470 réponses à ce sujet

[arial]

The Genophage wrote...

arial wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

@Ghost9191.

No, you fail to understand the definition of Genocide, and keep accusing me of Genocide when I clearly explained the difference, therefore I'm done arguing with nonsense.

Definition of GENOCIDE[/i]: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

By choosing "refuse" you DELIBERATELY allow the cycle to continue while the Reapers systematicall destroy many many racial, political, or cultural groups.

You are a party to genocide by allowing the Reapers to continue Reaping instead of stopping them when you were given multiple options on how to do so. 

Are you out there in a little Reaper ship helping them commit genocides? No, of course not. But you, and you alone, allowed them to continue on. Through your inaction, you are a party to it. Whether you like it or not.

exactly, and as the law states, if you do not prevent the crime, you are just as guilty as those who commited it

When you refuse, your still fighting, if I were to try to stop the crime but failed, I wouldn't be held accountable now would I?

you would actually, because you knew there was no other way to stop them

[Eain]

This thread is full to the brim with people who have no idea of how to distinguish between IC and OOC reasoning. I didn't think it'd be that hard.

[ghost9191]

babachewie wrote...

You know the ME Universe isn't against wiping out a species to suit the needs of the Galaxy. The Rachni were wiped out with the combined support of the galaxy. Even Mordin says tragic but had to be done.

and to be fair the geth can be rebuilt. and also the geth could've been wiped out by the quarians on rannoch, so if that happened you wouldn't be commiting genocide by choosing destroy because the quarians already did

[The Genophage]

ghost9191 wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

arial wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

arial wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

@Ghost9191.

No, you fail to understand the definition of Genocide, and keep accusing me of Genocide when I clearly explained the difference, therefore I'm done arguing with nonsense.

and like weve been saying, its not genocide if its the only way to achieve victory, it is a casualty

You refuse to understand the concept of Genocide and its meaning, whether is done to ensure victory or not, its genocide, I already clearly explained why and showed the defenition of it, If you refuse to understand that, I will just continue to copy and paste and hope that eventually it will sink in your skull.

I understand the meaning of Genocide, you do not seem to grasp that "there is an exceptioin to every rule".

go look up the term sacrifice

 Genocide in the dictionary- "the deliberate and systematic destruction"

Deliberate -Done consciously, happening by chance, Done with or marked by full consciousness of its consequences

systematicALLY-arranged in or comprimised in order.

By choosing Destroy, you systematically and deliberately kill the Geth, you are aware of what is going to happen. If they die in refuse, its a causalty of war, if you shoot a tube to kill them all, its genocide. Unless you have any evidence to prove me otherwise, don't write me "NOO ITS A CASUALTIE OF WAR"

it is as much of a casualty of war in destroy as it is in refuse. only difference is that in destroy they die for something. refusal their deaths are pointless..  

and if i were you i would stop posting the definition, you are only reinforcing our claims:blink:

Wow, you really are incapable of understanding simple concepts, By choosing Refuse you don't deliberately kill anyone, the deaths maybe be pointless, but i didn't deliberately or systematically kill anyone, so its not genocide, whether the deaths were pointless. In Destroy, whether it was to win the war, you deliberately kill the geth, its genocide. What can't you understand?

[Father_Jerusalem]

Eain wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Is what happens to the Geth in destroy a tragedy? Of course. But how is allowing the Geth to die morally worse than allowing ALL ADVANCED LIFE IN THE GALAXY to die?

It, quite simply, boils down to a numbers game. And the numbers clearly state that Destroy >>>>>>>>>>>>> Refuse.

Shepard would probably agree with your logic. But Shepard does not know that shooting the red tube blows up all the Reapers. She really doesn't. People who keep saying she does can only cite the Catalyst as reason, but Shepard has no reason to believe the Catalyst. Everything that Shepard has experienced hints at the fact that not using the Crucible is more likely to leave an opportunity open for destroying the Reapers later. That's what refusal is to her. Anything else is putting the fate of the galaxy in the hands of the Reaper Overlord and simply praying he's telling the truth, which is incredibly unlikely.

Shepard has no reason NOT to believe the Catalyst. The Catalyst has NO reason to lie. The Catalyst is WINNING. The Reapers are WINNING. This isn't a Bond movie where the villain has to kidnap Bond and explain his whole plan in order to try and trick or force Bond to sympathize with them in order to win.

