Saphra Deden wrote...
Yes and survival for the quarians means survival of the quarians. Nothing more, nothing less. If survival means something that benefits the rest of the galaxy too then that's great, but it is not the end itself.
Nice logic there, but you gloss over the point is that survival is a prerequisite to any other attainable end.
Thompson family wrote...
As opposed to being huskified, melted down or just killed outright?
Does that have anything to do with this thread? No? I thought not. So stop trying to deflect.
Well, SD, the last time I checked the title of the thread was "The Geth's fate in ME3." The first sentence was "I would not be suprised if there was an option to destroy the geth in mass effect 3." I'd quote more of it, but you get the point.
Who's going to destroy the Geth, either physically or subverting them back to controlled sub-sentient tools? That would be the Quarians under the leadership of your beloved Adm. Xen. Minutes ago, you were arguing in favor of the Quarians doing exactly that. My argument is that a greater threat faces both.
Obviously you think the quarians have no good reason to fear the geth.
You're all the way into flaming misrepresentation there, SD. I've posted on this forum dozens of times that the severe and justified lack of trust from both sides is what makes the whole problem so fascinating. I don't know for a fact that peace is possible. You claim that peace, or even a truce, is not only impossible, you don't even want to explore the possibility.
Your serious misrepresentation of my view means the rest of your argument follows a false premise, so I didn't address it.
Modifié par Thompson family, 18 octobre 2011 - 01:33 .