423 réponses à ce sujet

[CmdrFenix83]

Schroing wrote...

You -still- haven't explained why being alive has any pertinence to this discussion and rights.

Because I don't think a machine deserves rights.  If you count the Geth as 'alive' you sympathize with what happened to them.  If you consider them to be nothing more than advanced machinery, then you don't.  I have zero sympathy for the Geth.  I don't feel sorry for them.  I do, however, sympathize with the Quarian people.  I believe they got screwed over pretty badly.  The fault of the individuals responsible for creating, programming, and updating the Geth.  I think the Council were douchebags when they kicked the handful of survivors out of billions when they were down. 

That's my stance.  I've argued the Quarian vs Geth on these boards for weeks, and only recently have given it up as fruitless, and that's where I noticed the trend.  Geth sympathizers all refer to them as living, breathing creatures demanding the same rights and protection of any *real* race.  Or Quarian sympathizers that refer to the Geth as malfunctioning hardware.

I used to fall somewhere in between.  Not blaming either side for their decisions that resulted in the Morning War.  However, the adamant Legion fanboys have just made me biased against him and the Geth as a whole(just as the obsessed Talimancers in that ridiculous thread have forged a 'legion' of haters).

[marshalleck]

Inverness Moon wrote...

Actually, Legion quite clearly says that the geth are purely software, not a combination of hardware and software like organics or AIs like EDI. Codex also says that because of that, geth can be installed on my system.

Software doesn't exist in thin air or a pure vacuum. There is always some physical component involved and absolutely nothing is said about the workings of it.

The only example I can give is that Council AIs are pairings of blue-boxes and software. A blue-box is a quantum computer that interacts unpredictably with the software, resulting in the unique identity or 'personality' of the AI. If the software were transported to another blue-box the AI would have to be retrained and would result in a new identity, a new individual.

Now I understand that isn't how the geth programs work, I understand how they transfer to different mobile platforms and can perform many different functions. But the actual 'how' is never hinted at. The hoppers in ME1 are said to be new developments that are original geth creations not influenced by quarian engineers, and they are said to possess many characteristics of organic creatures. The exact nature of these new platforms is unknown.

[Schroing]

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

Schroing wrote...

You -still- haven't explained why being alive has any pertinence to this discussion and rights.

Because I don't think a machine deserves rights.  If you count the Geth as 'alive' you sympathize with what happened to them.  If you consider them to be nothing more than advanced machinery, then you don't.  I have zero sympathy for the Geth.  I don't feel sorry for them.  I do, however, sympathize with the Quarian people.  I believe they got screwed over pretty badly.  The fault of the individuals responsible for creating, programming, and updating the Geth.  I think the Council were douchebags when they kicked the handful of survivors out of billions when they were down. 

That's my stance.  I've argued the Quarian vs Geth on these boards for weeks, and only recently have given it up as fruitless, and that's where I noticed the trend.  Geth sympathizers all refer to them as living, breathing creatures demanding the same rights and protection of any *real* race.  Or Quarian sympathizers that refer to the Geth as malfunctioning hardware.

I used to fall somewhere in between.  Not blaming either side for their decisions that resulted in the Morning War.  However, the adamant Legion fanboys have just made me biased against him and the Geth as a whole(just as the obsessed Talimancers in that ridiculous thread have forged a 'legion' of haters).

So the line between genocide and...whatever...not-genocide is called is as thin as an annoying fanbase?
Damn. That's harsh, bro.

Modifié par Schroing, 09 mars 2010 - 12:24 .

[Yakko77]

The Geth may be self aware, can learn and adapt, ask questions, etc.
but to my knowledge they have no culture, no emotions, no sense of
individualality and no spirit/soul and are thus NOT  ALIVE.  Some of
them worshipped Soveriegn over a math error IIRC.  Even Legion isn't
truly autonomous and always seeks consensus with the rest of the Geth
to make big decisions and refers to itself as "we".

The Geth are
merely super advanced machines, machines I need (preferably as cannon
fodder) in the upcoming battle against the Reapers.  They are tools,
self aware tools to a degree which I have no problem letting them
"live" in some sector of space in their space stations away from
organics but otherwise I  feel pretty much zero empathy for them.  Make
no mistake, Legion is an interesting character in the same way I 
regarded HK-47 as one but I do not regard it as alive.

To say anyone "deserves"  genocide is just... monstrous.  The quarians deserved no such thing.

[Schroing]

Yakko77 wrote...

To say anyone "deserves"  genocide is just... monstrous.  The quarians deserved no such thing.