This is Watchmen. This is Ozymandius saying "What am I, a Bond villain? I launched the attack ten minutes ago." 

Shepard goes to the Crucible knowing that this is the ONE CHANCE they have to defeat the Reapers - use the Crucible. Knowing that if he does not, they will lose. Everything. It is repeatedly drilled into Shepard's head through the course of 2.5 games that you cannot. Stop. The. Reapers. Conventionally. 

By refusing to believe the Catalyst, you are playing right into the hands of the Reapers. 

[Ryzaki]

Oh lawd we're doing the "if you pick refuse you're somehow responsible for the Reapers killing everyone but if you pick Destroy you totally aren't responsible for the Geth dying. Doesn't matter that Destroy isn't the only way to defeat the Reapers. Or that you could've picked a way to stop them that resulted in no deaths. Nope. I DID NOTHING WRONG ONLY THOSE STUPID REFUSERS DID!"

The hypocrisy is goddamned painful.

And no this isn't towards the post above mine.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 04 juillet 2012 - 10:25 .

[ghost9191]

The Genophage wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

@Ghost9191.

No, you fail to understand the definition of Genocide, and keep accusing me of Genocide when I clearly explained the difference, therefore I'm done arguing with nonsense.

Definition of GENOCIDE[/i]: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

By choosing "refuse" you DELIBERATELY allow the cycle to continue while the Reapers systematicall destroy many many racial, political, or cultural groups.

You are a party to genocide by allowing the Reapers to continue Reaping instead of stopping them when you were given multiple options on how to do so. 

Are you out there in a little Reaper ship helping them commit genocides? No, of course not. But you, and you alone, allowed them to continue on. Through your inaction, you are a party to it. Whether you like it or not.

Incorrect, deliberate means im doing something, how can you accuse me of doing something when you keep telling i didn't do anything. Like I said, Genocide is pinned on the person/thing who does it, not the people who make desicions for the victim of the genocide.

Doing something IS DOING NOTHING. YOU MADE A CHOICE BY NOT MAKING A CHOICE. Through inaction, you made the choice to LET THE REAPERS KEEP ON KEEPING ON. 

YOU had the power to stop them.

YOU chose not to.

YOU are thereby partially responsible for the actions THEY take because YOU refused to stop them from being able to take those actions.

My intentions were to stop them when I refuse, but I failed, it doesn't make it genocide. If Im offer a choise, decided not to take it, but take another one, and that other choise failed, does not mean I commited Genocide.

by that logic i don't commit genocide with destroy,. my intentions were to destroy the reapers, not the geth, not my fault they got ttargeted

[SMichelle]

DistantUtopia wrote...


it does feel kinda arbitraty when you think that a green beam which can
- Make organics partly synthetic
- give synthetics organic understanding

Suddenly can't distinguish between Reapers and other Synthetics.

Honestly, i still think "Bye bye EDI and Geth" were put in just to give the Destroy ending a negative conotation. 

BioWare couldn't give us a truly happy ending - that wouldn't be artistic enough.  If "Destroy" just destroyed the Reapers who *wouldn't* choose it?  Hell, even if Destroy meant just Shepard's death I'd still gladly pick it.
 

[babachewie]

ghost9191 wrote...

babachewie wrote...

You know the ME Universe isn't against wiping out a species to suit the needs of the Galaxy. The Rachni were wiped out with the combined support of the galaxy. Even Mordin says tragic but had to be done.

and to be fair the geth can be rebuilt. and also the geth could've been wiped out by the quarians on rannoch, so if that happened you wouldn't be commiting genocide by choosing destroy because the quarians already did

Thats also a good point. First of all I wasnt a big fan of the geth in the first place. Eden Prime and the crap they pulled in ME1 . They joined the Reapers twice. Even after I wiped out the hertics. These things arent worth the rest of the universe. I like Legion but thems the breaks. 

[The Genophage]

arial wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

arial wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

@Ghost9191.

No, you fail to understand the definition of Genocide, and keep accusing me of Genocide when I clearly explained the difference, therefore I'm done arguing with nonsense.

Definition of GENOCIDE[/i]: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

By choosing "refuse" you DELIBERATELY allow the cycle to continue while the Reapers systematicall destroy many many racial, political, or cultural groups.

