861 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...
Ah, so you're imagining what I did and did not say.You use groteseque rape analogies and personal attacks, and make numerous basic English mistakes that would, quite simply, cause you to fail English. 

You are a pedantic, hypercritical troll who jumps on anything to try and snidely talk down to other people. I had hoped that you had grown out of this period in your life, but clearly you have not. 

At some point, I trust you will make a valid point. Somewhere. Unfortunately, it is not today.

First off I edited that part out because it was crass and not once do I recally personally attacking you so you can drop that "woe is me" act right away. And yes I jumped down your throat about the English mistake. Woe is me.

Hypercritical troll who jumps on anything? Cute. This whole thread was an exercise in that for far more than just me. Do keep up with the self-righteousness though. It's more amusing than this whole thread. And your speaking as though you know me is sad. That lonely? 

I'd say the same of you.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Lets rewind for a bit because i honestly loss track, by choosing control or destroy, you submit by living under the tyranny of the catalyst.

By choosing control or destroy, I create a galaxy free of the tyranny of the Reapers and the Catalyst.

Sure, yeah, okay. That's submission for you.

Do you enjoy Genocide, because if you don't, by choosing destroy in order to win you surrendered to the Catalyst, and Control contradicts everything in ME3.

[Ryzaki]

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Honestly the butthurt of "OMG this ending makes makes NO SENSE FOR SHEP AND SHEP'S A COWARD FOR PICKING IT!" can apply for Ever. Single. Goddamn. Ending.

Seriously.

Agreed. Every ending is flawed somewhere. However, OP seems to think that this ending is the one true gospel. Which baffles me by the way.

Ugh. I like Refuse but not so much that I'd say Control and Destroy are inferior to it. The opposite really. Sure they require me trust the starbrat but he's so utterly retarded in the last 10 minutes I doubt he's capable of manipulation.

...I still can't get over the ridculous logic that had BW decide that not only put him in the game but essentially let him let Shepard pick the endings. Just...ugh. Not at all a good end for a trilogy.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 04 juillet 2012 - 03:44 .

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Fauxnormal wrote...

I am, frankly, done with this. OP is beyond any logical, any rational, anything aside from his/her/it's own little world where it is correct no matter how flawed the logic, stupid the reasoning, or idiotic the action.

I don't even know why this thread was made.

You again, how come everything i bring up a good point, you end up not replying to my post and then insulting me later on.

Why don't we focus, first, on instead of you asking that question, you actually making a good point. Shall we?

Mind your own busniness, if you look for it, you can see how i reply to something he wrote, he never wrote back and then later just called me an idiot. And stop trying to insult me seperately.

Modifié par Khajiit Jzargo, 04 juillet 2012 - 03:44 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

Ryzaki wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...
Ah, so you're imagining what I did and did not say.You use groteseque rape analogies and personal attacks, and make numerous basic English mistakes that would, quite simply, cause you to fail English. 

You are a pedantic, hypercritical troll who jumps on anything to try and snidely talk down to other people. I had hoped that you had grown out of this period in your life, but clearly you have not. 

At some point, I trust you will make a valid point. Somewhere. Unfortunately, it is not today.

First off I edited that part out because it was crass and not once do I recally personally attacking you so you can drop that "woe is me" act right away. And yes I jumped down your throat about the English mistake. Woe is me.

Hypercritical troll who jumps on anything? Cute. This whole thread was an exercise in that for far more than just me. Do keep up with the self-righteousness though. It's more amusing than this whole thread. And your speaking as though you know me is sad. That lonely? 

I'd say the same of you.

This thread was created as a troll thread, and yet you give the OP a complete pass for it. Only jumping on anyone who dares disagree with him. That is a prime example of hypocrisy. So if you're going to whine about this thread being an exercise in "trolling" I would suggest you point a finger where it truly belongs.

[C9316]

So killing the catalyst == surrendering to the catalyst, yet doing nothing =/= surrendering to the catalyst? You people crack me up sometimes.

[Ryzaki]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...
This thread was created as a troll thread, and yet you give the OP a complete pass for it. Only jumping on anyone who dares disagree with him. That is a prime example of hypocrisy. So if you're going to whine about this thread being an exercise in "trolling" I would suggest you point a finger where it truly belongs.

