Spectr61
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem
Origin: Spectr61
Posts: 799 Likes: 1,237
inherit
41
0
1,237
Spectr61
799
August 2016
spectr61
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem
Spectr61
|
Post by Spectr61 on Dec 28, 2020 21:38:26 GMT
If someone or something(s) are attempting to commit genocide and eradicate your entire race, is it justified to commit genocide on them?
For me, the answer is yes.
I did not set out to commit genocide, merely defend my existence; but once it becomes clear that is the goal of those attacking me, I have no problem doing exactly that to them.
|
|
Spectr61
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem
Origin: Spectr61
Posts: 799 Likes: 1,237
inherit
41
0
1,237
Spectr61
799
August 2016
spectr61
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem
Spectr61
|
Post by Spectr61 on Dec 28, 2020 21:42:57 GMT
Any real experts in the field of AI here? Not just self-proclaimed; but actual, credentialed experts? If so, I would like to hear their take.. As a quasi-expert on artificial intelligence, I can tell you with 100% certainty that if we put googly eyes on a CPU, we will be friends with it. If such looks and acts like Jack, I'm in!
|
|
inherit
✜ The Bunny Chaser
2824
0
May 16, 2024 23:34:40 GMT
6,604
Energizer Bunny 211
So far 2024 is the same as the previous three years...
5,901
Jan 15, 2017 18:43:23 GMT
January 2017
energizerbunny211
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem
Rumbler1138
|
Post by Energizer Bunny 211 on Dec 28, 2020 22:30:30 GMT
And for the record, I have always only chosen the Destroy ending because after all, that is what Shepard was tasked to do from the very start: Destroy the Reapers. To do anything else, no matter how sad the Destroy ending is, totally negates the goals of the whole trilogy. I mean right from the first installment Shepard knew the Reapers were coming (whatever they were) and that they had to be stopped. They had to be destroyed. And even though the Illusive Man tinkered and dabbled with other more subversive methods (which didn't end well for him), Shepard, Anderson, Hackett...everyone knew that destroying the Reapers was the only way.
|
|
cptdata
N2
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 60 Likes: 92
inherit
3198
0
Sept 6, 2021 23:39:28 GMT
92
cptdata
60
Jan 31, 2017 22:35:03 GMT
January 2017
cptdata
Mass Effect Trilogy, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by cptdata on Dec 28, 2020 22:37:17 GMT
And for the record, I have always only chosen the Destroy ending because after all, that is what Shepard was tasked to do from the very start: Destroy the Reapers. To do anything else, no matter how sad the Destroy ending is, totally negates the goals of the whole trilogy. I mean right from the first installment Shepard knew the Reapers were coming (whatever they were) and that they had to be stopped. They had to be destroyed. And even though the Illusive Man tinkered and dabbled with other more subversive methods (which didn't end well for him), Shepard, Anderson, Hackett...everyone knew that destroying the Reapers was the only way. "Destruction Ending" is more or less Shepard's ending, while "Synthesis" is Sarens ending and "Control" is TIM's ending. And both failed! The only "good" thing here is the fact Shepard can decide to go through with it and ignore the supposedly "better" endings. After all, no matter what, "Destruction" will come with a massive death toll and friends and allies will die (if you saved the Geth). Neither "Control" nor "Synthesis" comes with that many killed beings. However, ONLY "Destruction" comes with free will, while the other two endings either violate or end the idea of free will.