You are a party to genocide by allowing the Reapers to continue Reaping instead of stopping them when you were given multiple options on how to do so. 

Are you out there in a little Reaper ship helping them commit genocides? No, of course not. But you, and you alone, allowed them to continue on. Through your inaction, you are a party to it. Whether you like it or not.

exactly, and as the law states, if you do not prevent the crime, you are just as guilty as those who commited it

When you refuse, your still fighting, if I were to try to stop the crime but failed, I wouldn't be held accountable now would I?

you would actually, because you knew there was no other way to stop them

Trusting in the Catalyst and believing you can beat them conventionally is the same leap of faith, so your saying I would go to jail for choosing an option when both when unlogical?

[Ryzaki]

SMichelle wrote...

DistantUtopia wrote...


it does feel kinda arbitraty when you think that a green beam which can
- Make organics partly synthetic
- give synthetics organic understanding

Suddenly can't distinguish between Reapers and other Synthetics.

Honestly, i still think "Bye bye EDI and Geth" were put in just to give the Destroy ending a negative conotation. 

BioWare couldn't give us a truly happy ending - that wouldn't be artistic enough.  If "Destroy" just destroyed the Reapers who *wouldn't* choose it?  Hell, even if Destroy meant just Shepard's death I'd still gladly pick it.
 

You and me both. But noooo can't have that.

As for who wouldn't chose it...control has you get ultimate power. That should be enough of a pull on it's own.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 04 juillet 2012 - 10:25 .

[The Genophage]

ghost9191 wrote...

babachewie wrote...

You know the ME Universe isn't against wiping out a species to suit the needs of the Galaxy. The Rachni were wiped out with the combined support of the galaxy. Even Mordin says tragic but had to be done.

and to be fair the geth can be rebuilt. and also the geth could've been wiped out by the quarians on rannoch, so if that happened you wouldn't be commiting genocide by choosing destroy because the quarians already did

And to be fair, many people on this cycle went in stasis chambers and survived in the next cycle. See what I did there, I headcanonned.

[wulf3n]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Shepard has no reason NOT to believe the Catalyst. The Catalyst has NO reason to lie. The Catalyst is WINNING. The Reapers are WINNING. This isn't a Bond movie where the villain has to kidnap Bond and explain his whole plan in order to try and trick or force Bond to sympathize with them in order to win.

which begs the question what purpose did "Destroy" serve the catalyst? why would it possibly allow you to choose an option that would in it's mind not work and ultimately doom the galaxy, not to mention go against the very thing it was created for.

[arial]

The Genophage wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

arial wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

arial wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

@Ghost9191.

No, you fail to understand the definition of Genocide, and keep accusing me of Genocide when I clearly explained the difference, therefore I'm done arguing with nonsense.

and like weve been saying, its not genocide if its the only way to achieve victory, it is a casualty

You refuse to understand the concept of Genocide and its meaning, whether is done to ensure victory or not, its genocide, I already clearly explained why and showed the defenition of it, If you refuse to understand that, I will just continue to copy and paste and hope that eventually it will sink in your skull.

I understand the meaning of Genocide, you do not seem to grasp that "there is an exceptioin to every rule".

go look up the term sacrifice

 Genocide in the dictionary- "the deliberate and systematic destruction"

Deliberate -Done consciously, happening by chance, Done with or marked by full consciousness of its consequences

systematicALLY-arranged in or comprimised in order.

By choosing Destroy, you systematically and deliberately kill the Geth, you are aware of what is going to happen. If they die in refuse, its a causalty of war, if you shoot a tube to kill them all, its genocide. Unless you have any evidence to prove me otherwise, don't write me "NOO ITS A CASUALTIE OF WAR"

it is as much of a casualty of war in destroy as it is in refuse. only difference is that in destroy they die for something. refusal their deaths are pointless..  

and if i were you i would stop posting the definition, you are only reinforcing our claims:blink:

Wow, you really are incapable of understanding simple concepts, By choosing Refuse you don't deliberately kill anyone, the deaths maybe be pointless, but i didn't deliberately or systematically kill anyone, so its not genocide, whether the deaths were pointless. In Destroy, whether it was to win the war, you deliberately kill the geth, its genocide. What can't you understand?

and you do not get it, by refusing when you know the crucible is the only way to achieve victory you are aware that you just killed every space fareing species,

therefore , by the law ive posted several times, every living thing the Reapers kill in this cycle, the blood is on your hands

[ghost9191]

The Genophage wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

arial wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

arial wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

@Ghost9191.