Wrong actually. I have no problems with those who disagree with them. I jumped on the "lulz Reject is stupid and for cowards!" trolls if you actually bothered to read. But by all means continue with the assumptions. They do make you look so intelligent and superior.

[DEATHSCOPE]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

@Deathscope

Sorry for the bad grammar, I meant to say that, The aztecs could have surrendered, but choose not to, a choice that they did have, but Shepard didn't, so you can't say the Aztecs didn't have a huge a huge super-weapon because they had the option to surrender, something Shep didn't. Now anyway, The Aztecs choose not to surrender, are their leaders or cortez blamed for the Genocide.

I don't get why you keep bringing up the option to surrender. It does not matter.

The Aztecs did not have anything that would vanquished the Spaniards but they fought on and were ultimately defeated. Surrender or not they would've been defeated sooner or later. Cortez is to be blamed for annihilating their culture of course.

Shepard though, had a chance to win but he/she choses not to. The galaxy felled to the Reapers because Shepard hesitated. Surrender, you're right doesn't matter here, so it was either win or die. Shepard doomed the galaxy and so he/she is to be blamed.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Lets rewind for a bit because i honestly loss track, by choosing control or destroy, you submit by living under the tyranny of the catalyst.

By choosing control or destroy, I create a galaxy free of the tyranny of the Reapers and the Catalyst.

Sure, yeah, okay. That's submission for you.

Do you enjoy Genocide, because if you don't, by choosing destroy in order to win you surrendered to the Catalyst, and Control contradicts everything in ME3.

So now I can only choose Destroy if I "enjoy" genocide? Not out of necessity? Not out of the simple math? Not out of the knowledge that I have to make a hard decision right here, right now? No no, if I choose Destory, clearly I enjoy genocide. 

Destroy does not surrender to the Catalyst in the clear fact that the Catalyst does NOT want you to pick it. Same with Control. The only one that could even be argued to be "submission" is Synthesis and even then the simple answer to your question - is submission not preferable to extinction - is YES. Absolutely. Clearly. Utterly. 100%. Submission allows you to live and start the fight again one day. Extinction is that. It's over. You're all dead. There. Is. Nothing. Left. 

Game. Effing. Over.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...
Ah, so you're imagining what I did and did not say.You use groteseque rape analogies and personal attacks, and make numerous basic English mistakes that would, quite simply, cause you to fail English. 

You are a pedantic, hypercritical troll who jumps on anything to try and snidely talk down to other people. I had hoped that you had grown out of this period in your life, but clearly you have not. 

At some point, I trust you will make a valid point. Somewhere. Unfortunately, it is not today.

First off I edited that part out because it was crass and not once do I recally personally attacking you so you can drop that "woe is me" act right away. And yes I jumped down your throat about the English mistake. Woe is me.

Hypercritical troll who jumps on anything? Cute. This whole thread was an exercise in that for far more than just me. Do keep up with the self-righteousness though. It's more amusing than this whole thread. And your speaking as though you know me is sad. That lonely? 

I'd say the same of you.

This thread was created as a troll thread, and yet you give the OP a complete pass for it. Only jumping on anyone who dares disagree with him. That is a prime example of hypocrisy. So if you're going to whine about this thread being an exercise in "trolling" I would suggest you point a finger where it truly belongs.

Funny, lets call the guy who you dissagree with a troll. Thats so pathetic, is one thing to disagree with me, but to call me a troll because you disagree with me is sad.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Ryzaki wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...
This thread was created as a troll thread, and yet you give the OP a complete pass for it. Only jumping on anyone who dares disagree with him. That is a prime example of hypocrisy. So if you're going to whine about this thread being an exercise in "trolling" I would suggest you point a finger where it truly belongs.

Wrong actually. I have no problems with those who disagree with them. I jumped on the "lulz Reject is stupid and for cowards!" trolls if you actually bothered to read. But by all means continue with the assumptions. They do make you look so intelligent and superior.

