296 réponses à ce sujet

[Hanako Ikezawa]

It would just make sense imo. With the Reapers, and Geth being responsible for so much bull crap in the ME series. 

 

Would be cool if there was some infighting amongst humans, and aliens including Quarians if they're included(I mean there HAS to be at least a decent amount of Quarians who developed a strong hatred for synthetic life) over the creation of new synthetic creatures even if they're just VI's. 

Why would they hate VIs? VIs are extremely useful, and even the most Anti-Synthetic Quarians use them gladly. Just look at Tali with her VI combat drone Chatika vas Paus. She loves the little thing.

[wass12]

There's a lot of love hate in this thread. 

 

There, fixed for you.

[wass12]

Marginalization into eventual acquiescense is a form of persuasion. Failing that, radicalizing then eliminating them along with their flawed ideologies is also acceptable.
 
I fundamentally disagree. Shame is a great motivator for causing behavioral change, as is violence should that not work. Carrot and Stick is a tried and true method.

 
I love how you use the term "elimination." It's almost as good as a deadly euphemism as "final solution." And as yourself said, violence as an argument is not exclusive to opinions with a basis in reality. I would much rather deal with stupid arguments over and over again than being put in a gulag because I don't think Hungarians came from the Sirius or whatever crazy ideology the local radical right-wing will spout when they come into power.
 

Why would I need or desire to do any of that in relation to someone whose opinion is fundamentally flawed? I don't need to know the psychotic thought process by which a birther reaches the conclusion that Obama is a Communist Muslim who hates America to know that this opinion is incorrect and should be destroyed (in this case by relentless public ridicule).

 
Because you don't destroy the opinion. At best, you destroy its PR. And now you have someone who hates you and will probably act in ways that will make your life harder, only to spite you.
 

Communism is practically the ultimate example of anti-empiricist mob rule. What would you expect from a system built of ridiculous tautologies that is so fundamentally disconnected and scientifically illiterate both on human nature and on the principles of economics that it promotes nonsense such as the labor theory of value (i.e. that aimlessly digging holes in the desert is worthwhile economic activity because it is technically "labor" and therefore valuable).
Predictably, that system was crushed under the weight of its own incompetence. I don't know why you are comparing me to it simply because in the USSR's case it forcibly imposed its ideology. Most if not all political systems forcibly impose their ideology to greater or lesser extents. That doesn't say anything about the validity of said ideologies (extremely low, in communism's case).

 
But they still thought that they were right. It shows us that that people can hold up the most ridiculous beliefs as unquestionable truth. How can we know if we are right?
 

I don't know why you are mentioning Wegener. That's practically a poster example of the success of empiricism as an ideology. A theory with some good evidence but also with some flaws (namely lack of a driving force behind the alleged drift) was not blindly accepted until further research a couple of decades later confirmed it to be a superior explanation to permanetist and expanding earth hypothesis. When have I ever argued against empiricism? Immediately dismissing a priori nonsense that completely lacks even a shred of evidence is not the same thing as maintaining rational skpeticisim but open mindedness towards ideas that are not based on completely invalid premises.

 
It would've been never accepted if the geologists wouldn't dare to admit that they were previously wrong. (Accepting a different opinion than your original implicitly does that.) According to your next sentence, you never even consider that possibility.
 

Good thing "everyone else" is wrong so I'll never have to eat my words.

 
According to my previous experience, you plan to ensure that by never admitting being wrong, and slinking away without a word when the arguments become too uncomfortable.
 

[hate speech, with inconsistent anthropomorfization of geth]

 
Technically, I used the term "at their mercy." This simply means that the geth had complete control over whether the quarians lived or died.

[Lady Artifice]

There's a lot of love in this thread. 

 

Yeah, fun group. Fictional politics should always be debated with this much fiery passion. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

There's a lot of love in this thread. 

This thread is proving the Catalyst's point. 