No, you fail to understand the definition of Genocide, and keep accusing me of Genocide when I clearly explained the difference, therefore I'm done arguing with nonsense.

and like weve been saying, its not genocide if its the only way to achieve victory, it is a casualty

You refuse to understand the concept of Genocide and its meaning, whether is done to ensure victory or not, its genocide, I already clearly explained why and showed the defenition of it, If you refuse to understand that, I will just continue to copy and paste and hope that eventually it will sink in your skull.

I understand the meaning of Genocide, you do not seem to grasp that "there is an exceptioin to every rule".

go look up the term sacrifice

 Genocide in the dictionary- "the deliberate and systematic destruction"

Deliberate -Done consciously, happening by chance, Done with or marked by full consciousness of its consequences

systematicALLY-arranged in or comprimised in order.

By choosing Destroy, you systematically and deliberately kill the Geth, you are aware of what is going to happen. If they die in refuse, its a causalty of war, if you shoot a tube to kill them all, its genocide. Unless you have any evidence to prove me otherwise, don't write me "NOO ITS A CASUALTIE OF WAR"

it is as much of a casualty of war in destroy as it is in refuse. only difference is that in destroy they die for something. refusal their deaths are pointless..  

and if i were you i would stop posting the definition, you are only reinforcing our claims:blink:

Wow, you really are incapable of understanding simple concepts, By choosing Refuse you don't deliberately kill anyone, the deaths maybe be pointless, but i didn't deliberately or systematically kill anyone, so its not genocide, whether the deaths were pointless. In Destroy, whether it was to win the war, you deliberately kill the geth, its genocide. What can't you understand?

ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

by choosing not to do anything, knowing that by doing so you will cost billions of lives even if you win, you are deliberately killing

and i have , for the last time. said that destroy is genocide, i accpet that. you however can't accept what you are doing is the same. i achieve victory through sacrificing the geth, you achieve it through sacrificing the current cycle

Modifié par ghost9191, 04 juillet 2012 - 10:26 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

The Genophage wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

@Ghost9191.

No, you fail to understand the definition of Genocide, and keep accusing me of Genocide when I clearly explained the difference, therefore I'm done arguing with nonsense.

Definition of GENOCIDE[/i]: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

By choosing "refuse" you DELIBERATELY allow the cycle to continue while the Reapers systematicall destroy many many racial, political, or cultural groups.

You are a party to genocide by allowing the Reapers to continue Reaping instead of stopping them when you were given multiple options on how to do so. 

Are you out there in a little Reaper ship helping them commit genocides? No, of course not. But you, and you alone, allowed them to continue on. Through your inaction, you are a party to it. Whether you like it or not.

Incorrect, deliberate means im doing something, how can you accuse me of doing something when you keep telling i didn't do anything. Like I said, Genocide is pinned on the person/thing who does it, not the people who make desicions for the victim of the genocide.

Doing something IS DOING NOTHING. YOU MADE A CHOICE BY NOT MAKING A CHOICE. Through inaction, you made the choice to LET THE REAPERS KEEP ON KEEPING ON. 

YOU had the power to stop them.

YOU chose not to.

YOU are thereby partially responsible for the actions THEY take because YOU refused to stop them from being able to take those actions.

My intentions were to stop them when I refuse, but I failed, it doesn't make it genocide. If Im offer a choise, decided not to take it, but take another one, and that other choise failed, does not mean I commited Genocide.

I could not care less what your "intentions" were. You went to the Crucible knowing that the ONE CHANCE YOU HAD to stop the Reapers was to use the Crucible. EVERYTHING was predicated on the Crucible being used. The fleets were formed to ferry the Crucible to the Citadel, to try and buy you as much time as possible with their lives, and to sacrifice EVERYTHING that they needed to in order to make the Crucible work.

You KNEW going in that by not using the Crucible, you would be damning the galaxy to a continued cycle of extinction.

And you chose to do that.

You are 100% culpable for every single life the Reapers take after you pick Refusal.

[babachewie]

The Genophage wrote...

arial wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

arial wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

@Ghost9191.