Clearly you do, as those are the only people you're "arguing" with. Perhaps if you had pointed a finger at just ONE of the OP's NUMEROUS logical fallacies, then you could be seen as the even-handed savior you so clearly wish to be. But alas...

[Father_Jerusalem]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...
Ah, so you're imagining what I did and did not say.You use groteseque rape analogies and personal attacks, and make numerous basic English mistakes that would, quite simply, cause you to fail English. 

You are a pedantic, hypercritical troll who jumps on anything to try and snidely talk down to other people. I had hoped that you had grown out of this period in your life, but clearly you have not. 

At some point, I trust you will make a valid point. Somewhere. Unfortunately, it is not today.

First off I edited that part out because it was crass and not once do I recally personally attacking you so you can drop that "woe is me" act right away. And yes I jumped down your throat about the English mistake. Woe is me.

Hypercritical troll who jumps on anything? Cute. This whole thread was an exercise in that for far more than just me. Do keep up with the self-righteousness though. It's more amusing than this whole thread. And your speaking as though you know me is sad. That lonely? 

I'd say the same of you.

This thread was created as a troll thread, and yet you give the OP a complete pass for it. Only jumping on anyone who dares disagree with him. That is a prime example of hypocrisy. So if you're going to whine about this thread being an exercise in "trolling" I would suggest you point a finger where it truly belongs.

Funny, lets call the guy who you dissagree with a troll. Thats so pathetic, is one thing to disagree with me, but to call me a troll because you disagree with me is sad.

I didn't call YOU a troll. I think you firmly believe in what you're trying to say. Which makes you wrong, in my opinion, but not necessarily a troll. I said this THREAD was a troll thread because it is. It was a thread created to antagonize people and create a flame war. Not to mention, completely and utterly unecessary as there are several "Refusal" threads already to be found.

[Archonsg]

 To be fair,  you have to look at this from Shepard's point of view at the time of those choices. Here you have an insane homicidal AI,  that just told you it decided to turn its creators into Reaper mush because it thought Organics weren't orderly enough and making them into Reapers to turn other advanced organics into Reapers because they will eventually create something that will kill them,  was a good idea.  And your choices are ;
1) kill yourself by grabbing to telsa handles and oh by the way,  you get to control the Reapers 

2) kill yourself by jumping into a beam tgat will disintegrate your body. But,  at least your essence gets spread to everyone and everything in the galaxy so that organics get tech grafted on at the molecular level, and synthetics get whatever they get and will have self will, understanding organics and won't try to kill you. 
3) kill yourself by walking up close to a pipe and shoot it till it explodes. Oh yeah all synthetics, that is reapers, geth, EDI and your Ipad v31.x dies. 
Without meta gaming knowledge ,  you are asked to go kill yourself three times with a different "hook"  each time.  Is it not reasonable that Shepard at this point would go "WTF IS THIS?!"  and just said "Frack your bogus choices!!"  though more eloquently? 
That the writers chose to enforce their original three choices as the "win"  choices, matters little as it could have easily gone the other way around and made it so that with a higher EMS score,  Shepard wins in the reject choice. They just chose not to. 

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Lets rewind for a bit because i honestly loss track, by choosing control or destroy, you submit by living under the tyranny of the catalyst.

By choosing control or destroy, I create a galaxy free of the tyranny of the Reapers and the Catalyst.

Sure, yeah, okay. That's submission for you.

Do you enjoy Genocide, because if you don't, by choosing destroy in order to win you surrendered to the Catalyst, and Control contradicts everything in ME3.

So now I can only choose Destroy if I "enjoy" genocide? Not out of necessity? Not out of the simple math? Not out of the knowledge that I have to make a hard decision right here, right now? No no, if I choose Destory, clearly I enjoy genocide. 

Destroy does not surrender to the Catalyst in the clear fact that the Catalyst does NOT want you to pick it. Same with Control. The only one that could even be argued to be "submission" is Synthesis and even then the simple answer to your question - is submission not preferable to extinction - is YES. Absolutely. Clearly. Utterly. 100%. Submission allows you to live and start the fight again one day. Extinction is that. It's over. You're all dead. There. Is. Nothing. Left. 

