4712 réponses à ce sujet

[remydat]

Xilizhra wrote...

remydat wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I am going to probably offend more people but oh well. I am pro-life. It is irresponsible to me for someone to make a mistake and then decide to abort a child instead of dealing with it. I find it amoral except when a mother's life is threatened or rape. If you are pro choice then there is no point in trying to convince me of that just like there is no point in me trying to convince you to be pro life. That is a philosophical divide that simply will not be closed.

There's no reason for the "rape" exception if you genuinely believe that it's murder, except that you're willing to ignore your own alleged principles for the sake of political expedience. Which is something I always find amusing coming from my political opponents, so continue on, and may you continue to fail.

Go read my objection again.  I said I opposed someone making a mistake and then deciding to abort it.  Rape is not a mistake on the part of a women.  Your error is assuming everyone who is pro life objects to it for the same reason.

I can understand there is a distinction between potential life and actual life.  However irresponsbility is no excuse to terminate potential life.  Bbeing forced to have sex against your will and getting pregnant with your rapist's child is.  So there is nothing political expedient about it.  This is the problem when people delve into such topics.  People are so quick to make assumptions and not engage in discussion about these topics.

Well, you pretty much said outright that any actual discussion would be fruitless, so I figured I wouldn't lose anything by resorting to mockery. Regardless, here your standards just seem highly arbitrary. I personally don't give a crap how it happened; a child being forced to exist as a punishment isn't a good start for either child or parent, and not one generally worth starting to begin with.

It does not exist as punishment.  It exists because it has a right to in my book.  It is not up to me to decide whether it should exist or not, it is up to them to decide.  I don't know what their decision will be so they are not born yet so I presume the safest option is to allow them to be born to decide.

And the dicussion is only fruitless if the aim is to try and convert.  If the aim is to try and understand each other's views then it isn't.  As my posts in here should illustrate, I don't have a problem discussing things. I get ornery when people insist on trying to convert me.

[Iamjdr]

Thats all i ask, thank you for your consideration.

[justafan]

Xilizhra wrote...

justafan wrote...

I wouldn't say that, the Turians have never shied away from a fight.  They threatened orbital bombardment against Quarian settlers on Ekuna, and attacked without warning an unknown species activating dormant relays.  A similar "policing action" would not be out of the question if they found out the Quarians accidently broke the AI law.

Ekuna is bull**** for numerous reasons (mostly that it seems to be in the Terminus systems where the Council wouldn't care what the quarians were doing, and that the planet isn't even suitable to quarian habitation apparently) and I'm considering it noncanon in the same way that Gei Hinnom's planetary log entry is, mentioning the planet as a lifeless desert when you land in a varren-filled jungle.  The attack on the Alliance was because opening relays could lead to a much larger war than the one it'd take to stop them. There'd be no point in attacking Rannoch if the geth weren't violent; there'd certainly be a massive headache to sort out, but no need for violence.

There is no reason to regard Ekuna as BS.  Ekuna is in "Terminus" space, but only if you think of space as 2-D, I'm more inclined to call BS on the galaxy at war map.  But even if it is in the Terminus, that just shows how strict the Council is in regards to what it considers "law".  Either way, it shows just how vindictive the council will be to those who cross it.

Secondly, I don't see there being any reason to think the Turians would respond to the relay 343 incident any differently then they would to a near-sentient AI.  the law against activating relays is to prevent an alien invasion of council space by hostile aliens, the AI laws are to prevent an AI invasion of council space.  Just as they did not wait for the humans to activate the relay to see if there really were hostile aliens on the other side before punishing the humans, the Turians would not allow the Geth to develope full sentience and hope they aren't violent and react from there.  The Turian policy is to shoot first, ask questions later.

Modifié par justafan, 20 mars 2013 - 05:42 .

[silverexile17s]

Xilizhra wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Yet, Council law was the reason the quarians tried to elimanate the geth. The Council would have had their heads for creating A.I.s. The fear of that was what bread their fear of the geth being sapiant. Hence the attempt to kill them.

So when do the quarians mention Council law as a reason to kill the geth?