What happened to the quarians can, under no circumstances, be referred to as 'genocide.' It was a war.
What happened to the geth, on the other hand, was attempted genocide. Still a war, though.

[marshalleck]

alphax1 wrote...

I keep seeing that "The Geth are an accident therefore they are not alive" or "Their programming was faulty therefore they are not sentient"

This is a logical fallacy... an epic logical fallacy...

Respectfully, I think the only fallacy here is the strawman you've created, perhaps unintentionally. You're right about the first halves of each statements, but the conclusions you claim people are drawing from them are in error.

"The Geth are an accident therefore they are not alive" should read "the geth are an accident so the quarians didn't view them as genuine AIs" and "Their programming was faulty therefore they are not sentient" should read "their sentience is an unintended consequence of faulty design."

[marshalleck]

Schroing wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...

To say anyone "deserves"  genocide is just... monstrous.  The quarians deserved no such thing.

What happened to the quarians can, under no circumstances, be referred to as 'genocide.'

Umm, yes it can. Billions of non-combatants were slaughtered. The civilization was all but destroyed. The culture was destroyed. The only thing that saved the quarians from extinction was their flight beyond the borders of their former territory.

[alphax1]

marshalleck wrote...

alphax1 wrote...

I keep seeing that "The Geth are an accident therefore they are not alive" or "Their programming was faulty therefore they are not sentient"

This is a logical fallacy... an epic logical fallacy...

Respectfully, I think the only fallacy here is the strawman you've created, perhaps unintentionally. You're right about the first halves of each statements, but the conclusions you claim people are drawing from them are in error.

"The Geth are an accident therefore they are not alive" should read "the geth are an accident so the quarians didn't view them as genuine AIs" and "Their programming was faulty therefore they are not sentient" should read "their sentience is an unintended consequence of faulty design."

Reread a lot of the posts... most of them say exactly what I'm arguing against... "Geth can't be alive/sentient becasue all they are is faulty programming" as though that was PROOF... The only misspeak was interchanging 'alive' and 'sentient'...

[Inverness Moon]

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

Schroing wrote...
You -still- haven't explained why being alive has any pertinence to this discussion and rights.

Because I don't think a machine deserves rights.  If you count the Geth as 'alive' you sympathize with what happened to them.  If you consider them to be nothing more than advanced machinery, then you don't.  I have zero sympathy for the Geth.  I don't feel sorry for them.  I do, however, sympathize with the Quarian people.  I believe they got screwed over pretty badly.  The fault of the individuals responsible for creating, programming, and updating the Geth.  I think the Council were douchebags when they kicked the handful of survivors out of billions when they were down.  
That's my stance.  I've argued the Quarian vs Geth on these boards for weeks, and only recently have given it up as fruitless, and that's where I noticed the trend.  Geth sympathizers all refer to them as living, breathing creatures demanding the same rights and protection of any *real* race.  Or Quarian sympathizers that refer to the Geth as malfunctioning hardware.
I used to fall somewhere in between.  Not blaming either side for their decisions that resulted in the Morning War.  However, the adamant Legion fanboys have just made me biased against him and the Geth as a whole(just as the obsessed Talimancers in that ridiculous thread have forged a 'legion' of haters).

Note the paragon option in ME1 when talking to Tali about the geth. Whether the geth breathe or not is hardly relevant, they are not organic lifeforms.

marshalleck wrote...

Inverness Moon wrote...

Actually, Legion quite clearly says that the geth are purely software, not a combination of hardware and software like organics or AIs like EDI. Codex also says that because of that, geth can be installed on my system.

Software doesn't exist in thin air or a pure vacuum. There is always some physical component involved and absolutely nothing is said about the workings of it.

The only example I can give is that Council AIs are pairings of blue-boxes and software. A blue-box is a quantum computer that interacts unpredictably with the software, resulting in the unique identity or 'personality' of the AI. If the software were transported to another blue-box the AI would have to be retrained and would result in a new identity, a new individual.

Now I understand that isn't how the geth programs work, I understand how they transfer to different mobile platforms and can perform many different functions. But the actual 'how' is never hinted at. The hoppers in ME1 are said to be new developments that are original geth creations not influenced by quarian engineers, and they are said to possess many characteristics of organic creatures. The exact nature of these new platforms is unknown.

Just because these new platforms have organic hardware does not mean that it will affect the software. The geth are based around mathematics, they are not influenced by hardware.

There isn't really a better way to explain it, I think you're looking for something that doesn't exist.