Game. Effing. Over.

Are you an idiot or do you enjoy acting obtuse?. I mentioned that unless you enjoy Genocide, when you choose destroy is doing something you wish you didn't have to do. Therefore is submitting, I never said you had to enjoy Genocide to choose destroy, stop being so immensenly paranoid over an internet argument. Choosing Control contradicts everything in ME3, it's not even about submission. and according to your logic, living its all that matters, even if it means betraying everything and everyone in ME, glad your living though.

Modifié par Khajiit Jzargo, 04 juillet 2012 - 03:55 .

[Ryzaki]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...
Clearly you do, as those are the only people you're "arguing" with. Perhaps if you had pointed a finger at just ONE of the OP's NUMEROUS logical fallacies, then you could be seen as the even-handed savior you so clearly wish to be. But alas...

I'm not interested in debating (or even acknowledging) the OP's logical fallacies. That's not my interest. I have little agreement with him/her. It's not my job to "prove" myself as a even hand savior. I'm just sick of the OMG REJECT COWARDS! nonsense I hear especially when all of the endings can be seen as a form of cowardice. That's what I want to discuss. You don't want to discuss that? Fine. Then don't. I'm not making you respond to me.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 04 juillet 2012 - 03:56 .

[DEATHSCOPE]

Oldbones2 wrote...

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

Sorry, the first point really got to me.

The Japanese were not in danger of being wiped out to the last man, woman, and child. With enough casualties, they would surrender. The races of the galaxy were not so fortunate. They cannot surrender. It was either fight or die. Sacrifice one race, save the rest.

I'm going to make a leap here and guess you are referring to the decision to use atomic weapons on Japan during WW2.


First off, that's sort of a muddy issue, since there were some who absolutely would fight to their last breath against the invaders.  If you had any idea of the superiority complex their propaganda gave them back then, you would know this.

Secondly, while there were of course, some Japanese who would surrender, and further some who didn't want to fight at all, they weren't going to be given a choice.  Their government was pretty adamant that their strategy would net them victory or let them die with honor.  (The unfortunate truth being that if they cost us enough lives, the Allies may very well have accepted a ceasefire.  Don't believe me, that's the entire reason the British allowed the Colonies to rebel, it simply cost too much to keep them when troops were needed elsewhere.)

You're talking like the Japanese government could keep control over ALL of their people. Forcing them to fight when they did not want to. I know that they were a military state but that's just not feasible. Some will surrender, the people and their culture will live on.

Thirdly, if the Japanese were so eager to surrender, I rather think they would have done it when we hit them the first time with a city destroying, god-fire weapons and proved once and for all that we were not BLUFFING, when we said we could wipe them off the map without a problem.

Good to know. I never said that they wouldn't surrender.

Instead, they kept refusing for three whole days.... until we hit them again.  At that point it was pretty clear, that fighting us was pointless and stupid.   THEN Japan surrendered.


Now lets take this analogy and flip it on its head.


Was winning the war this way worth it?

At the point in which we dropped the bomb, Japan's empire was pretty much done, even if we never invaded, their resource poor country, now deprived of many of its young men were pretty much screwed anyway.

It wasn't going to be a threat for many, many years.

Albert Einstein laid the foundation for the atomic bomb.  His science unveiled the possibility of such weapons, and his direct appeal to Roosevelt implemented their creation.


Albert Einstein said this 'I made one great mistake in my life—when I signed the letter to
President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was
some justification—the danger that the Germans would make them.'

For Einstein, the cost of winning the war with Japan (and I mean WINNING, not signing a treaty, an armistice, or a cessation of hostilities) was far too high. 


There are some acts so great and terrible they scar the very souls of all those involved.  Some acts that we can never undo, never atone for, never repair.  Acts that go beyond any conflict, acts that damn the very soul.


So if the choice is between doing what is morally and objectively wrong but keeps you alive, or doing what is right and dying with honor and freedom.... well, I like to think I'd pick the later.

When your entire race is near annihilation and extinction, you might think differently. Atrocities are always committed in war, never forget that.

