutionist I see: "My morals are right! And nobody else's! That's why I define things my way and dismiss nothing else! Haha!" 

 

It's actually not my personal morals. 

 

It's the essence of the standards of morals represented in the geneva convention and agree upon by presumably a majority of people. 

 

 

 

Personally I'm much more non-caring than that. Ie. that if you declare war you should be prepared to potentially get wiped out completely. I think that would lead to a bit more resistance to starting wars. 

 

As Dr. house put it: If you really wanted people to drive carefully, you'd mount a machete on the steering column aimed at their necks. 

[DeinonSlayer]

The reason this progression is there is because this is a narrative, not a treatise on galactic history. In a narrative, usually we get initial information, then subsequent information that is supposed to shed light on that initial information, perhaps even re-frame it as something else. I think the writers did a pretty good job with this. It's clear that you don't like this progression, but that doesn't make it an illegitimate understanding of the events.

It comes down to interpretation. If we were supposed to unquestioningly absorb what gets shovel-fed to us in the Consensus, the writing has even bigger problems than I thought. If the writing had half the subtlety indoctrination theorists believe, this information (and the way it's presented) would be highly suspect. Still... nobody challenges it. Just like how nobody ever mentions the Quarian death toll again - it doesn't erase it from canon, they simply coax players to one side by burying the other. The best Shepard can do is not berate Admiral Raan about the consensus stuff.

How exactly does a group go from having to hide out in civilian houses to survive, to wiping out 99% of a population distributed across multiple planets in the course of a single year? It's ludicrous.

[themikefest]

Yes you can. You can clone them. You can have more children.

Really? Look at clone Shepard. She/he will never be like the real Shepard. Only in looks and whatever memories you give the clone.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

How are you a machine?

 

For me machines aren't life.

 

I'm a machine in that I have my own hardware and software. My own processing system. I think. I require power and energy. How am I not a machine?

 

And what are you defining as a machine then? Sentience? Any organism less sophisticated than a dog would qualify as a machine then.

[I Tsunayoshi I]

The reason this progression is there is because this is a narrative, not a treatise on galactic history. In a narrative, usually we get initial information, then subsequent information that is supposed to shed light on that initial information, perhaps even re-frame it as something else. I think the writers did a pretty good job with this. It's clear that you don't like this progression, but that doesn't make it an illegitimate understanding of the events.

 

Now I gotta step in here and point out that a narrative is being worked on poorly when the beginning material is being changed to suit the message someone wants to make.