Yakko77 wrote...
The Geth may be self aware, can learn and adapt, ask questions, etc.but to my knowledge they have no culture, no emotions, no sense ofindividualality and no spirit/soul and are thus NOT  ALIVE.  Some ofthem worshipped Soveriegn over a math error IIRC.  Even Legion isn'ttruly autonomous and always seeks consensus with the rest of the Gethto make big decisions and refers to itself as "we".

What do culture, emotions, and individuality have to do with whether they're alive? You're saying that they're not alive because they're not like us. That is quite arrogant.

The soul thing is completely irrelevant, but they asked, which is good enough for me at this point.

Yakko77 wrote...

The Geth aremerely super advanced machines, machines I need (preferably as cannonfodder) in the upcoming battle against the Reapers.  They are tools,self aware tools to a degree which I have no problem letting them"live" in some sector of space in their space stations away fromorganics but otherwise I  feel pretty much zero empathy for them.  Makeno mistake, Legion is an interesting character in the same way I regarded HK-47 as one but I do not regard it as alive.
To say anyone "deserves"  genocide is just... monstrous.  The quarians deserved no such thing. 

We're super advanced machines too, isn't it fun?

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 09 mars 2010 - 12:42 .

[Schroing]

marshalleck wrote...

Schroing wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...

To say anyone "deserves"  genocide is just... monstrous.  The quarians deserved no such thing.

What happened to the quarians can, under no circumstances, be referred to as 'genocide.'

Umm, yes it can. Billions of non-combatants were slaughtered. The civilization was all but destroyed. The culture was destroyed. The only thing that saved the quarians from extinction was their flight beyond the borders of their former territory.

None of this is ever stated. There was a war. It was a very large war, and yes, billions died, but it certainly wasn't genocide. It should be noted that the distinction comes mostly from intent, motive, rather than action.

"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious
group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or
mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the
group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical
destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent
births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the
group to another group."

- As defined by the UN. I've never heard anything to suggest that the Geth operated out of anything more than self-defense. They didn't kill the quarian because they were quarian, or because they wanted to kill so many quarian; they killed them because they attacked, and killed the number necessary to ensure their own survival.

...Hrm...

...Looking at that definition, the UN sucks. God. If I break somebody's arm intentionally, it's genocide...

[GuardianAngel470]

JohnnyDollar wrote...

This reminds me of that TNG episode about Cmdr Data "The measure of a man". The debate here almost mirrors the show in so many ways.
It is also in some ways similar to the Krogans and the Genophage in that the circumstances involve actions/experiments that were taken before us, but we are left to to make a decision concerning the ramifications. Kind of reminds me of scientists experimenting with the ecosystem and almost always there are ramifications down the line because of the experimentation/actions that were done. Once the natural balance of nature is altered, it almost invariably goes wrong.

Very astute, johnny.

[marshalleck]

Schroing wrote...

- As defined by the UN. I've never heard anything to suggest that the Geth operated out of anything more than self-defense. They didn't kill the quarian because they were quarian, or because they wanted to kill so many quarian; they killed them because they attacked, and killed the number necessary to ensure their own survival.

...Hrm...

...Looking at that definition, the UN sucks. God. If I break somebody's arm intentionally, it's genocide...

The quarians' ancestor databanks featuring VI (not AI) representations of famous or notable quarians were destroyed in the geth rebellion. Why would the geth target objects of quarian culture for destruction if they were merely motivated by self-defense?

--Source is the codex entry for religion under the main quarian articles

Modifié par marshalleck, 09 mars 2010 - 12:47 .

[GuardianAngel470]

Schroing wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Schroing wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...

To say anyone "deserves"  genocide is just... monstrous.  The quarians deserved no such thing.

What happened to the quarians can, under no circumstances, be referred to as 'genocide.'

Umm, yes it can. Billions of non-combatants were slaughtered. The civilization was all but destroyed. The culture was destroyed. The only thing that saved the quarians from extinction was their flight beyond the borders of their former territory.

None of this is ever stated. There was a war. It was a very large war, and yes, billions died, but it certainly wasn't genocide. It should be noted that the distinction comes mostly from intent, motive, rather than action.

"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious
group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or
mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the
group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical
destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent
births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the
group to another group."

- As defined by the UN. I've never heard anything to suggest that the Geth operated out of anything more than self-defense. They didn't kill the quarian because they were quarian, or because they wanted to kill so many quarian; they killed them because they attacked, and killed the number necessary to ensure their own survival.

...Hrm...

...Looking at that definition, the UN sucks. God. If I break somebody's arm intentionally, it's genocide...