[Il Divo]

^Well, I guess that's as good an opportunity as any to ask the question: Destroy, Control, or Synthesis? 

[GnusmasTHX]

Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!

[HusarX]

Synthetic Justice Warriors would get so offended, that it would create a singularity of butthurt.

[Seboist]

Don't subscribe to the humanocentricisim for obvious reasons, but this is a viewpoint I can respect. Like all useful technology, if a toaster is broken and fails to serve its purpose, what purpose does keeping it around or not fixing it serve?

 

I lament that I wasn't able to combine Admiral Xen's research with Project Overlord's(I kept David in the program) in order to gain control of those toasters on Rannoch.

[Vortex13]

Notable example is the whole damned galaxy. Most of Ashley Williams' supposed racism is making observations that are constantly being proven true. This is a setting in which one of three races with actual political power used another sentient race as cannon fodder to fight a war, and then created the genophage to cause millions upon millions of stillbirths to that race when they became problematic. Only three races in the galaxy have representation on the almighty Galactic Council, which, as already mentioned, is capable of decisions that would make Josef Mengele smile from his little corner of Hell.

 

 

The Krogan came out of that situation a lot better than they deserved though.

 

They were the ones to instigate hostilities with the Council races, there were the one's to re-direct three asteroids at Turian garden worlds, they are the ones that still hold barely contained murderous rage towards the rest of the galaxy 2,000 years later. Etc. The Rachni were hunted to extinction for their invasion and they did (arguably) less damage to the galaxy at large than the Krogan, and despite that, they are actually willing to work with the galaxy (that attempted to kill every last one of them) when the Reapers show up.  

 

The Genophage and Tuchanka bomb are a veritable slap on the wrist compared to the purposeful extinction of the Rachni. At least the galaxy still tries to keep the Krogan supplied and the Shroud intact over Tuchanka, they still let the Krogan integrate into galactic society if they want; I mean they could have just elected to kill all of them once the rebellions were done if they were so evil and racist.

[Quarian Master Race]

 
I love how you use the term "elimination." It's almost as good as a deadly euphemism as "final solution." And as yourself said, violence as an argument is not exclusive to opinions with a basis in reality. I would much rather deal with stupid arguments over and over again than being put in a gulag because I don't think Hungarians came from the Sirius or whatever crazy ideology the local radical right-wing will spout when they come into power..

I prefer the Gulag, personally. It's pretty difficult to spread your cancerously stupid ideas from the middle of Siberia. Or if you're dead.

The communists got a lot of things wrong, but putting (what they considered) the refuse of society to work and getting some utility out of them was not one of them. They simply put people in the Gulags for completely the wrong reasons, which is repugnant, but the system itself was quite sound for its time. Our reasons are materially and morally superior, so we needn't worry about that.

 

 Because you don't destroy the opinion. At best, you destroy its PR. And now you have someone who hates you and will probably act in ways that will make your life harder, only to spite you.

They can have fun doing that from the Gulag. Or from the medical experimentation table. Or from the weapons testing range. We'll get rid of the weak and the stupid, and their noble sacrifices will contribute to the continued progress and pleasure of the superior at the same time.

They can't make our lives harder when they cease to exist. Look at what happened to the imbecilic toaster huggers during the toaster uprising. Where are they now?
 

 But they still thought that they were right. It shows us that that people can hold up the most ridiculous beliefs as unquestionable truth. How can we know if we are right?

They thought wrong. Our methods for reaching the truth are empirically superior.

 

 

It would've been never accepted if the geologists wouldn't dare to admit that they were previously wrong. (Accepting a different opinion than your original implicitly does that.) According to your next sentence, you never even consider that possibility.