In any case, the Council really, really hates large-scale warfare and does everything it can to avoid it. Quarian society wouldn't be in any physical danger.

They would levy harsh scanctions against them. In the book "Mass Effect: Revelation", the Council puts scanctions on the Alliance for creating the A.I. "Eliza" at Gagarian Station. That's just one A.I.
What do you think the punishment for creating millions is?

That's what the quarians are afraid of. The Council's laws are the ones that declare A.I.s illegal.

Ah, yes, sanctions. Commit genocide for economic expedience, everyone! Even though we were the ones who genuinely screwed up and probably earned the damn things to begin with, at least if we're buying into Council law!

Look at the Reaper problem. They erased anything and everything regarding them. And the sanctions on A.I.s are indicitive that the Council don't consider A.I's to be alive either. So they don't consider it genocide. In other words, the Council basically rules that machines are not living beings, and legally makes it so that by their own galactic laws, killing thme isn't genocide. And when you don't follow Council law, you get shafted by them.
In other words, it's tantimount to "We're the Council, and we say that machines are not alive, so killing them is not genocide! Now kill those machines or we'll do it and make you pay out the ass for not doing it yourselves, AND for making them in the first place!"

That's basically what the Council was doing in regards to their laws on A.I.s. Sad but true.

P.S. I'm dead tired and have School tomorrow. I'll pick this up later. Good-night.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 20 mars 2013 - 05:45 .

[remydat]

Hazegurl wrote...

Personally, irresponsibility is the perfect reason for an abortion. No child should have the misfortune of being raised by an irresponsible parent. I wish we lived in a world where a person would just wise up after making a mistake like this, but sadly we don't live in that world. Recently I was watching Rupaul's Drag Race and one of the competitors began to cry mentioning that his mother left him and his sister at a bus stop when he was five. She just abandoned her children. Then when you hear about mothers being so scared they wrap their babies up in garbage bags and leave them to die in dumpsters. I'm not trying to change your mind, I don't care who is pro life or not. But I do wish that all these prolife people stop talking and demanding that everyone live by their laws while not getting off their rear to provide any support system for young mothers et al.

Instead they just want to point fingers and say "Your mistake you raise it and take responsibility!" Well, sometimes taking responsibility is an abortion.

And again, that is not your call to make IMO.  That is the child's.  If I could ask every fetus whether it wanted to live or die I would.  I can't so I err on the side of letting them live and deciding for themselves.  Honestly, do you want someone else making life or death decisions about you or would you want to make that call yourself?

And I don't like fanatics of any kid especially fanatics who have similar views because all they do is make my position look stupid because they usually sound like raving lunatics.

Modifié par remydat, 20 mars 2013 - 05:49 .

[Xilizhra]

There is no reason to regard Ekuna as BS. Ekuna is in "Terminus" space, but only if you think of space as 2-D, I'm more inclined to call BS on the galaxy at war map. But even if it is in the Terminus, that just shows how strict the Council is in regards to what it considers "law". Either way, it shows just how vindictive the council will be to those who cross it.

But it's blatantly contradictory to the Council's never wanting to anger the Terminus. It doesn't fit at all.

Secondly, I don't see there being any reason to think the Turians would respond to the relay 343 incident any differently then they would to a near-sentient AI. the law against activating relays is to prevent an alien invasion of council space by hostile aliens, the AI laws are to prevent an AI invasion of council space. Just as they did not wait for the humans to activate the relay to see if there really were hostile aliens on the other side before punishing the humans, the Turians would not allow the Geth to develope full sentience and hope they aren't violent and react from there. The Turian policy is to shoot first, ask questions later.

If so, the asari and salarians would probably rein the turians in after a short skirmish, probably with both trying to frantically explain that nothing would work better to ensure that the geth became violent.

[silverexile17s]

Xilizhra wrote...

There is no reason to regard Ekuna as BS. Ekuna is in "Terminus" space, but only if you think of space as 2-D, I'm more inclined to call BS on the galaxy at war map. But even if it is in the Terminus, that just shows how strict the Council is in regards to what it considers "law". Either way, it shows just how vindictive the council will be to those who cross it.

