Ce sujet est fermé
Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...
As a historian, I could not disagree with you more. Namely because history is not like mathematics. It is not just a long list of incontestable facts or formulas. The dates are sure. But the motivations people had for what they did are open to interpretation and such interpretations are often adjusted to suit the agenda of the person or institution doing the teaching. Teaching history is not a panacea. Sometimes it helps. Sometimes it doesn't. That is largely dependent on who is teaching, where the teaching is happening, what is being taught, and who the audience is.
Yeah, sure. So you're arguing that my reasoning is ambiguous, and so is yours. Hey, that's helpful!
Those guys willingly participated in the project. They weren't slaves or captives and many of them probably believed in what they were doing. They are not unwitting victims' of Rael's foolishness. Rather they are victims of their collective foolishness.
So you assume. You do not know every person on that ship and what their motives and information clearances were.
Actually in that situation, there are no certainties. I can't tell if you are lying about the 100 dollars or if the button works or whatever. In that spot, the responsible thing to do is weigh potential consequences and decide based on them because one consequence is obviously much worse than the other. This situation does not possess the ambiguity of Tali's trial. It is axiomatic that I should err on the side of not getting a city blown up on the chance that you are telling the truth.
I figured you would say this after I typed it. The 100 dollar bill is a guarantee in the example.
Of course, here I could also point out that Tali's friendship is also not a guarantee, as she could be lying for whatever reason, be it to test you to see if you're will to betray her people or what-have-you.
Supposition. Impossible to know.
What, you mean like all your points? At least my reasonings pertain to more people than Tali's feelings.
Actually this thread is about Garrus. And the rest of that statement is unqualified and subjective.
I was referring to this specific discussion, not the entire thread.
But, okay, I don't see much of a purpose in arguing with someone who just points out that the nature of the world is subjective. We are arguing opinions here after all. If you disagree, cool. If you have nothing else to say aside from, "That's subjective!" and "That's dependent on factors A through F!" then I'm not sure what your true purpose is. Mayhap to waste our time?
Retour en haut
.
