inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Jul 3, 2021 13:40:29 GMT
When discussing the endings to Mass Effect 3 any when the topic of synthesis comes up there will usually be one or two people at a minimum that mentions synthesis is bad because Shepard doesn't have the consent of the galaxy for the changes made post synthesis. And without consent those changes no matter how good or beneficial they could be are inherently bad because no consent was given. This is a pretty classic moral absolutist stance because their argument is based around the fact lack of consent makes what ever else happens no matter how beneficial morally wrong.
However the game trilogy doesn't really hold to this moral absolutism view very much if at all. The entire 2nd game is about working with a known terrorist organization to save human colonies. The entire basis of the game violates the foundation of a moral absolutist view because helping a known terrorist organization is always morally wrong even if good actually comes of it.
And beyond even that across the trilogy there are multiple instance of individuals being effected by Shepard's actions without anything resembling consent. A short list including but not limited to:
1. Killing the Rachni Queen in either ME1 or ME3. As in both cases the Queen doesn't want to die or be left a slave for the Reapers. Your actions are made without her consent.
2. With holding the Alliance Fleet in ME1. The hundreds of Asari and Turians never consented to Shepard choosing if they live or die. While they all joined the military Shepard is not their commanding officer. Shepard is not affiliated with their individual species's military nor the combined Fleets. Shepard is only affiliated with the Alliance Fleet so Hackett as the ranking officer deferring to Shepard's tactical opinion as he is the highest ranking officer on scene makes sense. But Shepard never contacts any Captains or Admirals in charge of the Citadel Fleet to ask or even advise them of their plan.
3. Selling Legion to Cerberus.
4. Revealing the evidence against Tali's wishes during her trial.
5. Selecting which missile to disable before it strikes the colony. You either save the colonists and destroy the viability of the colony effecting thousands of lives. Or you sacrifice thousands of lives while keeping the colony viable for re-population.
6. Denying Legion/VI Legion the ability to upload the Reaper code. Shepard was not put in charge by any of the Geth to decide their future. Both Legion versions will fight back if Shepard tries to stop the upload.
7. The Geth and EDI never consented to being wiped out by the Destroy ending.
8. The galaxy never consents to Shepard refusing to make a choice leaving them all to be harvested by the Reapers.
9. The Geth never consented to (potentially) be taken over in the Control ending. Depending on how you want to interpret a picture of the Reapers and Geth together with the lines "There is wisdom in using your enemy's power against them."
You basically have to be an ultra super paragon to avoid most of these in game. And even then a few can still show up regardless of renegade or paragon action. But when these points are brought up to the last couple of people who used consent as their core argument why synthesis is inherently bad no matter what the results are they suddenly didn't want to talk anymore. So I am opening this discussion up to more people who hold similar views but might be willing to address the rather blatant hypocrisy of attempting to hold a moral absolutist view of synthesis but ignores everything else. The trilogy as a whole operates more on consequentialism then anything. Were an action is considered good or bad depending on the context and outcome.
A great example is the Genophage. The Krogan never consented to the Salarians researching it and never consented to the Turians deploying it. By the same consent argument used against synthesis the Turains and Salarians are monsters on the same level as the Reapers. Yet the actions of both groups ended a long bloody galaxy war and ensured peace for hundreds of years. Even the non krogan individuals who want to cure the Genophage never actually state (to my memory) that the initial deployment of it was bad. Only that the Krogan have suffered enough.
So for anyone holding this moral absolutist view point in a game build around consequentialism how do you rationalize the hypocrisy of your own ideology as it clashes with events in game and personal choice you make?
|
|
inherit
1374
0
162
winterking
107
Aug 31, 2016 10:26:58 GMT
August 2016
winterking
|
Post by winterking on Jul 6, 2021 9:54:05 GMT
You don't have to be an ultra paragon to avoid most those issues though. My main Shep is more renegade than paragon and avoids most of the issues. He saves the Council, saves the Rachni Queen, turns up Legion and lets Legion upload the Reaper Code, he also solves the Tali situation without exposing her father. He does save the colonists but being a colonist himself, he has a soft spot for them.
Destroying the Reapers is the only issue he doesn't avoid.
