Should Geth have Rights? (Spoilers)

#271merc_ninePosted 6/22/2012 1:57:14 PM
EmptyBlade posted...
merc_nine posted...
That what the whole debate is really about. If they are machines, then they dont deserve rights and they cant truly be alive, just really good at faking it. SO destroying them shouldn't be a big deal.


In a discussion about whether machines can have rights, your logic is: machines are machines so they don't have rights. That doesn't prove anything.

Furthermore, whether or not they have rights, it is not even logical to do it, as I've stated repeatedly now. A species whose default stance is "kill all the things that might be threats" is doomed to destruction, because IT is a threat, and now because of that everyone has to respond to that, so now everyone is a threat. You turn things into threats that didn't have to be. If you cause the guarantee that we must be at war with every AI, then the reapers are right, they will eventually destroy us. The only way to prevent that is to grow in peace. That's been the fundamental building block that allows us to achieve civilization as we have it today.

You could do with being a little more logical yourself.

merc_nine posted...
Why did they attack the Quarians in ME2 on Halestrom? Why did they not take the Aleria in ME2 and just leave?


Those are heretic geth, this was explained to us in the game. The reapers sent the heretics there to investigate the dark energy phenomenon going on, because in ME2 the dark energy ending was still the intended ending. They even cite Haelstrom specifically in the Dark Energy ending writeup.


And I ask again, what reason do you have to think they'd WANT to fight us? You assign them human traits by assuming they would. It is not logical for them to attack us. It is not logical for you to say we should attack them. You would only be providing a precedent to tell the next AI to rise up that WE are dangerous and should be destroyed.


But here you go. Machines are things. They are not alive, so no, machines dont have rights. The argument is that they arent simply machines but rather synthetic organisms. You have said they are machines, so theres no point in arguing. You proved my point but just added a bunch of but but but but but buts.

You said they would not want to fight us. I agree. Like I said what you want to do and what you have to do are not the same things. I dont want to fight the geth. I think its necessary. I dont even think we could win. Not without Shepard at least. Thats the problem. At this point there is very little you can do. The Protheans had to cause a star to go supernova to destroy their AI problem. Why would more AIs rise up after the discovery of the Reapers and the Geth problem? There should be far more precautions taken if organics overcame those two enemies. If not then the race that does create them in the future should be punished severely. I know....this time it will be different. No one ever said that in 1000s of cycles of the same thing happening over and over
#272DestinPosted 6/22/2012 1:59:59 PM
maybe if you gave them rights, they wouldn't attack you.
---
Destin the Valiant
#273EmptyBladePosted 6/22/2012 2:58:46 PM(edited)
merc_nine posted...

But here you go. Machines are things. They are not alive, so no, machines dont have rights. The argument is that they arent simply machines but rather synthetic organisms. You have said they are machines, so theres no point in arguing. You proved my point but just added a bunch of but but but but but buts.


As I've said multiple times now, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE ARGUING. Does being a machine automatically make them not have rights? You don't provide reasoning for this.

I agree they are machines. I do not agree that means they are not alive, I do not agree that means they are not sentient. I do not agree that bars them from having rights.

You are supposed to be debating those points, but you just state "machines = no rights". You're not debating, you're just repeating your stance over and over without providing reasoning.

You said they would not want to fight us. I agree. Like I said what you want to do and what you have to do are not the same things. I dont want to fight the geth. I think its necessary. I dont even think we could win.


Why would they deem it necessary to fight us? We have nothing they need. The only reason it would become necessary is if you made it necessary, which is exactly what you are saying we should do. I don't see how that makes any sense.

Why would more AIs rise up after the discovery of the Reapers and the Geth problem? There should be far more precautions taken if organics overcame those two enemies.


AI is technology. If anything at all is clear, it is that all technological advances that can be made will be made. You think for all of time, for all of the rest of the lifetime of the galactic community, you can make sure that nobody anywhere on all of those planets will ever make another AI? Banking on that would be outright moronic.

Another AI WILL rise up at some point. Assuming we aren't wiped out by the reapers, our histories will show that we destroyed the last AI unprovoked. Congratulations, you just made it necessary and logically correct for the next AI, and all AIs ever to exist, to fight back.

EmptyBlade posted...
I look forward to hearing exactly what the missing context was and how my response fails to take it into account.