|
|
Carcharoth
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
XBL Gamertag: Carcharoth42
PSN: Fenrisulfr42
Posts: 333 Likes: 891
inherit
136
0
891
Carcharoth
333
August 2016
carcharoth
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
Carcharoth42
Fenrisulfr42
|
Post by Carcharoth on Dec 28, 2020 22:59:01 GMT
It's also easier to modify destroy for future installments to make it more palatable for those that dislike it. Explaining geth still being around as the red wave only rolling back the reaper upgrade, or there having been geth that hadn't been updated, is easier than having space squid Shepard floating around or everyone glowing green and chatting with their toaster. It's also the only option that leaves Shepard potentially alive for future use, unless you want more clones. And destroying the reapers opens the door for other threats, which won't get overshadowed by mecha-cthulhu lurking around in the background.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Dec 28, 2020 23:31:56 GMT
OK show the connection between DNA and thought. Show me the DNA sequences that makes someone like country music and the DNA sequences that like rap. Hell both of my parents are very conservative in politics and yet my own political stance is far far more liberal. 1 your science is bad, it has been repeatedly been proven that DNA influences large parts of a person thoughts. Please provide that evidence. I would love to see the research that shows certain genetic sequences make you predisposed to liking hip hop over country. I want to see the liberal or conservative genes.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Dec 28, 2020 23:33:46 GMT
Yes SEEMINGLY. Just like everyone was SEEMINGLY synchronized about the whole stop the Reapers during the invasion of Earth. Does that mean that Shepard forcibly altered everyone's mind to get them to all work together towards the goal of retaking Earth and deploying the Crucible against the Reapers? The Salarins seem pretty synchronized about their view of the Krogan and how the Genophage was a good thing. We have only a few outliers on the whole idea. What kind of DNA brain washing did the Salarians do to each other to have such an opinion? Quarins all seem to think a like and act alike and have not had any attempted coups or splinting of the Flotilla in 200 years. What sort of brain washing allows them to seem to synchronize about the whole thing?
So you have a moral objective to DNA alteration even though it does nothing but improve people. OK fine. Where on your arbitrary morality line does directly causing the mass death of millions and the indirect death of hundreds of millions if not billions that would take place during Destroy if it was not given the same fairy tale ending that Synthesis gets? Because upgrade to everyone vs little Tammy watching her parents get killed for what meager resources they have before she is forcibly taken as slave labor or worse for the gang that attacked the house because all technology is gone and it has descended into anarchy is much worse to me.
Key difference here is that we know exactly how and why anyone decides to pledge support to Shepard, as well as how and why the groups we encounter think the way they do, given their history. No one snapped their fingers or pressed a button to shift the general mindset of other people. It was years of mistakes and conflicts that led to difficult decisions that lasted for generations. Synthesis, on the other hand, has no explanation as to precisely what it does or how it’s supposed to solve anyone’s problems. The most we get remotely resembling an explanation is that it grants “understanding” to the people that are altered, but that’s incredibly vague, especially when this is something conceptualized by a being that may not even fully comprehend the difference between the individual and the collective. The problem with Synthesis is not really the “improvement” that it’s supposed to grant people, but rather that we don’t really know what these improvements are supposed to be, or exactly why we need them before it’s too late to change your mind. If I told you that you could end crime in your city at the push of a button, wouldn’t you be curious as to what horrible catch that might entail? Synthesis is framed as a necessity, yet offers no support to establish that necessity. The bottom line is basically this: Synthesis’ only key support in the story is that it prevents the deaths of EDI and the geth. If Destroy allowed you to spare all non-reaper synthetics, it would have zero legs to stand on. Show me the detailed time line of post choice. Show me these ideas and thoughts were gained within only a few minutes of the event. Show me there were not days, weeks, months or even years before conclusions are reached.
|
|
ahglock
N5
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Shattered Steel, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem
Origin: ShinobiKillfist
Posts: 2,869 Likes: 3,487
inherit
9886
0
May 16, 2024 18:17:16 GMT
3,487
ahglock
2,869
Feb 21, 2018 17:57:17 GMT
February 2018
ahglock
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Shattered Steel, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem
ShinobiKillfist
|
Post by ahglock on Dec 28, 2020 23:41:03 GMT
Key difference here is that we know exactly how and why anyone decides to pledge support to Shepard, as well as how and why the groups we encounter think the way they do, given their history. No one snapped their fingers or pressed a button to shift the general mindset of other people. It was years of mistakes and conflicts that led to difficult decisions that lasted for generations. Synthesis, on the other hand, has no explanation as to precisely what it does or how it’s supposed to solve anyone’s problems. The most we get remotely resembling an explanation is that it grants “understanding” to the people that are altered, but that’s incredibly vague, especially when this is something conceptualized by a being that may not even fully comprehend the difference between the individual and the collective. The problem with Synthesis is not really the “improvement” that it’s supposed to grant people, but rather that we don’t really know what these improvements are supposed to be, or exactly why we need them before it’s too late to change your mind. If I told you that you could end crime in your city at the push of a button, wouldn’t you be curious as to what horrible catch that might entail? Synthesis is framed as a necessity, yet offers no support to establish that necessity. The bottom line is basically this: Synthesis’ only key support in the story is that it prevents the deaths of EDI and the geth. If Destroy allowed you to spare all non-reaper synthetics, it would have zero legs to stand on. Show me the detailed time line of post choice. Show me these ideas and thoughts were gained within only a few minutes of the event. Show me there were not days, weeks, months or even years before conclusions are reached. Show me the geth are alive.
