2368 Antworten in diesem Thema

[kal_reegar]

 

we're at war with the reapers, whereas they cannot comprehend being at war with us.  

 

and they're meant to be more advanced?

 

When you perform varmint hunting for pest control, are you at war with the little mammals you are killing?

 

 

The thing here is that the geth DISPROVE that logic.  The geth never rebelled.  The quarians tried to disable them after accidentally creating true AI.  Being sentient, they merely defended themselves.  Then, once the quarian were no longer a threat, they retreated back to Rannoch.  And if you line things up right to allow both the geth and the quarians to survive, the geth invite the quarians back to Rannoch and begin the process of helping them recover their immune systems. Sure, maybe it won't last in the long term (we have no way to know) but there are no indications that the geth naturally tend toward taking over.

 

The geth rebellion was perceived as a rebellion by their creators, so yes, the geth rebelled against the quarian.

Self-defence is a form of rebellion, if you are a slave or a tool.

 

BTW the catalyst didn't say that EVERY SYNTHETIC will always rebel against their creator ALL THE TIME.

He just say "synthetics will always rebel".

So there can be individual synthetics that doens't rebel (like edi) and stadium of synth evolution during which they don't rebel.

 

I can say: non-dominant nations will always rebel/fight/be in conflict against the dominant nations.

I don't mean that EVERY single non-dominant nation will necessarily rebel, nor that non-dominant nation will fight/rebel all the time, every single moment of their existence.

I simply mean that soon or later a conflict will inevitably arise between "masters" and "slaves".

[themikefest]

the thing may say synthetics will always rebel, but it also says that synthetics would destroy all organic life

[kal_reegar]

the thing may say synthetics will always rebel, but it also says that synthetics would destroy all organic life

 

look, this a very likely scenario, if applied to human race.

 

conflict is inherent in human nature (people and nations are fighting each others since they come down from the trees, and Onu/Nato etc are nothing but temporary makeshift. There are always war and conflicts, sometimes small, and short lasting some other times, huge and long lasting)

+

technological advancement leads to the creation of more and more dangerous and deadlier weapons of mass destruction (imagine that, 100 years from now even, states like Syria or Korea or Iran are able to easily build class atomic bomb or bacteriological weapon in few days... not cool, man)

=

after WW3 or WW4 we will be extinct (or locked in some vaults fighting ghouls) while earth will be a radioactive desert.

 

This is not necessarily (100% sure) the destiny of human race, but it is a plausible/probable scenario. There are a lot of intelligent people that believes it plausible. Maybe you too.

 

So why, on galactic scale (there is a certain form of tech advancement - synth advancement - than can be potentially go "out of control" and thus become very very dangerous + there is an observable recurring conflict between organics and synthetics) the same scenario should be crazy/illogic/unlikely?

[BloodyMares]

look, this a very likely scenario, if applied to human race.

 

conflict is inherent in human nature (people and nations are fighting each others since they come down from the trees, and Onu/Nato etc are nothing but temporary makeshift. There are always war and conflicts, sometimes small, and short lasting some other times, huge and long lasting)

+

technological advancement leads to the creation of more and more dangerous and deadlier weapons of mass destruction (imagine that, 100 years from now even, states like Syria or Korea or Iran are able to easily build class atomic bomb or bacteriological weapon in few days... not cool, man)

=

after WW3 or WW4 we will be extinct (or locked in some vaults fighting ghouls) while earth will be a radioactive desert.

 

This is not necessarily (100% sure) the destiny of human race, but it is a plausible/probable scenario. There are a lot of intelligent people that believes it plausible. Maybe you too.

 

So why, on galactic scale (there is a certain form of tech advancement - synth advancement - than can be potentially go "out of control" and thus become very very dangerous + there is an observable recurring conflict between organics and synthetics) the same scenario should be crazy/illogic/unlikely?

Except it has nothing to do with what was shown in Mass Effect trilogy.

[kal_reegar]

Except it has nothing to do with what was shown in Mass Effect trilogy.

 

Really?

There are conflict everywhere, between everybody, and there is a mass-destruction tech escalation (reapers, the crucible etc).

 

The catalyst interpret reality in his own way, you are free to interpret it differently.

You/we can both be right, there isn't a "correct" explanation/answer, there is no absolute truth.

[Dantriges]

The council managed to keeep the galaxy at peace for a long time and one of the two big conflicts resulted from an outside influence. The second one was an outgrowth of the first one.

[gothpunkboy89]

The council managed to keeep the galaxy at peace for a long time and one of the two big conflicts resulted from an outside influence. The second one was an outgrowth of the first one.

 

Define what keep the peace means to you.

 

Because there is still slave raids on colonies by Batarians. Space Piracy. Nearly 1/2 the galaxy that isn't under their control letting all sorts of things happen. As well as the Council willingly ignoring the problems of the Quarians and letting them suffer just so they don't get their hands dirty with another war.

[SPACE_GREASER]

Why would anyone think mass effect 3's ending and logic have anything to do with each other in the first place?

[gothpunkboy89]

Why would anyone think mass effect 3's ending and logic have anything to do with each other in the first place?

