Saphra Deden wrote...
If she can't sort out what she wants in her own head on such a straight forward issue then she's too immature to have a voice.
She's too deeply involved in the issue to criticize all the people trying to make progress, to hide important evidence, and then refuse to pick a side.
The problem is that it's NOT a straightforward issue. It's not something that can be boiled down into a simple two digit math equation.Hiding the evidence (regardless of your personal view on reavealing it as the logical choice) is the most rational choice, evidenced by the schizm it causes among the fleet if you choose to reveal it. The evidence is much safer (relatively speaking) in the individual hands of the admirals. At least then it can be kept hush-hush until after the quarians can resolve the issue with the geth or take back their homeworld. Doing this during tense times before the reaper invasion factionalizes them making them weaker and lacking a common goal. It may sting a little to keep a lid on the situation, but holding your tongue at the time being is the most logical and rational choice. Something which Tali "the fool" knows better than you, the outsider, when it comes to her people.
You make a lot of good points on certain issues, which is most unfortunate because on others your black & white stance on things confuses brute force logic with rational decision making. Getting from point A to point B may be as simple as travelling the fastest by way of a straight line, but if negative consequences follow you and hit you in the end, then your "logic" has failed. Consider the following obscure analogy: say you need to get to the other side of a brick wall in order to save yourself from an incoming wave. Your two options are to punch through the wall with a pneumatic hammer (easy, faster) or to scale the wall (slower, more difficult). Breaking through the wall gets you to your objective in an effortless and timely manner, but in the end the water gushes through and you get wet anyway. If you had scaled the wall you might have had less time to escape, but you stay dry on the other side. Remember, this is an analogy. Don't overanalyse it and come complaining in the next post because "no one in their right mind would think making a hole in a wall is a good idea".
In this crazy, convoluted example, I'm trying to allude to the art of diplomacy. I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind the whole diplomacy is weak and illogical standpoint. Going the renegade route (eliminating dangerous criminals with bullets, shooting before they shoot you, preemptively eliminating a future threat) is fine in certain situations, and can be the most logical choice. Blasting through with no regard for the safety and sensibilities of others, especially innocent bystanders, is NOT logical in most cases. The repercussions from your past actions catching up to you does not justify the means if it ends up fouling what you have achieved. Burning bridges only makes sense when you don't want your enemy to follow, not when potential allies will be stranded leaving you at the end to face an insurmountable threat alone.
This is why we "naive paragon alien-apologist xenophiles" choose not to ****** off every non-human we come by, because it's logical to assume that it will be impossible to face the reapers alone.
Modifié par Unschuld, 12 décembre 2011 - 07:29 .
Retour en haut