Not that he claimed to be a moral absolutist.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Jul 6, 2021 12:06:46 GMT
You don't have to be an ultra paragon to avoid most those issues though. My main Shep is more renegade than paragon and avoids most of the issues. He saves the Council, saves the Rachni Queen, turns up Legion and lets Legion upload the Reaper Code, he also solves the Tali situation without exposing her father. He does save the colonists but being a colonist himself, he has a soft spot for them. Destroying the Reapers is the only issue he doesn't avoid. Not that he claimed to be a moral absolutist.
Do you use the argument that it is morally wrong because there is no consent of the galaxy?
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
Nov 26, 2024 12:38:10 GMT
26,299
themikefest
15,635
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Jul 6, 2021 12:14:38 GMT
Where's the question asking did the galaxy give Shepard consent when he/she chooses the green that alters their dna?
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Jul 6, 2021 12:36:06 GMT
Where's the question asking did the galaxy give Shepard consent when he/she chooses the green that alters their dna? So close. So very very very close to the point. But I already explained it to you in another thread so still waiting for your reply.
|
|
inherit
1374
0
162
winterking
107
Aug 31, 2016 10:26:58 GMT
August 2016
winterking
|
Post by winterking on Jul 6, 2021 12:42:24 GMT
You don't have to be an ultra paragon to avoid most those issues though. My main Shep is more renegade than paragon and avoids most of the issues. He saves the Council, saves the Rachni Queen, turns up Legion and lets Legion upload the Reaper Code, he also solves the Tali situation without exposing her father. He does save the colonists but being a colonist himself, he has a soft spot for them. Destroying the Reapers is the only issue he doesn't avoid. Not that he claimed to be a moral absolutist.
Do you use the argument that it is morally wrong because there is no consent of the galaxy?
Nope.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Jul 6, 2021 12:56:28 GMT
Do you use the argument that it is morally wrong because there is no consent of the galaxy?
Nope. Then this topic is not directed towards you. This is directed towards individuals who use lack of consent as their core if not singular argument why synthesis is bad. While supporting and/or engaging in activities and choices across the trilogy that ignore or lack consent of individuals or groups. Making their entire argument hypocritical.
Basically becoming that anti-gay and pro "family" politician who is found out to be hiring rent boys and getting blow jobs from guys in bathrooms.
|
|
inherit
1374
0
162
winterking
107
Aug 31, 2016 10:26:58 GMT
August 2016
winterking
|
Post by winterking on Jul 6, 2021 12:58:47 GMT
Then this topic is not directed towards you. This is directed towards individuals who use lack of consent as their core if not singular argument why synthesis is bad. While supporting and/or engaging in activities and choices across the trilogy that ignore or lack consent of individuals or groups. Making their entire argument hypocritical.
Basically becoming that anti-gay and pro "family" politician who is found out to be hiring rent boys and getting blow jobs from guys in bathrooms.
I know. I was just pointing out that it's possible to avoid those issues with a Renegade Shep.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Jul 6, 2021 13:30:33 GMT
Then this topic is not directed towards you. This is directed towards individuals who use lack of consent as their core if not singular argument why synthesis is bad. While supporting and/or engaging in activities and choices across the trilogy that ignore or lack consent of individuals or groups. Making their entire argument hypocritical.
Basically becoming that anti-gay and pro "family" politician who is found out to be hiring rent boys and getting blow jobs from guys in bathrooms.
I know. I was just pointing out that it's possible to avoid those issues with a Renegade Shep. Depends on your individual definition of renegade. The myriad of choices makes it almost impossible to give specifics. Which is why I chose a few choices out of the trilogy that I have seen people give a wide variety of answers and reasons behind.
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
Nov 26, 2024 12:38:10 GMT
26,299
themikefest
15,635
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Jul 6, 2021 13:55:30 GMT
Where's the question asking did the galaxy give Shepard consent when he/she chooses the green that alters their dna? So close. So very very very close to the point. But I already explained it to you in another thread so still waiting for your reply. You did not. You're just deflecting, dodging as to why you won't post that question when posting the other questions.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Jul 6, 2021 14:20:39 GMT
So close. So very very very close to the point. But I already explained it to you in another thread so still waiting for your reply. You did not. You're just deflecting, dodging as to why you won't post that question when posting the other questions. I asked you when did the Geth and EDI give you permission to destroy them with the Destroy ending. I asked you when they consented to be controlled by the Control ending. You refused to answer.