 

Because it does unless you don't pay attention or try to use over simplified logic applied to it. Much like how Disney always over simplifies any romance between characters in any movie. Were after like a day or two of interaction in the movie they are already going to live happily ever after.

[Natureguy85]

When you perform varmint hunting for pest control, are you at war with the little mammals you are killing?

 

Yeah you are arguably at war, but that bit of the conversation with the Catalyst had no value. It was about motivation but the Reapers' motivation really isn't that important. They are killing everyone and our goal is to stop them.

 

 

BTW the catalyst didn't say that EVERY SYNTHETIC will always rebel against their creator ALL THE TIME.

He just say "synthetics will always rebel".

So there can be individual synthetics that doens't rebel (like edi) and stadium of synth evolution during which they don't rebel.

 

I can say: non-dominant nations will always rebel/fight/be in conflict against the dominant nations.

I don't mean that EVERY single non-dominant nation will necessarily rebel, nor that non-dominant nation will fight/rebel all the time, every single moment of their existence.

I simply mean that soon or later a conflict will inevitably arise between "masters" and "slaves".

 

Then the statement becomes utterly meaningless. If some non-dominant nations don't fight dominant nations, then they aren't always in conflict. If it's just some Synthetics will sometimes rebel, then is the danger so great? That's even more reason why the Reapers aren't an appropriate solution.

 

 

 

Really?

There are conflict everywhere, between everybody, and there is a mass-destruction tech escalation (reapers, the crucible etc).

 

The catalyst interpret reality in his own way, you are free to interpret it differently.

You/we can both be right, there isn't a "correct" explanation/answer, there is no absolute truth.

 

Define what keep the peace means to you.

 

Because there is still slave raids on colonies by Batarians. Space Piracy. Nearly 1/2 the galaxy that isn't under their control letting all sorts of things happen. As well as the Council willingly ignoring the problems of the Quarians and letting them suffer just so they don't get their hands dirty with another war

 

That there is conflict everywhere is why there is nothing special about Organic vs Synthetic conflict, making this focus really strange.

That there is no absolute truth is an absolute statement, making it automatically false. It's also just wrong.

[KaiserShep]

Much like how Disney always over simplifies any romance between characters in any movie. Were after like a day or two of interaction in the movie they are already going to live happily ever after.

 

 

There's just too many cynics round these parts ready to rag on Disney flicks, to the point where some even try to use "Disney" as some sort of bad word. 

[KaiserShep]

Haha oh god are you kidding me? The friggin' star child is worse than TRUMP.  the kid was a small fallacy factory. He gave no basis of evidence from which he derived any of his statements... it's like saying "A is true because B is true" therefore "B is true because A is true". That's called circular logic

 

 

But could you imagine if the Catalyst tried to explain itself like Trump?

I see organics being ascended to reaper form, and it's beautiful. We're doing good work keeping all you guys from being wiped out by synthetics, and it's beautiful. It's wonderful to see us taking the galaxy back. It's been pretty rough and it's gotten ugly at times, but I look around and it's amazing. Jumping in the middle would definitely help. It would totally change the way we think about things, and it would be beautiful. Believe me, I know how this works; I've been at it for a long time. It's amazing.

 

~The Catalyst 

[SPACE_GREASER]

But could you imagine if the Catalyst tried to explain itself like Trump?

I see organics being ascended to reaper form, and it's beautiful. We're doing good work keeping all you guys from being wiped out by synthetics, and it's beautiful. It's wonderful to see us taking the galaxy back. It's been pretty rough and it's gotten ugly at times, but I look around and it's amazing. Jumping in the middle would definitely help. It would totally change the way we think about things, and it would be beautiful. Believe me, I know how this works; I've been at it for a long time. It's amazing.

 

 

~The Catalyst 

 

I officially love you

 

"And look people, I gotta tell you: The new Krogan reaper- It's gonna be UUUGGGEEE.  NO BODY KNOW'S REAPERS LIKE -I- KNOW REAPERS, OK? We're going to build a reaper and get the synthetics to pay for it"

 

*Chooses the turn off TV ending*

[kal_reegar]

 

Then the statement becomes utterly meaningless. If some non-dominant nations don't fight dominant nations, then they aren't always in conflict. If it's just some Synthetics will sometimes rebel, then is the danger so great? That's even more reason why the Reapers aren't an appropriate solution.

 

 

If I say that life will always adapt to new conditions (a core rule of evolution), am I meaningless? I'm not saying that every single form of life will be able to adapt (some will become exinct, in fact), nor that every species is constantly adapting ad changing, without interruptions (there can be genetic stagnation too, some species that are pretty much identical as they were 500.000.000 years ago).

 

But my statement is correct.

Or maybe not, if you want to be unbearably picky and over-rigorous, but hey, I'm sure that every intelligent people understand what I'm trying to say.

The catalyst is the bad guy of a videogame man, he is using quick general concept, not a scientist writing a specialistic paper for other scientists. The sense of what he's saying is perfectly clear.

[gothpunkboy89]

There's just too many cynics round these parts ready to rag on Disney flicks, to the point where some even try to use "Disney" as some sort of bad word. 