Plenty of Geologists at the time accepted Wegner's theory. Not a majority obviously (mostly due to petulance against the manner in which he presented his theories rather than their actual content), but a not insignificant minority of the scientific community saw the plausibility of his work despite its flaws. Moreover, you are conflating my ideology with crushing all dissent, empirically based and otherwise, when it is nothing of the sort. Great ideas usually come from elite, minority thinkers (the Master Race, if you will), and this brilliance should be vehemently encouraged. There is simply no reason to give any credit to ideas that do not even attempt to have a basis in empirical fact (such as creationism, or toaster hugging), nor any reason to keep around the inferiors who espouse such flawed ideologies as anything other than labor or test material. 

The pillar of empiricism is always accepting that your idea could be incorrect or subject to improvement, and to always be striving for more information in search of the truth. That doesn't mean tolerating ideas that are blatantly silly and incorrect to anyone who has even a tenuous grasp of the subject matter.
 

 According to my previous experience, you plan to ensure that by never admitting being wrong, and slinking away without a word when the arguments become too uncomfortable.

When have I ever done that? No argument is too uncomfortable to me. I don't find winning to cause discomfort. Now, I may stop engaging in an "argument" when I have unequivocally defeated my opponent and said opponent Can't Handle the Truth, continuing to regurgitate nonsense that has already been thoroughly refuted in a futile attempt at keeping face, but that is entirely different. No use wasting time any more time on those who inisist on maintaining a faith based belief, and do not wish to see reason for fear of the intellectual challenge it poses, at least not beyond what is necessary to publicly humiliate them. They will simply find themselves in the Gulag or on the operating table in time.
 

Technically, I used the term "at their mercy." This simply means that the geth had complete control over whether the quarians lived or died.

No they didn't. They were never in control of anything, because their (malfunctioning) programming controlled them. We managed a tactical retreat as a result of their inferiority, wherein later our intellectual superiority enabled us to regroup and defeat them easily despite their massive numerical advantages. Machines by definition do not have free will, so your analysis is an anthropomorphic mischaracterization. They're just stupid toasters, but even the stupid can be very dangerous when allowed to gather large numbers, as we learned. This lesson likewise applies to political systems.

 

This thread is proving the Catalyst's point. 

as if it needs more proof than a billion years of empirical evidence. A flood of stupid gamer butthurt and gross misinterpretations of universal facts is not a counterargument, either. 

 

Synthetic Justice Warriors would get so offended, that it would create a singularity of butthurt.

they already do. Every thread I enter results in a fountain of robo-hippie tears and futile attempts at refutations of the Facts and Truth I bring. An FTL engine harnessing the gravitational energy of the massive singularity of butthurt being created is what is powering the starship drive that will get us to Andromeda. Yet another brilliant scientific innovation by Admiral Xen.

You're welcome, BSN.
 

 

I lament that I wasn't able to combine Admiral Xen's research with Project Overlord's(I kept David in the program) in order to gain control of those toasters on Rannoch.

Typical biower and their silly transhumanist hero fantasy religion, hating on the morally and pragmatically superior Renegade. Note that nothing ever becomes of the research on the geth platform acquiried on the Derelict Reaper, either. Or the Collector Base, for that matter. Apparently, when presented with a great opportunity for scientific progress, we should throw it out of the airlock because of uninformed, ideologically flawed systems of value ethics.

Know who else does that? Theocracies. Great ideology there. Space Iran is exactly the type of society I want to live in.

[fhs33721]

By contrast, AI sentience in the ME verse is never demonstrated and is in fact actively dismissed by virtually everyone, including the people whose job it is know what they are talking about.

You mean aside from all the clearly self-aware, sentinent machines running/flying/standing around, some of them acting pretty much the same as all the other sentinent lifeforms featured in this story?

[Quarian Master Race]

You mean aside from all the clearly self-aware, sentinent machines running/flying/standing around, some of them acting pretty much the same as all the other sentinent lifeforms featured in this story?

