SajuukKhar said:
Wars in which one side completely eradicates the other are extremely rare. Even wars of genocide rarely result in the complete annhilation of the targetted groups. The norm is for one side to capitulate, or for both sides to agree to back off. Judging from actual events, organics clearly are logical enough to accept a ceasfire.
Extremists are typically a minority, belonging to fringe groups. They rarely represent the majority.
.
.
I will accept that the heat death is likely inevitable, though as it is not the result of organic or synthetic influence (*conspiracy theorist voice* as far as we're aware) it holds little sway in this argument. It is also foolish to assume that during the many billions of years between now and then the technology to prevent it will not be invented. That is assuming the science predicting the heat death is correct. And WW3? How is that relevant. If you mean in the real world, then it hasn't happened and is therefore not inevitable. There is a significant difference between probable and inevitable.
.
.
I didn't say that the morning war was the result of a splinter group. I said the the geth assissting Sovereign were a splinter group. You've also ignored the fact that the geth were not responsible for the morning war, and ended it without commiting genocide.
I really feel that your point about hatred is completely ridiculous. If such things had any significant sway then Germany should be chomping at the bit for another go at ol' Blighty. This is not the case.
.
.
You seem to have missed the point. I was attempting to show that Organics are, based on observable evidence, a great deal more genocidal than any synthetic we encounter in Mass Effect. Once again you're trying to claim that synthetics kill everything but themselves, despite there being absolutely no proof to support this.
.
.
Yes if a synthetic race wants the same area of resources that an organic race wants, there may well be a war if an amicable agreement cannot be made. But how is this different to cases of organic races battling over resources?
.
.
2600 years is short term? I'm sorry but two millenia of peaceful interaction is an astonishing achievment. I feel it's important to clarify that I'm not attempting to say that wars aren't going to happen. I'm simply asserting that a breakdown in geth-organic relations, and a subsequent war would not necessarily result in the annihalation of one side. It is not an inevitability.
Yes I have wanted to hit my brother in the past. In all honesty, I have hit him when I was much younger just as he has hit me, and yet somehow despite our disagreements we get by without murdering each other. My point being that despite being different, we continue to coexist despite your claims that two different things are innately incapable of doing so.
And again I'm forced to reiterate; why would a war between geth, and Organics result in one or the other's complete extermination, when organic races routinely go to war without completely exterminating each other. Sometimes it does happen, though in the case of the rachni, being probably indoctrinated by Sovereign may have had something to do with their refusal to surrender. And actually, are there any cases of successful genocides presented in the Mass Effect universe that don't involve the reapers in some way?
.
.
When you describe the core traits of humanity, you're actually just describing sociopaths. Normal humans have these traits as well, but they're tempered by empathy, the capacity to feel for your fellow man, and understand that cooperation is mutually benficial. Humanity would never have advanced as far as we have if we were all sociopaths, if we all lacked empathy.
It is reasonable to assume that other species in the galaxy have the capacity for empathy, even the ultra-agressive krogan. Judging from events on Rannoch, it seems that the geth too are capable of empathy. They could have annihalted the quarians. They had few reasons not to. Mere moments ago the quarians had been preparing to destroy them all, the geth had the perfect opportunity to remove what had proven to be a significant and repeated threat. For the second time in their existence they chose not to.
You could argue they only did this because of the reaper threat. I would agree that this tied it into the decision. But it is a recurring theme. The geth repeatedly show that they have no interest in making war on organics. They fight in self defence until the moment when a ceasefire is possible, at which point they stop fighting. So what evidence do we have that geth will inevitably kill all organics?
.
.
I want to elaborate on what I said in my first post in the thread, as this back and forth is getting out of hand.
Show, don't tell. It is a basic principle of storytelling. Do not tell me something will happen, show me that something will happen. Essentially, I can tell you something, but until you see the evidence that I'm telling the truth, you have no reason to believe me.
At the most basic form this advice pertains to emotions. "Sam was scared" is less effective at conveying his mood than, "Sam froze, his heartbeat pounding, the hairs rising on the back of his neck." This can be extended to other areas. For example; don't tell me that the hero is kind and virtuous. Show him going out of his way to help little old ladies and rescue damsels in distress. Don't tell me that the dark lord is evil. Show him plotting evil plots, and commiting evil deeds.
It's still okay to tell, rather than only showing. Obviously telling takes less time than showing so it does sometimes serve a purpose. The real problem is when you tell me one thing, but show me another. Telling me that the hero is kind and virtuous, but showing him kicking kittens and burning down orphanages, as an extreme example. If done intentionally, it's usually called an unreliable narrator. This is an excellent device and can be used to great effect. But if you aren't doing it intentionally, you're probably in trouble.
This is my problem with the reaper's motivations. We are told that synthetics will inevitably kill all organics, but are shown no evidence of this. On the contrary, we are shown evidence that synthetics have the potential to coexist and cooperate with organics. That they are not innately incompatable.
If this is a case of unreliable narrator, then I'm basically being rail roaded into agreeing with something that is either lying or wrong without any opportunity to argue the point. If this isn't an unreliable narrator, and Bioware honestly expected us to believe that synthetics equal bad, why the hell did they spend so much time characterising EDI and the geth as reasonable and open to cooperation. Show the geth as creatures of cold logic, only interested in cooperation as far as it benefits them. Reveal the EDI is faking her emotional development in order to allay suspicion. Do not spend so much time indicating that the galactic civilisation's prejudices are misplaced.
As it stand there are extremely few reasons to believe anything the Catalyst says, and so it makes no sense that Shepard trusts it. As far as he should be concerned it's motivations are suspect.
Whew. Christ that was long. And the captcha is "near Tannhauser gate". Ooookaaaay. That isn't at all ominous in a discussion about synthetic life.