No, you fail to understand the definition of Genocide, and keep accusing me of Genocide when I clearly explained the difference, therefore I'm done arguing with nonsense.

Definition of GENOCIDE[/i]: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

By choosing "refuse" you DELIBERATELY allow the cycle to continue while the Reapers systematicall destroy many many racial, political, or cultural groups.

You are a party to genocide by allowing the Reapers to continue Reaping instead of stopping them when you were given multiple options on how to do so. 

Are you out there in a little Reaper ship helping them commit genocides? No, of course not. But you, and you alone, allowed them to continue on. Through your inaction, you are a party to it. Whether you like it or not.

exactly, and as the law states, if you do not prevent the crime, you are just as guilty as those who commited it

When you refuse, your still fighting, if I were to try to stop the crime but failed, I wouldn't be held accountable now would I?

you would actually, because you knew there was no other way to stop them

Trusting in the Catalyst and believing you can beat them conventionally is the same leap of faith, so your saying I would go to jail for choosing an option when both when unlogical?

You're not trusitng the catalyst. your trusitng the endless cycles that built the crucible in the first place. 

[The Genophage]

Ryzaki wrote...

SMichelle wrote...

DistantUtopia wrote...


it does feel kinda arbitraty when you think that a green beam which can
- Make organics partly synthetic
- give synthetics organic understanding

Suddenly can't distinguish between Reapers and other Synthetics.

Honestly, i still think "Bye bye EDI and Geth" were put in just to give the Destroy ending a negative conotation. 

BioWare couldn't give us a truly happy ending - that wouldn't be artistic enough.  If "Destroy" just destroyed the Reapers who *wouldn't* choose it?  Hell, even if Destroy meant just Shepard's death I'd still gladly pick it.
 

You and me both. But noooo can't have that.

I honestly Agree with what Toro wrote, why coudln't there be an ending you can win by conventional warfare, but you looks like 3/4 people in every species or something, that would have been a great idea.

[DistantUtopia]

babachewie wrote...
 You're not trusitng the catalyst. your trusitng the endless cycles that built the crucible in the first place. 

So...we should be blaming the previous cycles then for the poor endings we got? 

[The Genophage]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Eain wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Is what happens to the Geth in destroy a tragedy? Of course. But how is allowing the Geth to die morally worse than allowing ALL ADVANCED LIFE IN THE GALAXY to die?

It, quite simply, boils down to a numbers game. And the numbers clearly state that Destroy >>>>>>>>>>>>> Refuse.

Shepard would probably agree with your logic. But Shepard does not know that shooting the red tube blows up all the Reapers. She really doesn't. People who keep saying she does can only cite the Catalyst as reason, but Shepard has no reason to believe the Catalyst. Everything that Shepard has experienced hints at the fact that not using the Crucible is more likely to leave an opportunity open for destroying the Reapers later. That's what refusal is to her. Anything else is putting the fate of the galaxy in the hands of the Reaper Overlord and simply praying he's telling the truth, which is incredibly unlikely.

Shepard has no reason NOT to believe the Catalyst. The Catalyst has NO reason to lie. The Catalyst is WINNING. The Reapers are WINNING. This isn't a Bond movie where the villain has to kidnap Bond and explain his whole plan in order to try and trick or force Bond to sympathize with them in order to win.

This is Watchmen. This is Ozymandius saying "What am I, a Bond villain? I launched the attack ten minutes ago." 

Shepard goes to the Crucible knowing that this is the ONE CHANCE they have to defeat the Reapers - use the Crucible. Knowing that if he does not, they will lose. Everything. It is repeatedly drilled into Shepard's head through the course of 2.5 games that you cannot. Stop. The. Reapers. Conventionally. 

By refusing to believe the Catalyst, you are playing right into the hands of the Reapers. 

No reason to not believe the catalyst, how about hes the enemy that was trying to kill you the past three games, how about maybe he wants you to choose something so everyone dies quicker so that their numbers aren't diminished at all, please don't give me that bull.

[babachewie]

The Genophage wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

babachewie wrote...

You know the ME Universe isn't against wiping out a species to suit the needs of the Galaxy. The Rachni were wiped out with the combined support of the galaxy. Even Mordin says tragic but had to be done.

and to be fair the geth can be rebuilt. and also the geth could've been wiped out by the quarians on rannoch, so if that happened you wouldn't be commiting genocide by choosing destroy because the quarians already did

And to be fair, many people on this cycle went in stasis chambers and survived in the next cycle. See what I did there, I headcanonned.

the quarians wiping out the geth isnt head canon. its canon if chosen. Then Destroy is alot easier to make. 