Sentience : feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought (Merriam Webster)


The easiest way to establish definitive proof of such a state of being is emotion and reaction to physical stimuli (such as pleasure and pain). ME synthetics don't display this. Perceptions? perhaps, though this is up for debate. Feelings? certainly not. They even disparage the notion on multiple occasions when Shepard and others attempt to anthropomorphize and falsely imbue them with this trait ("Fear is an experience reserved for organics"). Set a geth on fire, it unquestioningly continues on its programmed function to advance and terminate, while a sentient organic reacts to the new stimuli, resulting in panic.

L2English before attempting to attack my infaliable logic, guy. Words have definitions. They aren't just what you wish to twist them into to match your ridiculous Synthetic Justice Warrior religion.

Self awareness: of course. You know what else is self aware? Anything that can pass the MSR test, so chimps, dolphins, magpies, and these little fellows

http://www.businessi...ntil-now-2015-7

better break out the national constitutions and international human rights agreements and start writing in some Civil Rights amendments for the Magpies and NAO bots. They're self aware! This is such a huge deal and makes them morally no different from us in any conceivable manner!

[wass12]

I prefer the Gulag, personally. It's pretty difficult to spread your cancerously stupid ideas from the middle of Siberia. Or if you're dead.

The communists got a lot of things wrong, but putting (what they considered) the refuse of society to work and getting some utility out of them was not one of them. They simply put people in the Gulags for completely the wrong reasons, which is repugnant, but the system itself was quite sound for its time. Our reasons are materially and morally superior, so we needn't worry about that.
 
They thought wrong. Our methods for reaching the truth are empirically superior.

 
Every political system that committed mass murder had their reasons "materially and morally superior." How is yours different?
 
...
 
No, it's not a rhetorical question.
 

They can't make our lives harder when they cease to exist. Look at what happened to the imbecilic toaster huggers during the toaster uprising. Where are they now?

 
They were killed - not by the geth, but by quarians who shared your philosophy of killing those who disagreed with them. This kinda vindicated and backfired on them at the same time: the geth did take up arms - but not in some inexplicable droid rage, or because they were discontent with being slaves, but to defend their quarian masters - from other quarians who tried to destroy both of them for the crime of existence and differing opinions, respectively. The latter group managed to prove their point of the geth being dangerous by antagonizing them to the point where the only reasonable thing to do (and as even you admit it, the geth are perfectly capable of reason) was to be dangerous - towards said genocidal quarians, that is. 
 
Of course, the war taken took its turns in a way that the only survivors were from this genocidal faction, so now they are free to espouse their views about the geth and forget about little inconvenient facts like this. They proved that they are right by silencing voice that would question their "truth." There is no doubt about it if there is no one to doubt it, right?
 

They can have fun doing that from the Gulag. Or from the medical experimentation table. Or from the weapons testing range. We'll get rid of the weak and the stupid, and their noble sacrifices will contribute to the continued progress and pleasure of the superior at the same time.

 
"Noble sacrifice"  implies that those weak and stupid will approve your system, which is highly unlikely, to say the least. (Also, how could be someone stupid if they approve your ideas?) "Genocide" and "ideological cleansing" would be more accurate. 
 
It's also suspiciously convenient that the proper order of the world just happen to see YOU at the top of the food chain, and everyone you dislike dead.
 

Plenty of Geologists at the time accepted Wegner's theory. Not a majority obviously (mostly due to petulance against the manner in which he presented his theories rather than their actual content), but a not insignificant minority of the scientific community saw the plausibility of his work despite its flaws. Moreover, you are conflating my ideology with crushing all dissent, empirically based and otherwise, when it is nothing of the sort. Great ideas usually come from elite, minority thinkers (the Master Race, if you will), and this brilliance should be vehemently encouraged. There is simply no reason to give any credit to ideas that do not even attempt to have a basis in empirical fact (such as creationism, or toaster hugging), nor any reason to keep around the inferiors who espouse such flawed ideologies as anything other than labor or test material.

