@Boost32: Because I would not want to be dominated by someone who could dominate me.
Because I believe the idea of dominating anything is, in itself, a weakness. You either dominate out of fear - or pleasure. If you do so out of fear, you are weak. If you do so out of pleasure, you are sick, and therefore weak. Of course, my opinion of weakness.
It doesnt matter what you want, if someone want to dominante you and they have the power to do it, there is nothing you can do.@Boost32: Because I would not want to be dominated by someone who could dominate me.
Because I believe the idea of dominating anything is, in itself, a weakness. You either dominate out of fear - or pleasure. If you do so out of fear, you are weak. If you do so out of pleasure, you are sick, and therefore weak. Of course, my opinion of weakness.
I'm always the bad guy. No "technically" about it.
Warden Commander Puppy Kicker and Commander Jerkass Shepard are two of my favourite characters in all of gaming history.
@Boost32: Because I would not want to be dominated by someone who could dominate me.
Because I believe the idea of dominating anything is, in itself, a weakness. You either dominate out of fear - or pleasure. If you do so out of fear, you are weak. If you do so out of pleasure, you are sick, and therefore weak. Of course, my opinion of weakness.
wut
Can't we just blend in with the natives?
Nope, we can't have alien species residing on human settled worlds using up resources that are needed for us and our descendants. At best, if made into a client race of ours they'll be allowed to have their own worlds(after we've had our own pick of them).
Nope, we can't have alien species residing on human settled worlds using up resources that are needed for us and our descendants. At best, if made into a client race of ours they'll be allowed to have their own worlds(after we've had our own pick of them).
You're clearly an Andromedan mole trying to divide our ranks. You will be put to the sword claymore before we set foot on any planet in the new galaxy.
Sargeant. Throw him out the airlock.
Because I believe the idea of dominating anything is, in itself, a weakness. You either dominate out of fear - or pleasure. If you do so out of fear, you are weak. If you do so out of pleasure, you are sick, and therefore weak. Of course, my opinion of weakness.
Doesn't this seem a bit oversimplified? After all, the United States, for example, is essentially the result of domination over other civilizations. It doesn't always have to be boiled down to simple fear and pleasure, though "pleasure" is in itself kind of a vague concept in this context.
"The bad guys." Hey, an opportunity for humans to be something other than the perfect chosen race. A few weaknesses can do wonders for characterization.
"The bad guys." Hey, an opportunity for humans to be something other than the perfect chosen race. A few weaknesses can do wonders for characterization.
Humanity has the chosen race part down pat, but I don't think that they're "perfect" (sans the worst parts of ME3)
This conversation would be easier if you would use the quote function.@Syvius the Mad: Of course you can defend those preferences regardless of whether or not you want to.
Your assertion that all preferences have equal irrelevance works the other way as well making each preference equally important.
I don't agree with you, but I do find it interesting that you claim to believe all preferences are equal... yet you felt compelled to inform me that what I was saying was incorrect. What you do, does not suggest you believe what you say.
I don't recall what you said (and your failure to use the quote function makes it too much effort for me to go back and check), but in general I will respond to assertions that one way is better or somehow more correct by asserting an alternative position with equally weak backing as a way to demonstrate to you the lack of foundation beneath both positions.
auf Englisch bitte
Well, we don't know yet. But as Medhia says...
I was referring to those that often referred to as "taking our jobs", not Mass Effect Andromeda.
Maybe the people in the ARK are people who rejected Synthesis or ón whom it failed to attach...
So the Synthesis people built them a superadvanced ARK and told them to go somewhere where their chaotic and primitive type won't disrupt the harmony of the happy people.
You are not compattible with the bliss that's eternal happynes, wisdon and transcendance. Therefor you will have to find a new home.
We've built this moonsized Ark for you and fueled it for a ride to the Andromeda Galaxy. Good luck and may you find your own enlightenment.
An interesting idea, but would be a cop out to get out from under Synthesis.
Any act you choose to do is a selfish act. You are, fundamentally, doing it because you want to. That's why you chose it.
Selfishness is a universal consequence of free will.
I hate the notion that anything from which a person has the slightest benefit is selfish. There is room between selfishness and selflessness.
Maybe off topic, but for the record, if you exchange "live in a lap of luxury" with "repair his damaged pride", that description of the show is actually more accurate.
Spoiler
Now this is intriguing. I have not seen the show but I love the concept of a character that gets in with the best of intentions but gets pulled in and corrupted by what he's doing.
The long dead Remnant in Andromeda might turn out to have been Leviathan Remnants who fell on a hard time on their own...
Maybe they brought or created or modified existing species of Andromeda, and now they are hated forbidden Remnants of that old Evil which noone should touch.
The Milkyway Explorers study the ruins, discover that they were very advanced and came from the milkyway....
Then the locals finds them and attacks for breaching the ruins of the ancient evil, the remnants of the evilmind invaders(Leviathans).
Later the Milkyway delegation tried to communicate with them.
MD: We come in Peace, why have you attacked us?
Natives: You have trespassed on the Remnants of the unspekables.
MD: According to what we could find out they were from the same galaxy as us and we would like to know what happend to them.
Natives: Then you will share their fate... *click* *Transmission ends*
This made me think of the Guardians of Kadesh from Homeworld.
I know you are being facetious, but I actually think this is necessary. And preferable.
Granted, I think there's more to synthesis than what is implied in the ME3 ending, but I think that it is the only solution to the issue.
Otherwise, no, ordinary people can't be trusted with their own destiny. Especially in the regard of synthetic life.