Your question is only valid if I also use the moral absolutist consent argument. I do not. There is no hypocrisy in my argument. There however is a great deal of hypocrisy in people who cry foul about synthesis because of lack of consent. While potentially engaging in or supporting actions that have a lack of consent.
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
Nov 26, 2024 12:38:10 GMT
26,299
themikefest
15,635
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Jul 6, 2021 14:23:17 GMT
You did not. You're just deflecting, dodging as to why you won't post that question when posting the other questions. I asked you when did the Geth and EDI give you permission to destroy them with the Destroy ending. I asked you when they consented to be controlled by the Control ending. You refused to answer. Your question is only valid if I also use the moral absolutist consent argument. I do not. There is no hypocrisy in my argument. There however is a great deal of hypocrisy in people who cry foul about synthesis because of lack of consent. While potentially engaging in or supporting actions that have a lack of consent. Again with the dodging and deflecting. Why is the question not in your post asking did the galaxy give Shepard consent to have their dna altered when choosing the green?
|
|
mousestalker
Inactive Moderator 
ღ The Untitled
Just here for the cosplay
Staff Mini-Profile Theme: Mousestalker
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 12,116 Likes: 30,354
inherit
ღ The Untitled
72
0
1
Jan 31, 2024 11:38:50 GMT
30,354
mousestalker
Just here for the cosplay
12,116
August 2016
mousestalker
Mousestalker
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by mousestalker on Jul 6, 2021 14:24:02 GMT
Let's try a little less "Yes I did", "No you didn't" and more actual discussion. I like a good, spirited and well-reasoned argument but mere bickering is boring as well as bordering on spam.
Exemplar:
|
|
inherit
2754
0
6,018
Son of Dorn
Fortifying everything.
6,312
Jan 11, 2017 14:17:27 GMT
January 2017
doomlolz
Dragon Age Inquisition
|
Post by Son of Dorn on Jul 6, 2021 14:43:44 GMT
Let's try a little less "Yes I did", "No you didn't" and more actual discussion. I like a good, spirited and well-reasoned argument but mere bickering is boring as well as bordering on spam. Exemplar: That is the point of this bait thread though, to bicker. |
|
inherit
57
0
1
Nov 25, 2024 13:23:36 GMT
35,523
SofaJockey
Not a jockey. Has a sofa.
13,923
August 2016
sofajockey
SofaJockey
SofaJockey
6000
7164
|
Post by SofaJockey on Jul 6, 2021 17:50:53 GMT
This is directed towards individuals who use lack of consent as their core if not singular argument why synthesis is bad. Is this a common thing? When I read about people's issues with different ending choices, I can't think of when I've seen this one articulated. Seems to me that Shepard's choice is 'do something' or 'everyone dies' (refuse), so 'consent' seems moot. |
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Jul 6, 2021 19:59:03 GMT
This is directed towards individuals who use lack of consent as their core if not singular argument why synthesis is bad. Is this a common thing? When I read about people's issues with different ending choices, I can't think of when I've seen this one articulated. Seems to me that Shepard's choice is 'do something' or 'everyone dies' (refuse), so 'consent' seems moot. Yes actually. At least enough for me to notice it with a few people on here and enough different people on the mass effect subreddit for me to take notice. Each person's reasoning is slightly different but generally their argument is something along those lines. Synthesis to them is the objectively worse possible ending because it forcibly alters everyone on a genetic level without their ability to/or wiling consent to the action.
Which is why given some of the choices in the game I find that stance potentially contradictory and hypocritical. More so because I've seen a lot of those same people say Destroy is objectively the best ending. Even though destroy offers some potential conflicting moral actions around consent. As the Geth do not consent to Shepard refusing the upload and will cause Legion/VI Legion to fight back forcing it to be killed to prevent the upload. And/Or the Geth and EDI never consent to be sacrificed to stop the Reapers. In both cases Shepard is enforcing their will on another without their consent. Which is exactly what they complain about with synthesis. Shepard forcing their will on the galaxy.