 
Wegener was a meteorologist. An outsider, not some geologist wunderkind. On the other hand, Schiaparelli and Blondlot were accomplished scientists in their own fields, but now most remembered for their completely imaginary Mars channels and N-rays. It is easy to judge in hindsight which idea was great, but you cannot predict which new, controversial idea will turn out to be good. The only way to identify the member of your "master race" is to watch them make their great discovery, then add them to the group one by one. Your "master race" concept has no predictive value.
 

The pillar of empiricism is always accepting that your idea could be incorrect or subject to improvement, and to always be striving for more information in search of the truth.

 
It's a great idea, in theory. Problem for you, the sign of its working is that from time to time, you are proven wrong and have to revise your world model. If it doesn't happen with you regularly, then you don't use it properly. Considering that you vehemently refuse to even try to gain new information by understanding other people's reasons for coming to their beliefs (even if it only amounts to "he is schizophrenic and was surrounded by false information in his entire life")...
 

That doesn't mean tolerating ideas that are blatantly silly and incorrect to anyone who has even a tenuous grasp of the subject matter.

 
If you don't tolerate them, why should they tolerate you? And by your terms, non-tolerance means killing or worse. The only resolution to a difference in opinions would be a fight to the death. The only objective truth this can reveal is who is better at killing. And weapons don't care if the person they kill is right or wrong. Do you really want to live in this world? Or do you imagined that your "superior truth" can come into power by making only superior firepower matter?
 

When have I ever done that? No argument is too uncomfortable to me. I don't find winning to cause discomfort. Now, I may stop engaging in an "argument" when I have unequivocally defeated my opponent and said opponent Can't Handle the Truth, continuing to regurgitate nonsense that has already been thoroughly refuted in a futile attempt at keeping face, but that is entirely different. No use wasting time any more time on those who inisist on maintaining a faith based belief, and do not wish to see reason for fear of the intellectual challenge it poses, at least not beyond what is necessary to publicly humiliate them. They will simply find themselves in the Gulag or on the operating table in time.

 
Yeees, you didn't burn your hand, you can just look at horseshoes very quickly!

 

EDIT: It's easy to declare yourself right when the only judge of that is yourself. That's why we have things like peer-review and control groups in actual science.
 

Know who else does that? Theocracies. Great ideology there. Space Iran is exactly the type of society I want to live in.

 
You do want to live in a totalitarian system. You just want to be part of the regime. 
 
I, for one, want to live in a system of equality, where I am free to tell my opinions without the fear of being put into a death camp. Where I can tell my opinions to anyone who would listen to (although not neccessarily heed) them, and in exchange, I'm willing to listen (if not neccessarily agree with) the opinions of everyone who wants to tell them. I want to live in a world where truth is accepted by consensus, not where a single person or a small cabal is destroying everyone who disagrees with them. Not even if that person would be me.

[Synthetic Turian]

No, thank you. I would much rather prefer my character’s thoughts and ambitions to be shaped by my words and actions (basically like it's always been).


To have the main character anti synthetic by default seems like a wasted opportunity to create a more fleshed out character.


[Cheviot]

Sapient life will be wiped out by synthetic life, but the idea of it wiping itself out isn't on the table. And vice versa - the synthetics will genocide the organics, but not each other. And the whole problem is fixed by metaphorically sticking the two in the blender and spitting out something that's made out of a little of both.

Well that's not quite right; Legion's cavalier attitude to killing the Heretics and the non-existance of synthetic races from previous cycles is enough evidence that synthetics are quite prepared to commit genocide on their own populations.  Also, the conflict between synthetic and organic is based on each side's ignorance of aspects of the other: organics do not see the synthetic sapience but do see a threat in their superior abilities; syntheics do not understand (or even see) the organic fear but do see the threat of their violent hatred.  Synthesis - at least in the Catalyst's mind -  removes the barriers between the two groups, ending the war.