Modifié par DEATHSCOPE, 04 juillet 2012 - 04:03 .

[Khajiit Jzargo]

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

@Deathscope

Sorry for the bad grammar, I meant to say that, The aztecs could have surrendered, but choose not to, a choice that they did have, but Shepard didn't, so you can't say the Aztecs didn't have a huge a huge super-weapon because they had the option to surrender, something Shep didn't. Now anyway, The Aztecs choose not to surrender, are their leaders or cortez blamed for the Genocide.

I don't get why you keep bringing up the option to surrender. It does not matter.

The Aztecs did not have anything that would vanquished the Spaniards but they fought on and were ultimately defeated. Surrender or not they would've been defeated sooner or later. Cortez is to be blamed for annihilating their culture of course.

Shepard though, had a chance to win but he/she choses not to. The galaxy felled to the Reapers because Shepard hesitated. Surrender, you're right doesn't matter here, so it was either win or die. Shepard doomed the galaxy and so he/she is to be blamed.

Forget the superweapon, Had they surrendered they would have advoided extinction, but who's blamed for the genocide?

[Jymm]

I couldn't make it through 22 pages of angsty quote pyramids, but I did want to poke my head in and say that I like the refuse ending. As I said in another thread, it reminds me of the ending of Braveheart and for some instances of Shepard I find that ending appropriate. Sometimes maybe it _is_ better to die on a principle than to make an irreversible choice with dire consequences. If you believe absolutely that synthetics and organics can live in harmony or should be allowed to try, then control and destroy are unacceptable. And if you are passionate enough about self determination then you can find synthesis abhorrent. And being told by some ancient AI that you have no choice but to accept one of these "solutions" he proposes when his previous "solution" was the very cycle of genocide we are currently witnessing is less than confidence inspiring.

Whether or not any of us on this board would choose to personally die fighting rather than make this decision is immaterial. Its a game. So can I imagine playing an internally consistent Shepard who would make that choice in the end? Yes I can. And I find that particular ending gratifying in that instance. The other endings while undeniably "better" for the galaxy on the face of it, lack the emotional satisfaction of Refuse for the right kind of Shep.

And in the end the galaxy is free of the Reapers even in the Refuse ending. It just takes a few thousand years more. Maybe Shep's just taking the long view.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Lets rewind for a bit because i honestly loss track, by choosing control or destroy, you submit by living under the tyranny of the catalyst.

By choosing control or destroy, I create a galaxy free of the tyranny of the Reapers and the Catalyst.

Sure, yeah, okay. That's submission for you.

Do you enjoy Genocide, because if you don't, by choosing destroy in order to win you surrendered to the Catalyst, and Control contradicts everything in ME3.

So now I can only choose Destroy if I "enjoy" genocide? Not out of necessity? Not out of the simple math? Not out of the knowledge that I have to make a hard decision right here, right now? No no, if I choose Destory, clearly I enjoy genocide. 

Destroy does not surrender to the Catalyst in the clear fact that the Catalyst does NOT want you to pick it. Same with Control. The only one that could even be argued to be "submission" is Synthesis and even then the simple answer to your question - is submission not preferable to extinction - is YES. Absolutely. Clearly. Utterly. 100%. Submission allows you to live and start the fight again one day. Extinction is that. It's over. You're all dead. There. Is. Nothing. Left. 

Game. Effing. Over.

Are you an idiot or do you enjoy acting obtuse?. I mentioned that unless you enjoy Genocide, when you choose destroy is doing something you wish you didn't have to do. Therefore is submitting, I never said you had to enjoy Genocide to choose destroy, stop being so immensenly paranoid over an internet argument. Choosing Control contradicts everything in ME3, it's not even about submission. and according to your logic, living its all that matters, even if it means betraying everything and everyone in ME, glad your living though.

I didn't wish to have to weed my garden today. Am I submitting? I didn't wish to have to wait til midnight to watch MasterChef because of a soccer game on television. Am I submitting? 

Choosing destroy is not submitting to the will of the Catalyst because, one, that was you ENTIRE MISSION aboard the Crucible - to find a way to stop the Reapers. And two, because the Catalyst is clearly trying to steer you in its preferred direction, Synthesis. Destory, quite frankly, is DEFYING the Catalyst, not submitting to it.