But it's blatantly contradictory to the Council's never wanting to anger the Terminus. It doesn't fit at all.

Secondly, I don't see there being any reason to think the Turians would respond to the relay 343 incident any differently then they would to a near-sentient AI. the law against activating relays is to prevent an alien invasion of council space by hostile aliens, the AI laws are to prevent an AI invasion of council space. Just as they did not wait for the humans to activate the relay to see if there really were hostile aliens on the other side before punishing the humans, the Turians would not allow the Geth to develope full sentience and hope they aren't violent and react from there. The Turian policy is to shoot first, ask questions later.

If so, the asari and salarians would probably rein the turians in after a short skirmish, probably with both trying to frantically explain that nothing would work better to ensure that the geth became violent.

Well, Virmire was in Terminus Space too, and yet they were upset for the nuke that went off there.

[Isichar]

Despite having a great deal of sympathy for the Qurians (They are as much of victim of themselves then the Geth is) I still have to hear what the Geth actually did wrong that made people feel they deserved to be wiped out, other then just existing.

If the Geth are guilty for defending themselves how can you justify even fighting the reapers. They obviously feel their existence is superior to yours, so why are you not sitting down and waiting to die?

And to those who would pick the Qurians simply because they are organic.... That is pretty much the ignorant outlook that racism thrives on.

[Xilizhra]

Well, Virmire was in Terminus Space too, and yet they were upset for the nuke that went off there.

That was an operation undertaken by STG people and Spectres, which is what they're supposed to do.

In any case, I never really answered the thread question. Ultimately... if there was no peace option, I can only assume that my Shepard would try to bring about peace and just fail in doing so. If that's the case, then... no, I'm not going to stop Legion undertaking an upload in self-defense. If I can't interfere successfully, I'll let those chips fall where they may.

[justafan]

Xilizhra wrote...

There is no reason to regard Ekuna as BS. Ekuna is in "Terminus" space, but only if you think of space as 2-D, I'm more inclined to call BS on the galaxy at war map. But even if it is in the Terminus, that just shows how strict the Council is in regards to what it considers "law". Either way, it shows just how vindictive the council will be to those who cross it.

But it's blatantly contradictory to the Council's never wanting to anger the Terminus. It doesn't fit at all.

Secondly, I don't see there being any reason to think the Turians would respond to the relay 343 incident any differently then they would to a near-sentient AI. the law against activating relays is to prevent an alien invasion of council space by hostile aliens, the AI laws are to prevent an AI invasion of council space. Just as they did not wait for the humans to activate the relay to see if there really were hostile aliens on the other side before punishing the humans, the Turians would not allow the Geth to develope full sentience and hope they aren't violent and react from there. The Turian policy is to shoot first, ask questions later.

If so, the asari and salarians would probably rein the turians in after a short skirmish, probably with both trying to frantically explain that nothing would work better to ensure that the geth became violent.

1.  We don't know how long ago Ekuna took place, perhaps the Terminus was more lawful 150 years ago when the Batarians were still a council race & the mercs hadn't built up huge armies?  Perhaps Ekuna was IN Batarian space, hence a council world.

2.  The difference is that they know the Geth's potential power and resources, since they know the Quarian's power and resources.  Humanity was a wildcard.  They could be the next Rachni, or just the new kids on the block who got in a lucky punch.  With the Geth and Turian naval superiority to the Quarians (As Ferixen would have assured), the Turians would have been guaranteed a military victory, and they likely would have done exactly what the Quarians tried and have succeeded where they failed.

[Xilizhra]

1. We don't know how long ago Ekuna took place, perhaps the Terminus was more lawful 150 years ago when the Batarians were still a council race & the mercs hadn't built up huge armies? Perhaps Ekuna was IN Batarian space, hence a council world.

They're literally on opposite sides of the galaxy. Batarian space is contiguous with human space, which is why the two clash so much.

2. The difference is that they know the Geth's potential power and resources, since they know the Quarian's power and resources. Humanity was a wildcard. They could be the next Rachni, or just the new kids on the block who got in a lucky punch. With the Geth and Turian naval superiority to the Quarians (As Ferixen would have assured), the Turians would have been guaranteed a military victory, and they likely would have done exactly what the Quarians tried and have succeeded where they failed.

