Han Shot First wrote...
Sorry, but no.
Collateral damage would never get a conviction for genocide. It just does not simply meet the legal requirements, and those like yourself using the term genocide in this discussion either don't understand the term, or are intentionally misusing it to suit an agenda.
Again, Article II of the 1948 United Nations' Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as, "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group."
The Oxford dictionary defines genocide as, "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group."
In other words genocide is the deliberate killing of a large group of people, because they're different in some way. The intent and deliberate nature of it are important, and Shepard's actions during the finale of Mass Effect 3 meet neither the legal nor the dictionary definitions for genocide.
There isn't any spin to either the legal or dictionary definitions of genocide, both of which don't support your argument.
You seem to have a problem seperating yourself from the fictional protagonist in the story, since you keep using personal pronouns (You, I, Me, ect) to refer to actions Shepard may have taken in the game. I think that might be linked to why you are getting so emotional about this issue. Let me reiterate: YOU ARE NOT SHEPARD.
With that out of the way, you are arguing that the collateral damage of Destroy is genocide while the collateral damage of Refuse is not. That doesn't make a lick of sense.
For the record I don't believe Refuse is genocide either, just the consequences of a tactically inept Shepard making a very bad choice that ends in a flawless Reaper victory. It isn't genocide, just colossal stupidity.
I'm sorry, but this is patently nonsensical.
You are offering definitions that actually prove your interpretation wrong, while loudly decrying anyone who interprets them appropriately. Even in the examples you have found the term does not imply a motivation of hate, merely
intent. The extermination of a race (which happens to the Geth), occurs because they are targeted deliberately (which Shepard does). Nowhere in that definition does it dictate that Shepard has to despise the peoples that he/she has wiped from existence.
So, I'm really not sure what aspect of that
direct correlation between genocide's definition and Shepard's actions you are hoping to contradict. Sure: Shepard didn't
want to kill the Geth, but in Choosing Destroy he/she still did. And there were even other options available that did not include such extermination, so trying to argue that Shepard
literally could not avoid it is overtly fatuous as well.
Again: your Shepard may not have
wanted to commit genocide (I'm sure he/she didn't), but that's precisely what he/she did:
knowingly (trying to weasel out of it by claiming the Catalyst may have been lying is cowardly) and with
intent. Shepard wasn't cackling with glee to watch the Geth burn, but he/she was,
by necessity, 'systemically' and 'deliberately' targeting them, because it was deemed to be 'for the greater good'.
It was a genocidal two for one: to wipe out the Reapers you have to wipe out the Geth. One genocide your Shepard no doubt felt was intentional; one I presume he/she thought was lamentable but necessary.
Trying to mealy mouth around the reality of these actions fundamentally undermines the fiction that the game is asking you to participate in and (again, in the fiction of this universe) is disrespectful to the victims – and I have to believe that your Shepard is not so woefully naive as to hide behind terms like 'collateral damage' rather than acknowledge the unfortunate truth of his/her actions.
Retour en haut