I have never heard that definition, thanks for posting.  I actually believe the Geth's initial intent was the complete destruction of the quarian race.  They weren't very smart in the beginning, and thus the most logical conclusion from a perspective of low mental ability would be to destroy the threat.  That means killing all quarians. I think that eventually, as their tech grew more sophisticated they realized that the destruction of the quarians wasn't necessary, and thus they allowed the quarians to leave.

An analogy would be you get attacked by a stranger in a dark alley.  Your initial instinct is to either fight or flee, for the purpose of this analogy lets say fleeing wasn't an option.  Fighting, to the less developed mind, might mean him or me, I die or he does, but someone with more mental capacity would realize that they don't have to kill the aggressor in order to get away. Kick to the balls or mace to the face would suffice.  It's the difference between instinct and logic.

[Inverness Moon]

Schroing wrote...

None of this is ever stated. There was a war. It was a very large war, and yes, billions died, but it certainly wasn't genocide. It should be noted that the distinction comes mostly from intent, motive, rather than action.

I agree with this. The intent of the geth was continued existence, far more noble a thing that what the quarians intended. This is part of the reason that I support the geth over the quarians.

Of course you can argue that the quarian intent was to shut down their faulty machines before they became sentient. But then you have to wonder what happened to the ones that they knew were sentient. And you also have to wonder at what point did they realize the geth were sentient, and if they even cared.

[Schroing]

marshalleck wrote...

Schroing wrote...

- As defined by the UN. I've never heard anything to suggest that the Geth operated out of anything more than self-defense. They didn't kill the quarian because they were quarian, or because they wanted to kill so many quarian; they killed them because they attacked, and killed the number necessary to ensure their own survival.

...Hrm...

...Looking at that definition, the UN sucks. God. If I break somebody's arm intentionally, it's genocide...

The quarians' ancestor databanks featuring VI (not AI) representations of famous or notable quarians were destroyed in the geth rebellion. Why would the geth target objects of quarian culture for destruction?

It's fully possible that whatever was containing those VI representations - whether it be a building, or the database itself - was being used for some other purpose.
More likely, they mean "lost" as in "left behind" rather than "destroyed."

[Inverness Moon]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

I have never heard that definition, thanks for posting.  I actually believe the Geth's initial intent was the complete destruction of the quarian race.  They weren't very smart in the beginning, and thus the most logical conclusion from a perspective of low mental ability would be to destroy the threat.  That means killing all quarians. I think that eventually, as their tech grew more sophisticated they realized that the destruction of the quarians wasn't necessary, and thus they allowed the quarians to leave.

An analogy would be you get attacked by a stranger in a dark alley.  Your initial instinct is to either fight or flee, for the purpose of this analogy lets say fleeing wasn't an option.  Fighting, to the less developed mind, might mean him or me, I die or he does, but someone with more mental capacity would realize that they don't have to kill the aggressor in order to get away. Kick to the balls or mace to the face would suffice.  It's the difference between instinct and logic.

On that point I theorized that maybe the geth didn't understand individuality at the time. So thought all quarians shared consensus in destroying the geth, so thought all quarians were threats.

[GuardianAngel470]

Schroing wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Schroing wrote...

- As defined by the UN. I've never heard anything to suggest that the Geth operated out of anything more than self-defense. They didn't kill the quarian because they were quarian, or because they wanted to kill so many quarian; they killed them because they attacked, and killed the number necessary to ensure their own survival.

...Hrm...

...Looking at that definition, the UN sucks. God. If I break somebody's arm intentionally, it's genocide...

The quarians' ancestor databanks featuring VI (not AI) representations of famous or notable quarians were destroyed in the geth rebellion. Why would the geth target objects of quarian culture for destruction?

It's fully possible that whatever was containing those VI representations - whether it be a building, or the database itself - was being used for some other purpose.
More likely, they mean "lost" as in "left behind" rather than "destroyed."

I think those were in fact destroyed, but if the geth were advanced enough then destroying the databases would serve a strategic purpose, to crush quarian morale.  

[marshalleck]

Schroing wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Schroing wrote...

- As defined by the UN. I've never heard anything to suggest that the Geth operated out of anything more than self-defense. They didn't kill the quarian because they were quarian, or because they wanted to kill so many quarian; they killed them because they attacked, and killed the number necessary to ensure their own survival.

...Hrm...

...Looking at that definition, the UN sucks. God. If I break somebody's arm intentionally, it's genocide...

The quarians' ancestor databanks featuring VI (not AI) representations of famous or notable quarians were destroyed in the geth rebellion. Why would the geth target objects of quarian culture for destruction?