And yes. Living is all that matters. Because anything else can be changed in time if you disagree with it - as long as you're alive to be able to do so.

You know who else is glad they're living? Liara. Joker. Ashley. Wrex. Garrus. Tali. Vega. The Quarians. The Turians. The Salarians. The Asari. I could go on, and on, and on. Refusal is a betrayal of the theme of the entire trilogy.

Sack up, Shep.

Modifié par Father_Jerusalem, 04 juillet 2012 - 04:02 .

[Cobalt2113]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Do you enjoy Genocide, because if you don't, by choosing destroy in order to win you surrendered to the Catalyst, and Control contradicts everything in ME3.

What genocide? The Geth were already dead when I chose destroy. I didn't genocide anybody.

Guess I win.

Modifié par Cobalt2113, 04 juillet 2012 - 04:04 .

[DEATHSCOPE]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

@Deathscope

Sorry for the bad grammar, I meant to say that, The aztecs could have surrendered, but choose not to, a choice that they did have, but Shepard didn't, so you can't say the Aztecs didn't have a huge a huge super-weapon because they had the option to surrender, something Shep didn't. Now anyway, The Aztecs choose not to surrender, are their leaders or cortez blamed for the Genocide.

I don't get why you keep bringing up the option to surrender. It does not matter.

The Aztecs did not have anything that would vanquished the Spaniards but they fought on and were ultimately defeated. Surrender or not they would've been defeated sooner or later. Cortez is to be blamed for annihilating their culture of course.

Shepard though, had a chance to win but he/she choses not to. The galaxy felled to the Reapers because Shepard hesitated. Surrender, you're right doesn't matter here, so it was either win or die. Shepard doomed the galaxy and so he/she is to be blamed.

Forget the superweapon, Had they surrendered they would have advoided extinction, but who's blamed for the genocide?

You can't forget the superweapon. That's the point I'm trying to make based on YOUR argument. You can't just throw it out if you did not like it like you did with my Arrival stance.

[carrmatt91]

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

Oldbones2 wrote...

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

Sorry, the first point really got to me.

The Japanese were not in danger of being wiped out to the last man, woman, and child. With enough casualties, they would surrender. The races of the galaxy were not so fortunate. They cannot surrender. It was either fight or die. Sacrifice one race, save the rest.

I'm going to make a leap here and guess you are referring to the decision to use atomic weapons on Japan during WW2.


First off, that's sort of a muddy issue, since there were some who absolutely would fight to their last breath against the invaders.  If you had any idea of the superiority complex their propaganda gave them back then, you would know this.

Secondly, while there were of course, some Japanese who would surrender, and further some who didn't want to fight at all, they weren't going to be given a choice.  Their government was pretty adamant that their strategy would net them victory or let them die with honor.  (The unfortunate truth being that if they cost us enough lives, the Allies may very well have accepted a ceasefire.  Don't believe me, that's the entire reason the British allowed the Colonies to rebel, it simply cost too much to keep them when troops were needed elsewhere.)

You're talking like the Japanese government could keep control over ALL of their people. Forcing them to fight when they did not want to. I know that they were a military state but that's just not feasible. Some will surrender, the people and their culture will live on.

Thirdly, if the Japanese were so eager to surrender, I rather think they would have done it when we hit them the first time with a city destroying, god-fire weapons and proved once and for all that we were not BLUFFING, when we said we could wipe them off the map without a problem.

Good to know. I never said that they wouldn't surrender.

Instead, they kept refusing for three whole days.... until we hit them again.  At that point it was pretty clear, that fighting us was pointless and stupid.   THEN Japan surrendered.


Now lets take this analogy and flip it on its head.


Was winning the war this way worth it?

At the point in which we dropped the bomb, Japan's empire was pretty much done, even if we never invaded, their resource poor country, now deprived of many of its young men were pretty much screwed anyway.

It wasn't going to be a threat for many, many years.

Albert Einstein laid the foundation for the atomic bomb.  His science unveiled the possibility of such weapons, and his direct appeal to Roosevelt implemented their creation.