??? So you just said I took your sentences out of context cuz it sounded like a good argument to make?
#274Retneug(Topic Creator)Posted 6/23/2012 7:42:34 PM
@Moonlight - Apologies for the lateness of my reply; I'm in the thick of exam season and I haven't been able to pursue this debate as much as I'd have liked. I expect that I won't have the time to post again before the EC drops and decides it all one way or another, so I'll conclude with this post for the moment and will likely return once I've had the time to play the EC.

In the end, what you propose is a possibility. Shepard could have been implanted with technology that aids him in various ways as opposed to technology that hinders him. Control could be everything the Catalyst says it is. But everything about the ending, and several things about ME3 and the series in general, lead me to believe that Shepard is being set up. I couldn't see enough circumstantial evidence in your arguments to make me stop questioning the coincidences that implicate destroy as the true ending, and the even greater amount of coincidences that imply IT.

I have failed in explaining why destroy is significant in exposing the real nature of morals. I believe that the tone and complexity of the ME universe demand such an ending, even if you can't/won't understand why such a conclusion would be significant for morality systems in gaming and gaming in general.

In closing, I still believe the EC will reflect the main points of what I've been saying. Destroy with 4000+ EMS is the best ending on its own merits, even if it happens in reality. I maintain that it doesn't; the ending is a dream sequence, and Shepard will break out of it by choosing destroy. What happens after that... I'm not sure. I look forward to learning.

I had fun debating with you. I'm sorry I couldn't give a more in-depth conclusion; it probably would have spilled over two full posts anyway. ;)

See you on the other side.
---
Just once I'd like to see a Futurama episode in which Hermes says, straight-up, "I smoke marijuana."
#275merc_ninePosted 6/23/2012 8:17:51 PM
EmptyBlade posted...
merc_nine posted...

But here you go. Machines are things. They are not alive, so no, machines dont have rights. The argument is that they arent simply machines but rather synthetic organisms. You have said they are machines, so theres no point in arguing. You proved my point but just added a bunch of but but but but but buts.


As I've said multiple times now, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE ARGUING. Does being a machine automatically make them not have rights? You don't provide reasoning for this.

I agree they are machines. I do not agree that means they are not alive, I do not agree that means they are not sentient. I do not agree that bars them from having rights.

You are supposed to be debating those points, but you just state "machines = no rights". You're not debating, you're just repeating your stance over and over without providing reasoning.

You said they would not want to fight us. I agree. Like I said what you want to do and what you have to do are not the same things. I dont want to fight the geth. I think its necessary. I dont even think we could win.


Why would they deem it necessary to fight us? We have nothing they need. The only reason it would become necessary is if you made it necessary, which is exactly what you are saying we should do. I don't see how that makes any sense.

Why would more AIs rise up after the discovery of the Reapers and the Geth problem? There should be far more precautions taken if organics overcame those two enemies.


AI is technology. If anything at all is clear, it is that all technological advances that can be made will be made. You think for all of time, for all of the rest of the lifetime of the galactic community, you can make sure that nobody anywhere on all of those planets will ever make another AI? Banking on that would be outright moronic.

Another AI WILL rise up at some point. Assuming we aren't wiped out by the reapers, our histories will show that we destroyed the last AI unprovoked. Congratulations, you just made it necessary and logically correct for the next AI, and all AIs ever to exist, to fight back.

EmptyBlade posted...
I look forward to hearing exactly what the missing context was and how my response fails to take it into account.


??? So you just said I took your sentences out of context cuz it sounded like a good argument to make?


Im asking questions that I know the answers to because they prove my point. If its a machine, then its not alive. An organism is alive. You can say its a synthetic organism but you said it was a machine so, I assumed you were saying they arent alive. using your example, Does my car deserve rights? What if I put a computer in there like SIRI?

I am not saying we should attack the Geth. Im simply saying that there will be many people who would think that way, and those factions would always exist. They dont need the same resources as organics but organics still seem to be threatened by them every where they show up. How many wars between the Geth and organics would it take before they decide to just get rid of organics all together? You said it, its not like they need us for anything. I dont think they are alive so Im just saying that them being destroyed along with the Reapers is great.

The only example of the Geth playing nice is them letting the Quarians back, but how long would that last? That seems like a time bomb to me. Have you seen Battlestar Galactica? It seemed a lot like New Caprica to me.