Wait, I think your last sentence is twisting into odd directions. You're saying that the turians would recruit the geth to take out the quarians, then turn on the geth?

[Hazegurl]

remydat wrote...

And again, that is not your call to make IMO.  That is the child's.  If I could ask every fetus whether it wanted to live or die I would.  I can't so I err on the side of letting them live and deciding for themselves.  Honestly, do you want someone else making life or death decisions about you or would you want to make that call yourself?

Its parents that make decisions for children not the other way around. If a parent cannot provide a good life for a child: food, clean water, fresh clothing, warmth, a proper education, love, medical, and dental care and everything else a child needs to live safe and happy then death is the better option. If a parent is only going to have hatred and resentment for a child they've never wanted and choose to use it as a verbal and physcial or even sexual punching bag. Then yes, death is a better option.

Now if all these prolifers decide to take in all these unwanted children and use their own money and resources to raise them and make their life worth living then I wouldn't have a problem with the prolife stance. But leaving children in the hands of possible abusers and/or subject them to subpar and dangerous living conditions based on your own morals is not doing what is best for a child.

[justafan]

Isichar wrote...

Despite having a great deal of sympathy for the Qurians (They are as much of victim of themselves then the Geth is) I still have to hear what the Geth actually did wrong that made people feel they deserved to be wiped out, other then just existing.

If the Geth are guilty for defending themselves how can you justify even fighting the reapers. They obviously feel their existence is superior to yours, so why are you not sitting down and waiting to die?

And to those who would pick the Qurians simply because they are organic.... That is pretty much the ignorant outlook that racism thrives on.

The Geth are guilty of being complicit to attempted genocide.  They made no effort to stop the Heretics or sovereign, and made no attempts to warn organic civilization of the impending apocalypse which the geth knew Sovereign intended to unleash.

As for the Reapers, they want nothing more than your destruction (OK, "Harvest" if we want to be technical).  During the Morning War, there was misunderstandings on both sides, with the Quarians not realizing the geth were more than VIs until after it became a full scale war, and the Geth not realizing that the slaughter of 99% of an intelligent species is a horrible crime.  There is a difference between fighting for survival, and disproportionate retribution.  With the reapers, they will never stop.  With the geth and Quarians, it is proven that both sides will stop, which brings into the issue the ethical problems of Geth violent isolationism and alliance with the reapers.

[justafan]

Xilizhra wrote...

1. We don't know how long ago Ekuna took place, perhaps the Terminus was more lawful 150 years ago when the Batarians were still a council race & the mercs hadn't built up huge armies? Perhaps Ekuna was IN Batarian space, hence a council world.

They're literally on opposite sides of the galaxy. Batarian space is contiguous with human space, which is why the two clash so much.

2. The difference is that they know the Geth's potential power and resources, since they know the Quarian's power and resources. Humanity was a wildcard. They could be the next Rachni, or just the new kids on the block who got in a lucky punch. With the Geth and Turian naval superiority to the Quarians (As Ferixen would have assured), the Turians would have been guaranteed a military victory, and they likely would have done exactly what the Quarians tried and have succeeded where they failed.

Wait, I think your last sentence is twisting into odd directions. You're saying that the turians would recruit the geth to take out the quarians, then turn on the geth?

300 years is a long time, a lot can happen.  Maybe Ekuna is the equivalent of an overseas territory?  Maybe "The Terminus" didn't exist.  Lots of "ifs".  But there are ways for a lanet to be under council law despite its distance.  After all, the Quarians were part of the council, and Tikkun is on the opposite side of the galaxy from the main council territories.

And what I was referring to with the Turians, is that they would have violently suppressed the Geth's intelligence with military force, and would have used their military superiority to crush the Geth unlike the Quarians who had a much smaller force to fight the AI.

[remydat]

silverexile17s wrote...