 

No it just acts like the perfect example of over simplification. Granted there are a lot of shows that show less then realistic relationship for a variety of reasons. The sheer size and position Disney has made for themselves makes them the one example everyone would instantly understand because you would be hard pressed to find someone who hasn't seen at least one Disney movie in their life time.

 

And they all follow the same set up. Boy meets girl, stuff happens and over the course of a day or maybe a week of in movie time the bad guy is beaten and dispute only knowing each other for a few days decide true love and will be married either on screen or hinted at shortly after. Which is an extreme over simplification of how relationships work.

[gothpunkboy89]

Haha oh god are you kidding me? The friggin' star child is worse than TRUMP.  the kid was a small fallacy factory. He gave no basis of evidence from which he derived any of his statements... it's like saying "A is true because B is true" therefore "B is true because A is true". That's called circular logic

 

EDIT: Unless you were just referring to the actual endings you can choose from, in which case it's largely subjective and justification would, in some cases, depend on previous choices made throughout the game.

 

And your ability to show his statements are false come from?

[gothpunkboy89]

That there is conflict everywhere is why there is nothing special about Organic vs Synthetic conflict, making this focus really strange.

That there is no absolute truth is an absolute statement, making it automatically false. It's also just wrong.

 

My question was direct at the Council Keeping the peace not O vs S.

 

So you claim there are no absolute truth right after making an absolute truth statement. Interesting you didn't even get a paragraph between a statement and a contradicting statement you make later. New record.

 

There is actually something special. The sheer potential and end result of it how ever.  O vs O is closer to the war in the Gulf. Small confined to relatively few countries and the end result won't have any massive effects on the rest of the world that doesn't include oil prices. While O vs S is closer to WW 2 effect. Were it was across most of Europe and some of Africa. And the end  of it resulted in massive power shifts across the entire globe.

[Natureguy85]

But could you imagine if the Catalyst tried to explain itself like Trump?

I see organics being ascended to reaper form, and it's beautiful. We're doing good work keeping all you guys from being wiped out by synthetics, and it's beautiful. It's wonderful to see us taking the galaxy back. It's been pretty rough and it's gotten ugly at times, but I look around and it's amazing. Jumping in the middle would definitely help. It would totally change the way we think about things, and it would be beautiful. Believe me, I know how this works; I've been at it for a long time. It's amazing.

 

~The Catalyst 

 

You didn't repeat yourself enough. Ugh, what an election. Choose between a buffoon and an unindicted criminal.

 

 

If I say that life will always adapt to new conditions (a core rule of evolution), am I meaningless? I'm not saying that every single form of life will be able to adapt (some will become exinct, in fact), nor that every species is constantly adapting ad changing, without interruptions (there can be genetic stagnation too, some species that are pretty much identical as they were 500.000.000 years ago).

 

But my statement is correct.

Or maybe not, if you want to be unbearably picky and over-rigorous, but hey, I'm sure that every intelligent people understand what I'm trying to say.

The catalyst is the bad guy of a videogame man, he is using quick general concept, not a scientist writing a specialistic paper for other scientists. The sense of what he's saying is perfectly clear.

 

What is the meaning and value of that statement then? It's just a broad statement about life in general. Where is the application? It's too general. You're right about the Catalyst though because hopefully the scientist would present data and evidence to support their claim.

 

 

 

 

My question was direct at the Council Keeping the peace not O vs S.

 

Right but my point was that there was all kinds of conflict happening and that O v S is not special.

 

 

 

So you claim there are no absolute truth right after making an absolute truth statement. Interesting you didn't even get a paragraph between a statement and a contradicting statement you make later. New record.

 

I didn't say there was no absolute truth. Reading is a skill so please learn it.

 

 

 

There is actually something special. The sheer potential and end result of it how ever.  O vs O is closer to the war in the Gulf. Small confined to relatively few countries and the end result won't have any massive effects on the rest of the world that doesn't include oil prices. While O vs S is closer to WW 2 effect. Were it was across most of Europe and some of Africa. And the end  of it resulted in massive power shifts across the entire globe.

 

No, it isn't. The intra-organic conflicts are small scale now that peace is established within Council space, but it wasn't that way a relatively short time ago and took a sterility plague to get there. There are also conflicts ready to break out, whether between Council Space and the Terminus Systems or between Humans and Batarians. The greatest example of Synthetic life, the Geth, just hide behind their cloud, doing their own thing with minimal involvement with organics.

[BloodyMares]

The greatest example of Synthetic life, the Geth, just hide behind their cloud, doing their own thing with minimal involvement with organics.

Exactly. I guess when people mention Geth as a hostile race they forget about ME1 and how characters reacted to hearing about the Geth.

Kaidan: "The geth haven't been seen outside the Veil in nearly 200 years. Why are they here now?"
Dr. Warren: "The geth, outside the Veil! Can you believe that?"
Maeko Mauso: "Geth? You expect me to believe that?"

Nobody have seen them in 200 years and unlike the Reapers they didn't plan for a surprise attack. But what am I talking about, of course "organics vs synthetics" is a central conflict.