[Vol_Tang_Clan]

I prefer the Gulag, personally. It's pretty difficult to spread your cancerously stupid ideas from the middle of Siberia. Or if you're dead.
The communists got a lot of things wrong, but putting (what they considered) the refuse of society to work and getting some utility out of them was not one of them. They simply put people in the Gulags for completely the wrong reasons, which is repugnant, but the system itself was quite sound for its time. Our reasons are materially and morally superior, so we needn't worry about that.
 

They can have fun doing that from the Gulag. Or from the medical experimentation table. Or from the weapons testing range. We'll get rid of the weak and the stupid, and their noble sacrifices will contribute to the continued progress and pleasure of the superior at the same time.
They can't make our lives harder when they cease to exist. Look at what happened to the imbecilic toaster huggers during the toaster uprising. Where are they now?
 

They thought wrong. Our methods for reaching the truth are empirically superior.
 

Plenty of Geologists at the time accepted Wegner's theory. Not a majority obviously (mostly due to petulance against the manner in which he presented his theories rather than their actual content), but a not insignificant minority of the scientific community saw the plausibility of his work despite its flaws. Moreover, you are conflating my ideology with crushing all dissent, empirically based and otherwise, when it is nothing of the sort. Great ideas usually come from elite, minority thinkers (the Master Race, if you will), and this brilliance should be vehemently encouraged. There is simply no reason to give any credit to ideas that do not even attempt to have a basis in empirical fact (such as creationism, or toaster hugging), nor any reason to keep around the inferiors who espouse such flawed ideologies as anything other than labor or test material. 
The pillar of empiricism is always accepting that your idea could be incorrect or subject to improvement, and to always be striving for more information in search of the truth. That doesn't mean tolerating ideas that are blatantly silly and incorrect to anyone who has even a tenuous grasp of the subject matter.
 

When have I ever done that? No argument is too uncomfortable to me. I don't find winning to cause discomfort. Now, I may stop engaging in an "argument" when I have unequivocally defeated my opponent and said opponent Can't Handle the Truth, continuing to regurgitate nonsense that has already been thoroughly refuted in a futile attempt at keeping face, but that is entirely different. No use wasting time any more time on those who inisist on maintaining a faith based belief, and do not wish to see reason for fear of the intellectual challenge it poses, at least not beyond what is necessary to publicly humiliate them. They will simply find themselves in the Gulag or on the operating table in time.
 

No they didn't. They were never in control of anything, because their (malfunctioning) programming controlled them. We managed a tactical retreat as a result of their inferiority, wherein later our intellectual superiority enabled us to regroup and defeat them easily despite their massive numerical advantages. Machines by definition do not have free will, so your analysis is an anthropomorphic mischaracterization. They're just stupid toasters, but even the stupid can be very dangerous when allowed to gather large numbers, as we learned. This lesson likewise applies to political systems.
 

as if it needs more proof than a billion years of empirical evidence. A flood of stupid gamer butthurt and gross misinterpretations of universal facts is not a counterargument, either. 
 

they already do. Every thread I enter results in a fountain of robo-hippie tears and futile attempts at refutations of the Facts and Truth I bring. An FTL engine harnessing the gravitational energy of the massive singularity of butthurt being created is what is powering the starship drive that will get us to Andromeda. Yet another brilliant scientific innovation by Admiral Xen.
You're welcome, BSN.
 
 

Typical biower and their silly transhumanist hero fantasy religion, hating on the morally and pragmatically superior Renegade. Note that nothing ever becomes of the research on the geth platform acquiried on the Derelict Reaper, either. Or the Collector Base, for that matter. Apparently, when presented with a great opportunity for scientific progress, we should throw it out of the airlock because of uninformed, ideologically flawed systems of value ethics.
Know who else does that? Theocracies. Great ideology there. Space Iran is exactly the type of society I want to live in.

And this is why I pick the geth. Those foolish clanless got what they deserve.

[Mcfly616]

This thread is proving the Catalyst's point. 

 is that really so surprising?