|
|
ahglock
N5
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Shattered Steel, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem
Origin: ShinobiKillfist
Posts: 2,869 Likes: 3,487
inherit
9886
0
May 16, 2024 18:17:16 GMT
3,487
ahglock
2,869
Feb 21, 2018 17:57:17 GMT
February 2018
ahglock
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Shattered Steel, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem
ShinobiKillfist
|
Post by ahglock on Dec 28, 2020 23:41:21 GMT
1 your science is bad, it has been repeatedly been proven that DNA influences large parts of a person thoughts. Please provide that evidence. I would love to see the research that shows certain genetic sequences make you predisposed to liking hip hop over country. I want to see the liberal or conservative genes. Get off your ass and do your own research.
|
|
Carcharoth
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
XBL Gamertag: Carcharoth42
PSN: Fenrisulfr42
Posts: 333 Likes: 891
inherit
136
0
891
Carcharoth
333
August 2016
carcharoth
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
Carcharoth42
Fenrisulfr42
|
Post by Carcharoth on Dec 28, 2020 23:52:27 GMT
1 your science is bad, it has been repeatedly been proven that DNA influences large parts of a person thoughts. Please provide that evidence. I would love to see the research that shows certain genetic sequences make you predisposed to liking hip hop over country. I want to see the liberal or conservative genes. Here's a psychologytoday article on it. There's also a documentary on the studies from the 70's through 90's on the twin and triplet research called "Three Identical Strangers," that covers the findings a bit, though it focused more on the ethics of the experiments, iirc. The triplets in question were adopted out to three different families of varying socioeconomic statuses, yet still ended up with similar interests and tastes. They only met for the first time at 19.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Dec 28, 2020 23:59:02 GMT
Yes SEEMINGLY. Just like everyone was SEEMINGLY synchronized about the whole stop the Reapers during the invasion of Earth. Does that mean that Shepard forcibly altered everyone's mind to get them to all work together towards the goal of retaking Earth and deploying the Crucible against the Reapers? The Salarins seem pretty synchronized about their view of the Krogan and how the Genophage was a good thing. We have only a few outliers on the whole idea. What kind of DNA brain washing did the Salarians do to each other to have such an opinion? Quarins all seem to think a like and act alike and have not had any attempted coups or splinting of the Flotilla in 200 years. What sort of brain washing allows them to seem to synchronize about the whole thing?
So you have a moral objective to DNA alteration even though it does nothing but improve people. OK fine. Where on your arbitrary morality line does directly causing the mass death of millions and the indirect death of hundreds of millions if not billions that would take place during Destroy if it was not given the same fairy tale ending that Synthesis gets? Because upgrade to everyone vs little Tammy watching her parents get killed for what meager resources they have before she is forcibly taken as slave labor or worse for the gang that attacked the house because all technology is gone and it has descended into anarchy is much worse to me.
I wouldn't call leaving the decision whether you want to merge with synthetics up to you arbitrary. Yes, self determination and free will is that important to me that I will not make such a decision for you nor for the whole galaxy. Why did I say that synthesis seemingly also alters the mind? Because that's the only explanation to me for everyone accepting such a drastic change of their being without a revolt. I also already said that your concerns about destroy are legitimate concerns, although of course I don't see billions dying. Every organic stays alive, the knowledge and lessons learned through encountering the Reapers are still there, so I am pretty hopeful for that scenario. Morality is arbitrary. To quote The Hogfather:
There is no such thing as objective morality. At best we have looses broadest possible interpretation of it. Which ultimately boils down to simply what is best to protect ourselves from others. Killing is bad not because of any objective truth or reality of the universe. Indeed death in all it's forms are a fundamental part of reality. No killing is bad because we don't want to die so we hold killing as bad for sheer self preservation. Due to this morality will shift and alter slightly to greatly with each individual person. This is why your moral argument is arbitrary. Because we invented the concept out of thin air and we create our own concepts of it. You can prove morality about as much as I can prove the color red is the best color in the world.