No. You are NOT. You are prejudiced against it.
You yourself claimed that every synthetic uprising is by default the fault of orgnaics. You have shown nothing but ANTI-sentiments to "pro-life."
They didn't make a mistake, because their entire race was riding on it. You NEVER think on the ramafacations of it, do you? You really think the Council would buy into any of this, even if the quarians DID believe the geth were sapiant at the time? No. They would wipe them out themselves. And make the quarians pay hell for it. Then they would be in the same position anyway. And the geth would be DEAD in that future. so how's that work out for you? It's like telling a state guard that you smuggled an immigrant illegally across the border to escape abusive parents/spouse. They aren't going to care about the morals of it, bucause the law won't let them, and by law, you go to jail and the immagrant goes back to the living hell. All beacuse you fessed up to the border guard. Then where is your "take responcibility like a mature adult" come in? Life is NOT as clear-cut as that.
You see everything as FAR to black and white, NEVER seeing the gray in between. The problem here - what the problem ALWAYS has been -  was that you fault the quarians for the mistakes and prejudices of the Council, and the fears of retaliation from them that spurned them to panic and place their own survival and well being ahead of the geth, to the point that even if the DID believe the geth were sentiant, they would have still attacked to save their people from Council retaliation.
Like I said, the GAME OVER is in YOUR beliefs, as you are too inflexible to see that NOTHING is as cut and dry as  what you headcannon yourself into believeing it to be.

No.  It is entirely possible that some conflicts were initiated by machines.  I SPECULATED that based on this cycle that the writers intended to imply that the fundamental problem is the human fear of organics.  That is a recurring theme in sci fi.  So I think you are confusing my meta commentary or speculation with prejudice.  I am not basing my theory on the fact I hate organics.  I am basing it on the common theme I have seen repeated in sci fi stories previously.

So let the Council try and wipe them out.  I would have liked to see the Geth killing those smug Asari, Turian, and Salarian a**es.  And you do realise you do not speak for the Council? All you are doing is presenting your opinion of what you think would happen.  Acting like that opinion is the defintive way things would play out is just silly.  Or are you one of the Mass Effect writers?  You have an opinion good for you.  I have mine.  As prejudiced as the Council is, I don't think they are stupid.  They would assess the situation and probably conclude taking on the Geth would result in great loss of life to them and so would not risk it.  It's not like they have a race they could uplift to be cannon fodder like the Krogan.

I think what you don't get is the Council outsmarted the Quarians.  Their lazy a**es are not risking the lives of their people to kill a synthetic race that hasn't attacked them.  It is much easier to scare what they consider the lesser races into taking that chance so that it is the Quarians getting slaughtered if they miscalculate and not the real council races.  The Quarians stupidity is in falling for it.

Modifié par remydat, 20 mars 2013 - 06:16 .

[remydat]

Hazegurl wrote...

remydat wrote...

And again, that is not your call to make IMO.  That is the child's.  If I could ask every fetus whether it wanted to live or die I would.  I can't so I err on the side of letting them live and deciding for themselves.  Honestly, do you want someone else making life or death decisions about you or would you want to make that call yourself?

Its parents that make decisions for children not the other way around. If a parent cannot provide a good life for a child: food, clean water, fresh clothing, warmth, a proper education, love, medical, and dental care and everything else a child needs to live safe and happy then death is the better option. If a parent is only going to have hatred and resentment for a child they've never wanted and choose to use it as a verbal and physcial or even sexual punching bag. Then yes, death is a better option.

Now if all these prolifers decide to take in all these unwanted children and use their own money and resources to raise them and make their life worth living then I wouldn't have a problem with the prolife stance. But leaving children in the hands of possible abusers and/or subject them to subpar and dangerous living conditions based on your own morals is not doing what is best for a child.

Again, I hope this explains my position on the Quarians.  No one has a right to decide for another person whether they live or die just because their irresponsibilty gave them the potential for life.  Not a parent/creator of an organic child and not the creators of the Geth.  You can't take care of it then that is was adoption is for.  It sucks for the kid but I am in no postion to decide whether the kid sees it that way or not.

But just to be clear, that is my personal belief.  Everyone is free to make whatever decision their conscience dictates.  