If you have the power to dominante me and want it, why should you stop?
Stalin, Mao, Castro, and their like would be proud of you two.
@Boost32: Because I would not want to be dominated by someone who could dominate me.
Because I believe the idea of dominating anything is, in itself, a weakness. You either dominate out of fear - or pleasure. If you do so out of fear, you are weak. If you do so out of pleasure, you are sick, and therefore weak. Of course, my opinion of weakness.
That's not always true. Sometimes bad people need to be dominated or crushed. But that's different from the idea that you should dominate anyone you can just because you can.
@Steelcan: You wrote "Wut" to my comment. I'll assume you don't have a basic understanding of the Golden Rule? It states: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I simply wrote it in another way pertaining specifically to domination.
If your "Wut" was to the fear or pleasure... people take power out of greed... greed is a fear of "have not". All base acts are predicated by fear. If these people did not fear others - they would not be inclined to control them. The other group - pleasure - would be "pleasure in malice" That is, to me, also pathetic.
I'm not sure how I wasn't clear - even if you disagree with me (which I cannot help).
@Boost32: Of course someone who's inclined to dominate you is going to try. I'm not inclined to dominate others even being in a position to do so in my current occupation.
I hope you are not the recipient of your philosophy some day.
This conversation would be easier if you would use the quote function.
You made an assertion about selfishness. I expanded on your point. You asked if I perceived a difference between two things. I asserted that there wasn't one.
At what point did I correct you?
I'm sorry I don't quote - I'm a lazy/bad forumite. I simply don't agree that "all opinions are created equal" and - at the end of the day - I don't believe anyone believes that in practice.
I don't even think that selflessness is possible. Anything you choose to do is selfish by definition.I hate the notion that anything from which a person has the slightest benefit is selfish. There is room between selfishness and selflessness.
All sets of opinions are not created equal. Some are incoherent - those are stupid.I'm sorry I don't quote - I'm a lazy/bad forumite. I simply don't agree that "all opinions are created equal" and - at the end of the day - I don't believe anyone believes that in practice.
All sets of opinions are not created equal. Some are incoherent - those are stupid.
So you DO have standards. 
But, how can you know that other people are incapable of selflessness. That takes a rather epic level of arrogance, no?
I think selfishness follows definitionally from free will. I could only count others as possibly selfless if I thought they didn't have free will, and that, I think, would be the more arrogant position.So you DO have standards.
But, how can you know that other people are incapable of selflessness. That takes a rather epic level of arrogance, no?
I think selfishness follows definitionally from free will. I could only count others as possibly selfless if I thought they didn't have free will, and that, I think, would be the more arrogant position.
I don't think there is a meaningful definition of selfishness beyond doing things because you want to, but that's the same definition as free will.
They mean the same thing.
Selflessness can only exist if it is possible for an act to be both selfish and selfless at the same time, because all acts freely chosen are selfish by definition.
"Selfishness is being concerned, sometimes excessively or exclusively, for oneself or one's own advantage, pleasure, or welfare, regardless of others." It's essence (in my mind) is that of the opposite of what we see as selflessness, so, for me, the most important part of that definition is the "regardless of others". Also what you mean by free will, free of what?
I don't even think that selflessness is possible. Anything you choose to do is selfish by definition.
I'm trying to render the terms meaningless, because they don't describe anything. They certainly don't have normative value, which is typically how they're used.
Although your position is an interesting thought exercise and one I've engaged in myself, you're right it renders selfishness and selflessness meaningless terms. Meaningless terms are useless.
The rest of planet Earth takes selflessness to mean undertaking actions to help others that have no tangible benefit to oneself. Selfishness refers to actions that benefit you exclusively, often at the detriment of others.
What you're saying requires the terms to be redefined to fit a meaning they were never meant to have.
Well put.
The definitions you just advanced would be nearly as useless, as almost no behaviour would ever meet either standard (unless we use an extremely narrow definition of tangible).Although your position is an interesting thought exercise and one I've engaged in myself, you're right it renders selfishness and selflessness meaningless terms. Meaningless terms are useless.
The rest of planet Earth takes selflessness to mean undertaking actions to help others that have no tangible benefit to oneself. Selfishness refers to actions that benefit you exclusively, often at the detriment of others.
What you're saying requires the terms to be redefined to fit a meaning they were never meant to have.
Already have. When I had a gun aimed to my head, I could only submit or die.I hope you are not the recipient of your philosophy some day.
@Boost32: I imagine you chose to submit.
Would you have something against someone who chose not to be dominated even though it led to their death?
====
I have to ask, why did it make you come to the conclusion that one SHOULD dominate others if capable?
I think it would have only confirmed what I already believe... that nobody should be capable of dominating someone else (if they don't want to be dominated).
I didn't notice how this thread turned into S&M discussion.
Already have. When I had a gun aimed to my head, I could only submit or die.
But you don't, even though there a lot of people who can do it. Because domination is not always most effective choice.
@Steelcan: You wrote "Wut" to my comment. I'll assume you don't have a basic understanding of the Golden Rule? It states: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I simply wrote it in another way pertaining specifically to domination.
If your "Wut" was to the fear or pleasure... people take power out of greed... greed is a fear of "have not". All base acts are predicated by fear. If these people did not fear others - they would not be inclined to control them. The other group - pleasure - would be "pleasure in malice" That is, to me, also pathetic.
I'm not sure how I wasn't clear - even if you disagree with me (which I cannot help).
So Empires expanded and started dominating other peoples because they were scared.....
yeah that's a definite "wut"
Retour en haut