You think synthesis forces minds to change because you can not fathom the idea of people changing their minds. This comes into conflict with the Krogan and the Turians. Were the latter agrees to cure the former of their sterility plague. It comes into conflict with the Quarians and Geth who both changed their minds to form a truce with each other. It comes into conflict with the entire concepts of ME3 that shows a galaxy uniting together against a common threat. Changing their minds about old hatreds and suspicions to work together. Your inability to grasp the concept of people changing minds when presented with new details, information or experiences is simply your own problem and projecting them onto an entire galaxy is foolish at best.
We see the same kind of peace happening with all the endings. Including refuse ending were it is heavily implied. This means no matter what happens the galaxy unites together to rebuild and gains a better understanding by breaking down those old barriers.
You validate destroy as morally acceptable simply because you do not SEE billions die? But you claim synthesis violates them and forcibly changes their mind simply because you want it to?
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Dec 29, 2020 0:00:16 GMT
Show me the detailed time line of post choice. Show me these ideas and thoughts were gained within only a few minutes of the event. Show me there were not days, weeks, months or even years before conclusions are reached. Show me the geth are alive. Show me you are alive. Show me how I'm alive. Show me how your pet is alive. Show me how a tree is alive.
|
|
Carcharoth
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
XBL Gamertag: Carcharoth42
PSN: Fenrisulfr42
Posts: 333 Likes: 891
inherit
136
0
891
Carcharoth
333
August 2016
carcharoth
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
Carcharoth42
Fenrisulfr42
|
Post by Carcharoth on Dec 29, 2020 0:09:46 GMT
Show me the geth are alive. Show me you are alive. Show me how I'm alive. Show me how your pet is alive. Show me how a tree is alive. Cell division.
|
|
inherit
3439
0
9,204
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,840
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Dec 29, 2020 0:48:05 GMT
If someone or something(s) are attempting to commit genocide and eradicate your entire race, is it justified to commit genocide on them? For me, the answer is yes. Wouldn't the answer to that question depend on your available alternatives?
|
|
inherit
3439
0
9,204
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,840
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Dec 29, 2020 0:49:17 GMT
Show me the geth are alive. Show me you are alive. Show me how I'm alive. Show me how your pet is alive. Show me how a tree is alive. Until you two actually define "life," this is going nowhere.
|
|
inherit
1129
0
Mar 19, 2024 19:19:28 GMT
2,051
traks
1,012
Aug 22, 2016 11:07:02 GMT
August 2016
traks
Mass Effect Trilogy, Mass Effect Andromeda
t_raks_99
|
Post by traks on Dec 29, 2020 0:51:49 GMT
I wouldn't call leaving the decision whether you want to merge with synthetics up to you arbitrary. Yes, self determination and free will is that important to me that I will not make such a decision for you nor for the whole galaxy. Why did I say that synthesis seemingly also alters the mind? Because that's the only explanation to me for everyone accepting such a drastic change of their being without a revolt. I also already said that your concerns about destroy are legitimate concerns, although of course I don't see billions dying. Every organic stays alive, the knowledge and lessons learned through encountering the Reapers are still there, so I am pretty hopeful for that scenario. Morality is arbitrary. To quote The Hogfather:
There is no such thing as objective morality. At best we have looses broadest possible interpretation of it. Which ultimately boils down to simply what is best to protect ourselves from others. Killing is bad not because of any objective truth or reality of the universe. Indeed death in all it's forms are a fundamental part of reality. No killing is bad because we don't want to die so we hold killing as bad for sheer self preservation. Due to this morality will shift and alter slightly to greatly with each individual person. This is why your moral argument is arbitrary. Because we invented the concept out of thin air and we create our own concepts of it. You can prove morality about as much as I can prove the color red is the best color in the world.
You think synthesis forces minds to change because you can not fathom the idea of people changing their minds. This comes into conflict with the Krogan and the Turians. Were the latter agrees to cure the former of their sterility plague. It comes into conflict with the Quarians and Geth who both changed their minds to form a truce with each other. It comes into conflict with the entire concepts of ME3 that shows a galaxy uniting together against a common threat. Changing their minds about old hatreds and suspicions to work together. Your inability to grasp the concept of people changing minds when presented with new details, information or experiences is simply your own problem and projecting them onto an entire galaxy is foolish at best.
We see the same kind of peace happening with all the endings. Including refuse ending were it is heavily implied. This means no matter what happens the galaxy unites together to rebuild and gains a better understanding by breaking down those old barriers.