[Father_Jerusalem]

wulf3n wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Shepard has no reason NOT to believe the Catalyst. The Catalyst has NO reason to lie. The Catalyst is WINNING. The Reapers are WINNING. This isn't a Bond movie where the villain has to kidnap Bond and explain his whole plan in order to try and trick or force Bond to sympathize with them in order to win.

which begs the question what purpose did "Destroy" serve the catalyst? why would it possibly allow you to choose an option that would in it's mind not work and ultimately doom the galaxy, not to mention go against the very thing it was created for.

Destroy was the original purpose of the Crucible. It tells you that there are now two new options, and tries to steer you towards those options, and specifically towards Synthesis. It does not WANT you to pick Destroy but short of disabling the Crucible completely and allowing the cycle to continue, it knows it cannot actively STOP you from picking it if that's what you want.

That's why the two other options are there - to try and get you to pick one of those instead of Destroy.

[arial]

The Genophage wrote...

arial wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

arial wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

@Ghost9191.

No, you fail to understand the definition of Genocide, and keep accusing me of Genocide when I clearly explained the difference, therefore I'm done arguing with nonsense.

Definition of GENOCIDE[/i]: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

By choosing "refuse" you DELIBERATELY allow the cycle to continue while the Reapers systematicall destroy many many racial, political, or cultural groups.

You are a party to genocide by allowing the Reapers to continue Reaping instead of stopping them when you were given multiple options on how to do so. 

Are you out there in a little Reaper ship helping them commit genocides? No, of course not. But you, and you alone, allowed them to continue on. Through your inaction, you are a party to it. Whether you like it or not.

exactly, and as the law states, if you do not prevent the crime, you are just as guilty as those who commited it

When you refuse, your still fighting, if I were to try to stop the crime but failed, I wouldn't be held accountable now would I?

you would actually, because you knew there was no other way to stop them

Trusting in the Catalyst and believing you can beat them conventionally is the same leap of faith, so your saying I would go to jail for choosing an option when both when unlogical?

it is stated in the game it take 4 dreadnoughts to down a Sovereign-class Reaper, and there are thousnads of Sovereign-class Reapers, as well as thousnads of Destroyers, and probably millions of Occuli(SP?). and there are no more then 120 Dreadnoughts in the Galaxy

Even giving every living Organic there own Frigate, we would not have the firepower to take out the Reapers conventionally

therefore conventional warfare is not a leap-of-faith, it is pure denial

[The Genophage]

babachewie wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

arial wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

arial wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

The Genophage wrote...

@Ghost9191.

No, you fail to understand the definition of Genocide, and keep accusing me of Genocide when I clearly explained the difference, therefore I'm done arguing with nonsense.

Definition of GENOCIDE[/i]: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

By choosing "refuse" you DELIBERATELY allow the cycle to continue while the Reapers systematicall destroy many many racial, political, or cultural groups.

You are a party to genocide by allowing the Reapers to continue Reaping instead of stopping them when you were given multiple options on how to do so. 

Are you out there in a little Reaper ship helping them commit genocides? No, of course not. But you, and you alone, allowed them to continue on. Through your inaction, you are a party to it. Whether you like it or not.

exactly, and as the law states, if you do not prevent the crime, you are just as guilty as those who commited it

When you refuse, your still fighting, if I were to try to stop the crime but failed, I wouldn't be held accountable now would I?

you would actually, because you knew there was no other way to stop them

Trusting in the Catalyst and believing you can beat them conventionally is the same leap of faith, so your saying I would go to jail for choosing an option when both when unlogical?

You're not trusitng the catalyst. your trusitng the endless cycles that built the crucible in the first place. 

The crucible was never finished, They didn't even know what they were building, maybe the first, first cycle knew.

[babachewie]

DistantUtopia wrote...

babachewie wrote...
 You're not trusitng the catalyst. your trusitng the endless cycles that built the crucible in the first place. 

So...we should be blaming the previous cycles then for the poor endings we got? 

if you're not gonna bring anything other than stupid responses than go away.