The only difference is scale and when you are arguing about an action being immoral because of a lack of consent scale is irrelevant. One person or 1 trillion people it would be equally bad in ever case.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Jul 6, 2021 20:11:06 GMT
I asked you when did the Geth and EDI give you permission to destroy them with the Destroy ending. I asked you when they consented to be controlled by the Control ending. You refused to answer. Your question is only valid if I also use the moral absolutist consent argument. I do not. There is no hypocrisy in my argument. There however is a great deal of hypocrisy in people who cry foul about synthesis because of lack of consent. While potentially engaging in or supporting actions that have a lack of consent. Again with the dodging and deflecting. Why is the question not in your post asking did the galaxy give Shepard consent to have their dna altered when choosing the green? I'm not deflecting anything. The core of this argument is based around the idea that Shepard altering the DNA of the galaxy is inherently awful because the people of the galaxy did not consent to it. This moral argument is conflicted by multiple potential choices made in the game that run counter to this moral ideology. If synthesis is so bad because of lack of consent then Shepard willingly wiping out the Geth and EDI with Destroy ending without their consent is equally terrible. Because in both cases Shepard is imposing their will on another. This is the moral hypocrisy with this argument. You can not claim in good faith that ignoring consent of one thing is good while ignoring consent with another is bad. That is now how consent works. It is pure cognitive dissonance to state consent is both very important and not important at all.
That is the point of this bait thread though, to bicker. No this thread is here to talk about a moral stance people have taken about synthesis that conflicts with other events in game and with the other endings of the game. If you have something useful to add to this conversation or actually want to try and argue a point either for or against by all means. If you just want to make snide pointless remarks so you can tell yourself you totally "owned" me then please leave.
|
|
inherit
57
0
1
Nov 25, 2024 13:23:36 GMT
35,523
SofaJockey
Not a jockey. Has a sofa.
13,923
August 2016
sofajockey
SofaJockey
SofaJockey
6000
7164
|
Post by SofaJockey on Jul 6, 2021 20:47:17 GMT
I find that stance potentially contradictory and hypocritical ok then. You're welcome to explore the point, but I must confess I'm struggling to care about all the different sub-arguments after all these years. My emotional energy over the 'endings' is approaching depletion, but if there are others who are interested, do carry on of course... 
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Jul 6, 2021 21:20:06 GMT
I find that stance potentially contradictory and hypocritical ok then. You're welcome to explore the point, but I must confess I'm struggling to care about all the different sub-arguments after all these years. My emotional energy over the 'endings' is approaching depletion, but if there are others who are interested, do carry on of course... My interests is simply in the....inconsistencies I frequently see in a lot of people's arguments about various aspects of the series in general. This is a relatively new one so I'm interested to try and explore it since so far the people I have talked to don't even seem aware they are holding two contradictory ideas. I really don't expect anything to become of this thread but I figured it was better then going down some tangent on an existing thread.
|
|
inherit
Now Available As A Combo Meal!
984
0
16,655
dragontartare
Add a cookie for just $1.99 (plus tax)!
5,664
Aug 14, 2016 19:06:09 GMT
August 2016
dragontartare
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
DragonsALaMode
|
Post by dragontartare on Jul 6, 2021 21:28:34 GMT
My interests is simply in the....inconsistencies I frequently see in a lot of people's arguments about various aspects of the series in general. But do people who primarily use the consent argument against synthesis also typically make the decisions you feel are hypocritical? |
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Jul 6, 2021 23:57:10 GMT
My interests is simply in the....inconsistencies I frequently see in a lot of people's arguments about various aspects of the series in general. But do people who primarily use the consent argument against synthesis also typically make the decisions you feel are hypocritical? Yes because Destroy is inherently hypocritical because it targets the Geth and EDI. And if you made the choice that prevents the Geth from being allies that is equally hypocritical. This is the problem with using a moral absolutist argument. Control seems to hint that the Geth are now a part of the Reaper collective. Depending on how you want to interpret the ending slide that shows Geth with a Reaper in the background with the AI Shep saying that there is wisdom in harnessing the strength of your enemies. And Refuse is pretty obvious about the problems of not choosing anything.
|
|
inherit
Now Available As A Combo Meal!
984
0
16,655
dragontartare
Add a cookie for just $1.99 (plus tax)!