You validate destroy as morally acceptable simply because you do not SEE billions die? But you claim synthesis violates them and forcibly changes their mind simply because you want it to?
What is this, what are you even talking about? The people of the galaxy are not presented new details to form a different opinion by Shepard. Synthesis instantly changes the DNA and the minds by activating the crucible, not because anyone gets convinced and the DNA changes through natural evolution. Basically by a button press from Shepard (the jump). That's Ok for you, but not for me. And that's that. No one ever mentioned anything about 'objectively'. Subjectively for me that's a line I won't cross. As I said, if you want to merge with synthetics, you gotta decide that for yourself (and please let me decide for myself). Synthesis in ME3 gets forced on people, not because I want to interpret it that way, but because it's presented that way. Whether you want to accept that or not. Who said I validate destroy as acceptable, because I don't see billions die? I said I don't interpret it as such a doomsday scenario, but that has nothing to do with the decision for it. I summarized many times in this thread, why for me destroy is the best ending. I also mentioned many times that I have no intention of convincing you not to choose synthesis. It would be nice though, if you could acknowledge that others also have thought their decision through and come to a different solution than you, instead of insulting others of not grasping what's presented. I think it's a matter of different values.
|
|
inherit
3439
0
9,204
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,840
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Dec 29, 2020 0:53:26 GMT
And for the record, I have always only chosen the Destroy ending because after all, that is what Shepard was tasked to do from the very start: Destroy the Reapers. To do anything else, no matter how sad the Destroy ending is, totally negates the goals of the whole trilogy. I mean right from the first installment Shepard knew the Reapers were coming (whatever they were) and that they had to be stopped. They had to be destroyed. And even though the Illusive Man tinkered and dabbled with other more subversive methods (which didn't end well for him), Shepard, Anderson, Hackett...everyone knew that destroying the Reapers was the only way. I'm not sure why Shepard being tasked with destroying the Reapers is meaningful. She's a sapient being, not a robot. I agree that it's a valid RP choice to say that choosing anything other than Destroy is above her pay grade, though.
|
|
inherit
3439
0
9,204
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,840
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Dec 29, 2020 1:00:50 GMT
What is this, what are you even talking about? The people of the galaxy are not presented new details to form a different opinion by Shepard. Synthesis instantly changes the DNA and the minds by activating the crucible, not because anyone gets convinced and the DNA changes through natural evolution. Basically by a button press from Shepard (the jump). That's Ok for you, but not for me. And that's that. No one ever mentioned anything about 'objectively'. He might be arguing that Synthesized people are now smarter and have better information available to them. Although that's mind control too, in a sense.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Dec 29, 2020 1:24:49 GMT
And I only used it as an example of your own use of an emotional appeal. Pinky promise. Definitely not used ironically to tweak your nose. The use of a loaded term is still unwarranted in a discussion about the endings, and especially one where the comparison wasn't made by anyone else that is actually here. Otherwise you open yourself up to all manner of accusations because someone else, somewhere else, said something similar.
There was no loaded word unless it was being directed at someone. You directly went at them accusing them of claiming someone on this thread said it when no one actually said anything like that. They didn't' even quote anybody they simply made a statement and you instantly took personal offense to it. And when I give an explanation about hypocrisy in people's logic you launch into an emotional responds after emotional responds. While hypocritically being against emotional responds.
1.Why is it more important? What is the reason why? There are no negative consequences. No scars, no need for immune suppressants, no risk of failure or rejection. In fact if given to an newborn it will grow with them and always operate at peak performance for their entire 90 years of existence. Even on their death bed their heart will be operating at the level of a 20 year old Olympic athlete.
2. It doesn't matter if your wife knows your wishes. She made the choice not you. This is someone making choices for your body. 3. Why are children not given important choices? Their body they should choose what happens to it. The entire concept of an adult making a choice for a child under their care is literally another person making a choice for another person.
If body autonomy is so important then no one should be able to make choices about your body but you. No spouse or relatives. No parents or guardians. Unless you don't believe in absolutes in which you need to get some detailed reasoning and rationalization why it is acceptable for exceptions to the rule.
Hypocrisy is claiming that no one can change their mind while playing a game that shows people changing their minds.
Because you complained about emotional appeal and then proceeded to use emotional appeal time and time again.