Albert Einstein said this 'I made one great mistake in my life—when I signed the letter to
President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was
some justification—the danger that the Germans would make them.'

For Einstein, the cost of winning the war with Japan (and I mean WINNING, not signing a treaty, an armistice, or a cessation of hostilities) was far too high. 


There are some acts so great and terrible they scar the very souls of all those involved.  Some acts that we can never undo, never atone for, never repair.  Acts that go beyond any conflict, acts that damn the very soul.


So if the choice is between doing what is morally and objectively wrong but keeps you alive, or doing what is right and dying with honor and freedom.... well, I like to think I'd pick the later.

When your entire race is near annihilation and extinction, you might think differently. Atrocities are always committed in war, never forget that.

Japan's culture was based around honour, the soldiers were trained to never surrender because "americans would kill them anyway in the most horrible ways imageinable" (propaganda)  Japan would not have surrendered until they were literally on the edge of defeat hence the two H-bombs, had it been conventional warfare? i could have seen the war last until at least 1949-1950 because i doubt that the japenese would surrender until the final cities were falling

[DEATHSCOPE]

carrmatt91 wrote...

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

Oldbones2 wrote...

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

Sorry, the first point really got to me.

The Japanese were not in danger of being wiped out to the last man, woman, and child. With enough casualties, they would surrender. The races of the galaxy were not so fortunate. They cannot surrender. It was either fight or die. Sacrifice one race, save the rest.

I'm going to make a leap here and guess you are referring to the decision to use atomic weapons on Japan during WW2.


First off, that's sort of a muddy issue, since there were some who absolutely would fight to their last breath against the invaders.  If you had any idea of the superiority complex their propaganda gave them back then, you would know this.

Secondly, while there were of course, some Japanese who would surrender, and further some who didn't want to fight at all, they weren't going to be given a choice.  Their government was pretty adamant that their strategy would net them victory or let them die with honor.  (The unfortunate truth being that if they cost us enough lives, the Allies may very well have accepted a ceasefire.  Don't believe me, that's the entire reason the British allowed the Colonies to rebel, it simply cost too much to keep them when troops were needed elsewhere.)

You're talking like the Japanese government could keep control over ALL of their people. Forcing them to fight when they did not want to. I know that they were a military state but that's just not feasible. Some will surrender, the people and their culture will live on.

Thirdly, if the Japanese were so eager to surrender, I rather think they would have done it when we hit them the first time with a city destroying, god-fire weapons and proved once and for all that we were not BLUFFING, when we said we could wipe them off the map without a problem.

Good to know. I never said that they wouldn't surrender.

Instead, they kept refusing for three whole days.... until we hit them again.  At that point it was pretty clear, that fighting us was pointless and stupid.   THEN Japan surrendered.


Now lets take this analogy and flip it on its head.


Was winning the war this way worth it?

At the point in which we dropped the bomb, Japan's empire was pretty much done, even if we never invaded, their resource poor country, now deprived of many of its young men were pretty much screwed anyway.

It wasn't going to be a threat for many, many years.

Albert Einstein laid the foundation for the atomic bomb.  His science unveiled the possibility of such weapons, and his direct appeal to Roosevelt implemented their creation.


Albert Einstein said this 'I made one great mistake in my life—when I signed the letter to
President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was
some justification—the danger that the Germans would make them.'

For Einstein, the cost of winning the war with Japan (and I mean WINNING, not signing a treaty, an armistice, or a cessation of hostilities) was far too high. 


There are some acts so great and terrible they scar the very souls of all those involved.  Some acts that we can never undo, never atone for, never repair.  Acts that go beyond any conflict, acts that damn the very soul.


So if the choice is between doing what is morally and objectively wrong but keeps you alive, or doing what is right and dying with honor and freedom.... well, I like to think I'd pick the later.

When your entire race is near annihilation and extinction, you might think differently. Atrocities are always committed in war, never forget that.