I dont trust EDI either. It has a pretty dark sense of humor. If I tell a fat girl shes fat, and then say, Just Kidding, or that was a joke, its really just a way to get away with saying it. Humor like that is usually the truth.
#276m9_Illusive_ManPosted 6/23/2012 8:20:17 PM
Why does EDI think its a girl? Just because it has a female voice? Isnt that just a setting? Thats why I tell her and Joker to knock it off. Its not even a female. Legion isnt your bro. Its not a male. BioWare sucks. They were too lazy to make female Geth.
---
This meeting has no purpose. The humans are wasting your time, Councilor. And mine.
#277m9_Illusive_ManPosted 6/23/2012 8:28:00 PM
The Geth seem pretty militarized for such a peaceful race. How long were the left to their own devices before ME1? They started as just helpers, and the next time they were seen there were hunters, Primes, Devastators, Armatures, Colossus, and Geth War ships. Seemed like they had plenty of time to build a ship or two, throw their servers on there and take off into space. They could have just left if they wanted peace. I would also say that being made of metal, they do require a lot of the same resources we do to make thier platforms, ships, and weapons.
---
This meeting has no purpose. The humans are wasting your time, Councilor. And mine.
#278ChocoboDreamsPosted 6/23/2012 8:34:59 PM
Forgive me for saying, but why are we saying an AI like SIRI is anything like the kind of AI a Geth has?
---
July 18, 2011. Megaman Legends 3 has been cancelled. Today, I mourn. Here remains a reminder of what could have been.
PSN:ChocoboDreams
#279ChocoboDreamsPosted 6/23/2012 8:41:08 PM
Also, yes you are saying we should attack the Geth. Don't start changing your story now. You can't make a big deal about the other poster suddenly saying the word "machines" when you suddenly say "I'm not saying we should attack the Geth".

Besides...
---
July 18, 2011. Megaman Legends 3 has been cancelled. Today, I mourn. Here remains a reminder of what could have been.
PSN:ChocoboDreams
#280ChocoboDreamsPosted 6/23/2012 8:49:11 PM(edited)
EmptyBlade posted...
merc_nine posted...
No I got it. It just sounded like you were saying they were actually a bunch of computers and servers all working together, Which makes it sound a lot more like a machine.


Yes, they are a machine. This completely doesn't respond to the point.

The Reapers existence says it. and each reaper is evidence of a cycle with war between organics and synthetics. They say its inevitable.


Yeah, and everybody totally agrees with them on that.

First off, saying "this guy said this" is stupid, and secondly they are hardly the right guy to listen to.

No I dont know why any number is stupid. Thats actually a really stupid thing for you to say. You have no idea how many Reapers there are. You dont know if its just our galaxy or all galaxies, or if all the Reapers came in on the first wave of attack.


I'm not the one that stated a specific number, so arguing to me "we don't know how many they are" makes you look even stupider.

Youre right. Organics are bad too. Much worse actually. What is your point? Thats the reason there will never be peace.


So why aren't you arguing that we should have killed the Quarians then?

You just said it yourself: they are worse. In fact, they are demonstrating to us at that very moment how bad they are by pressing the attack. Maybe they'll turn on humans next, we better wipe em out.

It's not logical for the geth to attack us, they don't want the same things we want. Why would they want to attack us? The only reason for them to do that is fear that we'll attack them.

So congratulations, YOU are the only reason for the geth to attack us. After you wipe them out and it goes down in our histories, when the next AI rises up and sees that, they'll have reason to strike us down.


This post ended the topic a long time ago. I don't know how long this has been going on, but EmptyBlade has long since solidified this debate in his favor. It's all opinion, of course, but EmptyBlade has far more solid reasons backing his opinion then I'm seeing from the other side of the debate.

Besides, you already said you'd sacrifice the Krogan as well in a heartbeat. You commit genocide based on "what-ifs", whether it's Geth or otherwise. That said, I think there's a lot of bias based around the points you're making.

"So congratulations, YOU are the only reason for the geth to attack us. After you wipe them out and it goes down in our histories, when the next AI rises up and sees that, they'll have reason to strike us down."

- EmptyBlade
---
July 18, 2011. Megaman Legends 3 has been cancelled. Today, I mourn. Here remains a reminder of what could have been.
PSN:ChocoboDreams