What time stamp does Leviathan say that it is malfunctioning? What circular logic? The Reapers harvest each galaxy before a technological singularity. Selecting only advanced races while leaving the lesser races alive. In the millions of cycles you would never know that every 50,000 years the harvest takes place by looking at the state of the galaxy and the diversity of life across the galaxy.
And what happens if Shepard doesn't talk down the Quarians? They attack the upgraded Geth and are wiped out. Had the Reapers not been invading the Quarians would have rushed though the Mass Relay and broke the Geth's metaphorical back and then any remaining ones would have been given the synthetic equivalent of a lobotomy and turned back into simple mindless VI servants. Admiral Daro'Xen vas Moreh makes her wishes to return the Geth to serving their masters once again very clear.
They have implied downsides that are never shown during the ending slide show. Every single ending has perfect were everything goes right and everyone lives happily ever after.
And yet this is different from the Alpha Relay incident. You claimed they are one in the same. And you said emotional appeals are bad while engaging in emotional appeals.
Last I checked Wrex is a Krogan so there is no outside force acting on Krogan.
And yet there is a noticeable change in EDI's character after the shackles are released. In fact Joker goes from out right hating her to actually liking her. The fact he spent 90% of the game complaining about her then suddenly becomes more friendly about her shows there was a personality shift.
No the Heretics came to their own conclusion and were allowed to leave. If it was any sort of virus by the Old Machines then the entirety of the Geth would be under their influence and Legion and the "true" geth would be the minority. Rather then the other way around. Sovereign left the Heretics a virus that would be able to forcibly alter the geth's opinions to line up with theirs. Which Legion repurposes and offers as a choice to brain wash the Heretics into accepting their views.
They are not badly written. Every ending is designed to have a happy ending because that is what people wanted and so that is what BW gave people to make them happy. The problem comes about from people trying to single out Synthesis as some unrealistic happy ending when ALL endings are just as guilty.
Please provide that evidence. I would love to see the research that shows certain genetic sequences make you predisposed to liking hip hop over country. I want to see the liberal or conservative genes. Here's a psychologytoday article on it. There's also a documentary on the studies from the 70's through 90's on the twin and triplet research called "Three Identical Strangers," that covers the findings a bit, though it focused more on the ethics of the experiments, iirc. The triplets in question were adopted out to three different families of varying socioeconomic statuses, yet still ended up with similar interests and tastes. They only met for the first time at 19.
Correlation is not causation. They say that there is no proof to support it and then they say that it still has to exist because of a few other studies that are not 100% repeatable.
Three Identical Strangers also has the study results sealed until around 2060. So trying to use that as an example is poor because no one has access to the results yet.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Dec 29, 2020 1:27:17 GMT
Show me you are alive. Show me how I'm alive. Show me how your pet is alive. Show me how a tree is alive. Cell division. Cell division isn't required for life. That definition only fits biological life. Artificial life would use entirely different definitions.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Dec 29, 2020 1:27:47 GMT
Show me you are alive. Show me how I'm alive. Show me how your pet is alive. Show me how a tree is alive. Until you two actually define "life," this is going nowhere. And that is why I'm not taking it seriously. They simply want to be contrarian so I'm humoring them.
|
|
inherit
✜ The Bunny Chaser
2824
0
May 16, 2024 23:34:40 GMT
6,604
Energizer Bunny 211
So far 2024 is the same as the previous three years...
5,901
Jan 15, 2017 18:43:23 GMT
January 2017
energizerbunny211
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem
Rumbler1138
|
Post by Energizer Bunny 211 on Dec 29, 2020 1:30:20 GMT
And for the record, I have always only chosen the Destroy ending because after all, that is what Shepard was tasked to do from the very start: Destroy the Reapers. To do anything else, no matter how sad the Destroy ending is, totally negates the goals of the whole trilogy. I mean right from the first installment Shepard knew the Reapers were coming (whatever they were) and that they had to be stopped. They had to be destroyed. And even though the Illusive Man tinkered and dabbled with other more subversive methods (which didn't end well for him), Shepard, Anderson, Hackett...everyone knew that destroying the Reapers was the only way. "Destruction Ending" is more or less Shepard's ending, while "Synthesis" is Sarens ending and "Control" is TIM's ending. And both failed! The only "good" thing here is the fact Shepard can decide to go through with it and ignore the supposedly "better" endings. After all, no matter what, "Destruction" will come with a massive death toll and friends and allies will die (if you saved the Geth). Neither "Control" nor "Synthesis" comes with that many killed beings. However, ONLY "Destruction" comes with free will, while the other two endings either violate or end the idea of free will. I never thought about it that way but you make a good point.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Dec 29, 2020 1:42:25 GMT
Morality is arbitrary. To quote The Hogfather:
There is no such thing as objective morality. At best we have looses broadest possible interpretation of it. Which ultimately boils down to simply what is best to protect ourselves from others. Killing is bad not because of any objective truth or reality of the universe. Indeed death in all it's forms are a fundamental part of reality. No killing is bad because we don't want to die so we hold killing as bad for sheer self preservation. Due to this morality will shift and alter slightly to greatly with each individual person. This is why your moral argument is arbitrary. Because we invented the concept out of thin air and we create our own concepts of it. You can prove morality about as much as I can prove the color red is the best color in the world.
