Sorry, if I'm interfering with your current discussion, but can someone explain to me, why according to I. T. choosing destroy means defying Catalyst?
Even if I assume, that Catalyst is lying to me, and trying to deceive me, why would he provide me with option which could be disastrous for him? I mean, if I was in his position, I would only speak about options beneficial to me.
For example, in Destroy Shepard could wake up as paranoid, who believe nobody, and seriously suspects everybody to be indoctrinated. Needless to say, such striking paranoia would decrease his efficiency and decrease morale of allied forces. Especially if he, for example, starts shooting everybody claiming that they're indoctrinated.
And even if we assume, that Destroy is least preferable option for Catalyst, why it is impossible to be worst only in comparison? Yes , it would be better to have Shepard controlled/synthetized, but why he couldn't be useful as I described?
I seriously think, that if don't believe somebody, doing that they proposed to you isn't good idea. Especially in that case, because Catalyst is outright states: ''The paths are open, but you have to choose.'' I think that means he wants me to choose something from these three options, so its likely that all of them are beneficial to him. If he is lying of course.
I tried to disscuss it in other situations, but never once got a satisfying logical answer.