It's fully possible that whatever was containing those VI representations - whether it be a building, or the database itself - was being used for some other purpose.
More likely, they mean "lost" as in "left behind" rather than "destroyed."

The codex entry says in specific language that the geth destroyed the databanks. Not that they were lost, not that the building was accidentally collapsed--the geth destroyed the databanks.

[GuardianAngel470]

Inverness Moon wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

I have never heard that definition, thanks for posting.  I actually believe the Geth's initial intent was the complete destruction of the quarian race.  They weren't very smart in the beginning, and thus the most logical conclusion from a perspective of low mental ability would be to destroy the threat.  That means killing all quarians. I think that eventually, as their tech grew more sophisticated they realized that the destruction of the quarians wasn't necessary, and thus they allowed the quarians to leave.

An analogy would be you get attacked by a stranger in a dark alley.  Your initial instinct is to either fight or flee, for the purpose of this analogy lets say fleeing wasn't an option.  Fighting, to the less developed mind, might mean him or me, I die or he does, but someone with more mental capacity would realize that they don't have to kill the aggressor in order to get away. Kick to the balls or mace to the face would suffice.  It's the difference between instinct and logic.

On that point I theorized that maybe the geth didn't understand individuality at the time. So thought all quarians shared consensus in destroying the geth, so thought all quarians were threats.

Yeah, that makes sense too.

[Schroing]

marshalleck wrote...

Schroing wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Schroing wrote...

- As defined by the UN. I've never heard anything to suggest that the Geth operated out of anything more than self-defense. They didn't kill the quarian because they were quarian, or because they wanted to kill so many quarian; they killed them because they attacked, and killed the number necessary to ensure their own survival.

...Hrm...

...Looking at that definition, the UN sucks. God. If I break somebody's arm intentionally, it's genocide...

The quarians' ancestor databanks featuring VI (not AI) representations of famous or notable quarians were destroyed in the geth rebellion. Why would the geth target objects of quarian culture for destruction?

It's fully possible that whatever was containing those VI representations - whether it be a building, or the database itself - was being used for some other purpose.
More likely, they mean "lost" as in "left behind" rather than "destroyed."

The codex entry says in specific language that the geth destroyed the databanks. Not that they were lost, not that the building was accidentally collapsed--the geth destroyed the databanks.

I never said it happened accidentally. It might've been used as a refuge, or even a...uh...battlement?
Which codex entry was this, by the way?

[marshalleck]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

I think those were in fact destroyed, but if the geth were advanced enough then destroying the databases would serve a strategic purpose, to crush quarian morale.  

You realize that this implies motive beyond simple self-defense, specifically targeting quarian culture for eradication. It supports an argument that the massacre not only of quarians but their civilization and culture was intentional, it supports a claim of genocide being perpetrated against the quarians. Especially in conjunction with killing non-combatants.

[GuardianAngel470]

Inverness Moon wrote...

Schroing wrote...

None of this is ever stated. There was a war. It was a very large war, and yes, billions died, but it certainly wasn't genocide. It should be noted that the distinction comes mostly from intent, motive, rather than action.

I agree with this. The intent of the geth was continued existence, far more noble a thing that what the quarians intended. This is part of the reason that I support the geth over the quarians.

Of course you can argue that the quarian intent was to shut down their faulty machines before they became sentient. But then you have to wonder what happened to the ones that they knew were sentient. And you also have to wonder at what point did they realize the geth were sentient, and if they even cared.

It should be noted Inverse that the Migrant Fleet Quarians aren't the same as the Morning War quarians.  I've said elsewhere but as far as I'm concerned the only quarians that should have been forced into exile were the Morning War quarians.  Not siding with the Migrant Fleet Quarians is foolish, especially since they are best equipped help evacuate civilians during the war with the reapers.  

I'm just saying that it would be a strategic mistake to side with one or the other, that peace should be achieved for the good of the galaxy. You don't have to listen to me though, it's not like I can force you to do the smart thing (kidding!!!).

[Inverness Moon]

marshalleck wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

I think those were in fact destroyed, but if the geth were advanced enough then destroying the databases would serve a strategic purpose, to crush quarian morale.  

You realize that this implies motive beyond simple self-defense, specifically targeting quarian culture for eradication. It supports an argument that the massacre not only of quarians but their civilization and culture was intentional, it supports a claim of genocide being perpetrated against the quarians. Especially in conjunction with killing non-combatants.

Crushing enemy moral is not an indication of of genocidal intent. 

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 09 mars 2010 - 01:09 .