Japan's culture was based around honour, the soldiers were trained to never surrender because "americans would kill them anyway in the most horrible ways imageinable" (propaganda)  Japan would not have surrendered until they were literally on the edge of defeat hence the two H-bombs, had it been conventional warfare? i could have seen the war last until at least 1949-1950 because i doubt that the japenese would surrender until the final cities were falling

So they were prepared for a total war. But the Japanese were not facing extinction. The Mass Effect races were.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Lets rewind for a bit because i honestly loss track, by choosing control or destroy, you submit by living under the tyranny of the catalyst.

By choosing control or destroy, I create a galaxy free of the tyranny of the Reapers and the Catalyst.

Sure, yeah, okay. That's submission for you.

Do you enjoy Genocide, because if you don't, by choosing destroy in order to win you surrendered to the Catalyst, and Control contradicts everything in ME3.

So now I can only choose Destroy if I "enjoy" genocide? Not out of necessity? Not out of the simple math? Not out of the knowledge that I have to make a hard decision right here, right now? No no, if I choose Destory, clearly I enjoy genocide. 

Destroy does not surrender to the Catalyst in the clear fact that the Catalyst does NOT want you to pick it. Same with Control. The only one that could even be argued to be "submission" is Synthesis and even then the simple answer to your question - is submission not preferable to extinction - is YES. Absolutely. Clearly. Utterly. 100%. Submission allows you to live and start the fight again one day. Extinction is that. It's over. You're all dead. There. Is. Nothing. Left. 

Game. Effing. Over.

Are you an idiot or do you enjoy acting obtuse?. I mentioned that unless you enjoy Genocide, when you choose destroy is doing something you wish you didn't have to do. Therefore is submitting, I never said you had to enjoy Genocide to choose destroy, stop being so immensenly paranoid over an internet argument. Choosing Control contradicts everything in ME3, it's not even about submission. and according to your logic, living its all that matters, even if it means betraying everything and everyone in ME, glad your living though.

I didn't wish to have to weed my garden today. Am I submitting? I didn't wish to have to wait til midnight to watch MasterChef because of a soccer game on television. Am I submitting? 

Choosing destroy is not submitting to the will of the Catalyst because, one, that was you ENTIRE MISSION aboard the Crucible - to find a way to stop the Reapers. And two, because the Catalyst is clearly trying to steer you in its preferred direction, Synthesis. Destory, quite frankly, is DEFYING the Catalyst, not submitting to it.

And yes. Living is all that matters. Because anything else can be changed in time if you disagree with it - as long as you're alive to be able to do so.

You know who else is glad they're living? Liara. Joker. Ashley. Wrex. Garrus. Tali. Vega. The Quarians. The Turians. The Salarians. The Asari. I could go on, and on, and on. Refusal is a betrayal of the theme of the entire trilogy.

Sack up, Shep.

Those analogies are so do not fit in with the Mass Effect universe, and how can you change synthesis or control?

[Khajiit Jzargo]

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

DEATHSCOPE wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

@Deathscope

Sorry for the bad grammar, I meant to say that, The aztecs could have surrendered, but choose not to, a choice that they did have, but Shepard didn't, so you can't say the Aztecs didn't have a huge a huge super-weapon because they had the option to surrender, something Shep didn't. Now anyway, The Aztecs choose not to surrender, are their leaders or cortez blamed for the Genocide.

I don't get why you keep bringing up the option to surrender. It does not matter.

The Aztecs did not have anything that would vanquished the Spaniards but they fought on and were ultimately defeated. Surrender or not they would've been defeated sooner or later. Cortez is to be blamed for annihilating their culture of course.

Shepard though, had a chance to win but he/she choses not to. The galaxy felled to the Reapers because Shepard hesitated. Surrender, you're right doesn't matter here, so it was either win or die. Shepard doomed the galaxy and so he/she is to be blamed.

Forget the superweapon, Had they surrendered they would have advoided extinction, but who's blamed for the genocide?

You can't forget the superweapon. That's the point I'm trying to make based on YOUR argument. You can't just throw it out if you did not like it like you did with my Arrival stance.

The atzecs also could have ended the war but choose not to, its the same thing, the superweapon ends the war, but i choose not to use it, are the atzecs seen that they commited genocide on themselves, no.