5,664
Aug 14, 2016 19:06:09 GMT
August 2016
dragontartare
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
DragonsALaMode
|
Post by dragontartare on Jul 7, 2021 1:13:55 GMT
I'm not willing to debate this endlessly, because in the end I don't care if we agree or not, but you claim to want discussion, so I'll give it a try. I also wouldn't say that consent is my core reason for not liking synthesis, but I don't think it's a hypocritical argument in and of itself. Yes because Destroy is inherently hypocritical because it targets the Geth and EDI. Destroy targets the reapers, not EDI and the geth. EDI and the geth are collateral damage, assuming you believe they are truly gone for good. Also, why list all those decisions in the first post if your response is going to be that every ending except synthesis makes the player a hypocrite regardless of whether the other decisions are made or not? This is the problem with using a moral absolutist argument. I don't understand why you keep calling this a moral absolutist argument. The people who argued that synthesis is a bad ending because you don't have the consent of beings across the galaxy to forever change every one of them on a genetic level (even the ones who are pre-spaceflight and have no idea what is going on), are not the ones saying Shepard needs to have consent for every single action they take in the trilogy. You are the one pushing that absolutist stance. 1. Killing the Rachni Queen in either ME1 or ME3. As in both cases the Queen doesn't want to die or be left a slave for the Reapers. Your actions are made without her consent. Were the people making the consent argument also advocating for killing the rachni queen? If not, I genuinely don't understand why you think it helps your case to bring it up. 4. Revealing the evidence against Tali's wishes during her trial. Revealing the evidence against Tali's father against her wishes is not violating Tali's right to consent over her own body. I'm not saying it's a good gameplay decision unless that's the type of Shepard one wants to roleplay, but it has nothing to do with this discussion. 5. Selecting which missile to disable before it strikes the colony. You either save the colonists and destroy the viability of the colony effecting thousands of lives. Or you sacrifice thousands of lives while keeping the colony viable for re-population. Shepard is there because they respond to a distress beacon (in other words, the colony consenting to receiving help from whoever wanders by). Once in this position, Shepard -- or whoever responds to the beacon -- has to make a choice. Saving thousands of lives is not violating the colonists' consent over their own bodies. 7. The Geth and EDI never consented to being wiped out by the Destroy ending. They consent to participating in the fight against the reapers, though, even knowing that they might end up giving their lives for the fight. Even the geth collective in Legion's loyalty mission can't decide whether it's better to be brainwashed (sorry, rewritten) or destroyed, and they allow Shepard to make the decision instead. Are you arguing that in ME3 the geth would definitely prefer to be rewritten rather than destroyed? |
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Jul 7, 2021 1:57:10 GMT
Destroy targets the reapers, not EDI and the geth. EDI and the geth are collateral damage, assuming you believe they are truly gone for good. Also, why list all those decisions in the first post if your response is going to be that every ending except synthesis makes the player a hypocrite regardless of whether the other decisions are made or not? You are directly told that all synthetic life will be effected. Meaning you are well aware that the Geth and EDI will be caught in the blast. You are not ignorant, this is not some unexpected side effect you never knew about. You were informed.
The only time all the endings make you a hypocrite is if you argue on a moral absolutist ground for the validity of one ending over the other. People love to use morals to justify hatred of synthesis. The problem is morals to have any value need to be applied equally.
They are though. If you argue that without consent an action is bad. Then it means any action without consent is equally bad. Lets put this another way. Lets say a random guy walked up to a random woman on the street and just grabbed her genitals without permission or consent. Did he do something bad? Now lets say the roles were reversed were a woman walks up and grabs a random man's genitals without permission or consent. Did she do something bad?
The answer to that is yes to both. They both did something wrong. But the second you start to try and justify how one is acceptable while the other is not makes you hypocritical.
Because it part of my list of examples of actions people can take that contradict their consent argument.
Tali did not want you to do that. She did not consent to your actions. If left up to her she would have withheld the evidence.
Words have meanings for a reason. And Shepard spilling the data Tali wanted hidden against her will still qualifies as ignoring consent. Particulalry since if I remember correctly if you present the evidence you do not gain Tali's loyalty.
Responding to a distress beacon is not the same as choosing who lives and dies on the colony. They wanted help to stop the raiders certainly. But choosing the missile was not part of the distress beacon. Blowing up a colony and killing thousands of people is the deifnition of violating the colonists consent over their own bodies. Like wise destroying the industrial sector and leaving the colony more open to pirate attacks and have to be evacuated is also having a direct effect on their lives though your actions.