You think synthesis forces minds to change because you can not fathom the idea of people changing their minds. This comes into conflict with the Krogan and the Turians. Were the latter agrees to cure the former of their sterility plague. It comes into conflict with the Quarians and Geth who both changed their minds to form a truce with each other. It comes into conflict with the entire concepts of ME3 that shows a galaxy uniting together against a common threat. Changing their minds about old hatreds and suspicions to work together. Your inability to grasp the concept of people changing minds when presented with new details, information or experiences is simply your own problem and projecting them onto an entire galaxy is foolish at best.
We see the same kind of peace happening with all the endings. Including refuse ending were it is heavily implied. This means no matter what happens the galaxy unites together to rebuild and gains a better understanding by breaking down those old barriers.
You validate destroy as morally acceptable simply because you do not SEE billions die? But you claim synthesis violates them and forcibly changes their mind simply because you want it to?
What is this, what are you even talking about? The people of the galaxy are not presented new details to form a different opinion by Shepard. Synthesis instantly changes the DNA and the minds by activating the crucible, not because anyone gets convinced and the DNA changes through natural evolution. Basically by a button press from Shepard (the jump). That's Ok for you, but not for me. And that's that. No one ever mentioned anything about 'objectively'. Subjectively for me that's a line I won't cross. As I said, if you want to merge with synthetics, you gotta decide that for yourself (and please let me decide for myself). Synthesis in ME3 gets forced on people, not because I want to interpret it that way, but because it's presented that way. Whether you want to accept that or not. Who said I validate destroy as acceptable, because I don't see billions die? I said I don't interpret it as such a doomsday scenario, but that has nothing to do with the decision for it. I summarized many times in this thread, why for me destroy is the best ending. I also mentioned many times that I have no intention of convincing you not to choose synthesis. It would be nice though, if you could acknowledge that others also have thought their decision through and come to a different solution than you, instead of insulting others of not grasping what's presented. I think it's a matter of different values. You have no proof of minds being changed by the direct effect of the synthesis wave. You keep repeating a lie as if it will make it true.
So you would rather kill millions of people? Or are you only able to accept the death of millions because you do not see it?
You don't interpret it because you don't want to see it as a doomsday scenario. Because the game gives it the same fairy tale ending style that Synthesis gets. But if you strip away the fairy tale ending and apply the same logic you apply to synthesis then suddenly you are turning entire planets into hellscapes were millions of people are culled by starvation, disease and death. As they are forced to revert to 5th century farming which would be incapable of supporting the massive populations of heavily developed planets. You make the conscious choice to selectively apply your ending outrage by painting synthesis with things that nothing supports besides what ever you pull out of thin air. While choosing to not apply similar set ups to other endings.
I don't care what ending you pick. My issue is you literally make shit up and apply it only to a single ending. Then complain about that ending because of the stuff you pull out of thin air. While not equally applying that to all endings.
|
|
inherit
3400
0
535
mugwump
393
February 2017
mugwump
|
Post by mugwump on Dec 29, 2020 2:00:43 GMT
Given that the aforementioned green wave brought a instant end to hostilities, Synthesis clearly changes 'people' as a matter of both body and mind.
|
|
inherit
3439
0
9,204
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,840
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Dec 29, 2020 2:01:39 GMT
1 your science is bad, it has been repeatedly been proven that DNA influences large parts of a person thoughts. Please provide that evidence. I would love to see the research that shows certain genetic sequences make you predisposed to liking hip hop over country. I want to see the liberal or conservative genes. Studies of identical twins raised separately do show a fairly large personality effect from genetics.
|
|