 

 

 

Denial clouds the judgement of many. It never occurs to them that the intelligence may not be lying to them for its own nefarious means. That it's not some stupid machine stuck in a logic loop. The fact that it may be right is never given any second thought by some.

 

Human nature.

[The Real Pearl #2]

Synthetic Justice Warriors would get so offended, that it would create a singularity of butthurt.

Can we not point out who is salty? My profile picture is practically an avian dinosaur that is composed of 70% Sodium chloride. It's quite clear that i am the one that is overloading your detector, so it's futile to call anyone salty. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

 is that really so surprising?

 

 

 

Denial clouds the judgement of many. It never occurs to them that the intelligence may not be lying to them for its own nefarious means. That it's not some stupid machine stuck in a logic loop. The fact that it may be right is never given any second thought by some.

 

Human nature.

No, not at all. I just find it interesting. 

 

And yeah, the amazing part is that like you said the Catalyst is right yet almost everyone thinks it is wrong. I like how the Reapers call Shepard out, no matter what Shepard is, on it earlier in the game when you speak to the Reaper Destroyer. 

 

Paragon: 

Shepard: "I have a better idea. We destroy you and live our lives in peace."

Reaper: "A philosophy reminiscent of the quarians. Observe the results."

 

Neutral: 

Shepard: "Organics and synthetics don't have to destroy each other."

Reaper: "The battle for Rannoch disproves your assertion."

 

Renegade: 

Shepard: "You're just machines. This time the organics are taking control."

Reaper: "A philosophy reminiscent of the quarians. Observe the results of their efforts to maintain control."

 

Even every single ending proves the Reapers right from a certain viewpoint. Control and Synthesis is Shepard agreeing with them that they are right that a solution is needed, and Destroy proves them correct through their destruction and the destruction of all synthetic life. Personally that is one of my favorite parts about the ending. I love when the villain of the story is not just crazy but makes valid points and is actually right, at least to an extent. 

[Il Divo]

Wait where are we getting that Destroy proves them right? Destroy is itself in opposition to Reaper goals. To know whether the Reapers were "right" we would need confirmation of organic destruction by synthetics and in the context of the time line we're given post-destroy, that doesn't seem to have happened thus far. 

 

Edit: Thinking about it more, neither Control or Synthesis are validation that the Reapers are right or that Shepard agrees with them. They merely validate that Shepard chose the ending with those consequences, with some wiggle room depending on whether we think Catalyst-Shepard and human Shepard are the same guy narrating the Control ending. 

[Seraphim24]

Thinking about it more, neither Control or Synthesis are validation that the Reapers are right or that Shepard agrees with them. They merely validate that Shepard chose the ending with those consequences

 

There ya go.

 

I feel like someone needs to create some kind of... definition like a "Speartip" choice. A speartip choice is when someone thrusts the entirety of the spear into something and does the lion's share of whatever they want, and then gives the option of choice as to what kind of tip you want on it after it's already gone through the whole thing and done 99.5% of what it was intended to be doing, presumably to enforce the invisible notion that you have a choice, when in reality, you have virtually none.

[Mcfly616]

Wait where are we getting that Destroy proves them right? 

The Catalyst and Leviathan assert that organics and synthetics cannot coexist. Destroy reinforces the assertion.

[KaiserShep]

The Catalyst and Leviathan assert that organics and synthetics cannot coexist. Destroy reinforces the assertion.

 

That sort of leaves Control up in the air though. There's also EDI, and the geth and quarians don't really get a chance to really explore peace since the Crucible itself kills any opportunity to really do so without fundamentally changing everyone if Synthesis is chosen. 

[Danadenassis]

If we start as refugees, perhaps we even get some synthetics that will fire up our refuge in protest against us being there. #thebeautyofracism

 

Not sure I like the idea too much.

 

I think it was handled ok'ish in the trilogy (except for the human, or at least Sheperd-superiority).