The Angry One wrote...
translationninja wrote...
You are aware though that pretty much any and all great advances in the history of civilization were opposed by some ideologues, rite?
I for one am very glad that there were people that had the balls to make the decision and force them through, otherwise we'd be sitting around the campfire wondering if we fall off the rims of a flat rectangular world.
I suppose the good people of the medieval ages would have reacted the very same way had you proposed to them to live in a world where their believe of an almighty allseeing judge was unnecessary.
Surely they would have imagined such a world as Dante's inferno (actually, they did).
And have you ever seen a pacifist preventing a war by sitting in protest? Because that is what reject is, sitting in protest pouting gambling with the existance of every life being in the galaxy.
That is neither heroic nor wise or prudent.
Synthesis is not advancement. It is forcing everyone into a Reaper ideal of the future. That's not the same thing now, is it?
That is absolutely and entirely your very own private and personal interpretation of which you think it is right enough and important enough to impose it on the entire galaxy. As I have mentioned before, your perspective and standpoint may differ from the Catalyst's, but your modus operandi does not.
You would gamble with a gazillion life's to cater to your own perception of right and wrong without consideration of how they may feel about it, you just so take it upon yourself to make the right and wrong decision for them, which is exactly the thing you decry about synthesis.
The essence of synthesis that you decry is it imposes change onto sentient beings, yet you take it upon yourself to make a decision of right and wrong for all sentient beings, see the conundrum there?
What makes your view better than anyone else's?
Retour en haut