Being killed by the Reapers in an effort to stop them is not the same as being killed by an ally who is well aware that their actions will kill them.
WW2 accepting there will be causalities in war is not the same as the USA deliberately using UK forces to draw out German troops. Before calling in a US air strike that saturation bombs the entire battlefield killing everyone German and British a like so the USA could move in after the smoke cleared to secure the position.
If you can't tell the difference between allies willing to fight and die together to win and stabbing an ally in the back so you can personally gain then that just raises more questions then answers.
We don't know what the Geth would want. Because we never got a chance to ask them. Which is kind of the point.
|
|
inherit
Now Available As A Combo Meal!
984
0
16,655
dragontartare
Add a cookie for just $1.99 (plus tax)!
5,664
Aug 14, 2016 19:06:09 GMT
August 2016
dragontartare
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
DragonsALaMode
|
Post by dragontartare on Jul 7, 2021 2:14:22 GMT
Tali did not want you to do that. She did not consent to your actions. If left up to her she would have withheld the evidence.
permission or agreement obtained from someone or something having authority or power: o agree to do something, or to allow someone to do something: legal or official permission to do something:
Consent occurs when one person voluntarily agrees to the proposal or desires of another.[1] It is a term of common speech, with specific definitions as used in such fields as the law, medicine, research, and sexual relationships. Consent as understood in specific contexts may differ from its everyday meaning. For example, a person with a mental disorder, a low mental age, or under the legal age of sexual consent may willingly engage in a sexual act that still fails to meet the legal threshold for consent as defined by applicable law.
Words have meanings for a reason. And Shepard spilling the data Tali wanted hidden against her will still qualifies as ignoring consent. Particulalry since if I remember correctly if you present the evidence you do not gain Tali's loyalty. I would respond to more of this post, but the fact that you are patronizingly quoting definitions of "consent" at me as if I don't know what the word means tells me you have no intention of having an honest discussion. It's pretty clear that people talking about consent with regard to the synthesis ending are referring to consent to altering people's bodies, (which I said and you ignored) which again has nothing to do with Tali's trial. |
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Jul 7, 2021 10:26:26 GMT
Tali did not want you to do that. She did not consent to your actions. If left up to her she would have withheld the evidence.
permission or agreement obtained from someone or something having authority or power: o agree to do something, or to allow someone to do something: legal or official permission to do something:
Consent occurs when one person voluntarily agrees to the proposal or desires of another.[1] It is a term of common speech, with specific definitions as used in such fields as the law, medicine, research, and sexual relationships. Consent as understood in specific contexts may differ from its everyday meaning. For example, a person with a mental disorder, a low mental age, or under the legal age of sexual consent may willingly engage in a sexual act that still fails to meet the legal threshold for consent as defined by applicable law.
Words have meanings for a reason. And Shepard spilling the data Tali wanted hidden against her will still qualifies as ignoring consent. Particulalry since if I remember correctly if you present the evidence you do not gain Tali's loyalty. I would respond to more of this post, but the fact that you are patronizingly quoting definitions of "consent" at me as if I don't know what the word means tells me you have no intention of having an honest discussion. It's pretty clear that people talking about consent with regard to the synthesis ending are referring to consent to altering people's bodies, (which I said and you ignored) which again has nothing to do with Tali's trial. You literally argued that knowingly wiping out the Geth from Destroy doesn't count. I'm not willing to debate this endlessly, because in the end I don't care if we agree or not, but you claim to want discussion, so I'll give it a try. I also wouldn't say that consent is my core reason for not liking synthesis, but I don't think it's a hypocritical argument in and of itself.Destroy targets the reapers, not EDI and the geth. EDI and the geth are collateral damage, assuming you believe they are truly gone for good. Also, why list all those decisions in the first post if your response is going to be that every ending except synthesis makes the player a hypocrite regardless of whether the other decisions are made or not? You literally said that giving away information against Tali's wishes doesn't count as consent for an action Revealing the evidence against Tali's father against her wishes is not violating Tali's right to consent over her own body. I'm not saying it's a good gameplay decision unless that's the type of Shepard one wants to roleplay, but it has nothing to do with this discussion. [REDACTED]
|
|