[Artifex_Imperius]

Surprisingly enough the council races did not attack the geth after ME1. since reapers were just a myth then. why didn't the council retaliate it was clear then that the geth posed a serious threat.

[Ryzaki]

justafan wrote...

Now now, let's not let not get this thread locked thanks to real-world discussions of racism. The only discussion of racism allowed here is the fictional kind of the suit rat, toaster, big stupid jellyfish variety.

What no four eyes? That good sir is an outrage! *shakes fist* Batarians deserve insults too!

[Isichar]

justafan wrote...

The Geth are guilty of being complicit to attempted genocide.  They made no effort to stop the Heretics or sovereign, and made no attempts to warn organic civilization of the impending apocalypse which the geth knew Sovereign intended to unleash.

Why would you put yourself at risk to help people that are trying to kill you for making the mistake of living? Can you HONESTLY say you would have done differently? Think about it, would you put any risk on yourself to help people that are trying to kill you only because you exist? I want you to keep in mind that this is the same group that let the Qurians go because they could not calculate the results of wiping out a race.

justafan wrote...

As for the Reapers, they want nothing more than your destruction (OK, "Harvest" if we want to be technical).  During the Morning War, there was misunderstandings on both sides, with the Quarians not realizing the geth were more than VIs until after it became a full scale war, and the Geth not realizing that the slaughter of 99% of an intelligent species is a horrible crime.  There is a difference between fighting for survival, and disproportionate retribution.  With the reapers, they will never stop.  With the geth and Quarians, it is proven that both sides will stop, which brings into the issue the ethical problems of Geth violent isolationism and alliance with the reapers.

The war only stopped because of the reaper threat. It was a mutual destruction, if you think the Qurians would have hesitated to wipe out 100% of the Geth I am sorry to say your dead wrong. Yet the Geth who actually did have a chance to wipe out 100% of the Qurians chose not to. I am sorry to say I find it hard to sympathise with a race that died to a war they started (And I do sympathise with them, they panicked and made a bad decision which costed them greatly). And lets not act like the Qurians acted from a misunderstanding over what was happening. They became aware their VI's had become AI's and that is when the war started, not before.


And the Geth have NEVER have shown any interest in retribution. They have not shown anger, sadness or regret. They simply defended themselves. Yep 99.9% of a race got wiped out simply because they could not let go of killing a race thats crime was existing. The war begun with the Qurians, the war ended the moment the Qurians stopped fighting, and started back up again when the Qurians thought they had the ability to defeat the Geth. As far as I am able to tell 100% of the casualtys that come from this war come from the Qurians active choice to keep fighting. 

The Geth could have wiped out the Qurians and chose not to.
The Qurians have never stopped trying to completely destroy the Geth.

Modifié par Isichar, 20 mars 2013 - 06:30 .

[Sovereign24]

I've done two ME3 playthroughs.

First one I wiped out the Quarians.

Second one I made peace.

Wiping out the Quarians made the moment feel so much more epic.

Peace is just a cop out and imo takes away from the significance of that moment.

[Ryzaki]

Hazegurl wrote...

remydat wrote...

And again, that is not your call to make IMO.  That is the child's.  If I could ask every fetus whether it wanted to live or die I would.  I can't so I err on the side of letting them live and deciding for themselves.  Honestly, do you want someone else making life or death decisions about you or would you want to make that call yourself?

Its parents that make decisions for children not the other way around. If a parent cannot provide a good life for a child: food, clean water, fresh clothing, warmth, a proper education, love, medical, and dental care and everything else a child needs to live safe and happy then death is the better option. If a parent is only going to have hatred and resentment for a child they've never wanted and choose to use it as a verbal and physcial or even sexual punching bag. Then yes, death is a better option.

Now if all these prolifers decide to take in all these unwanted children and use their own money and resources to raise them and make their life worth living then I wouldn't have a problem with the prolife stance. But leaving children in the hands of possible abusers and/or subject them to subpar and dangerous living conditions based on your own morals is not doing what is best for a child.

Yeah where the pro-life/pro-choice analogy falls on its face in regards to this debate is the Geth aren't dependent on the Quarians to live.

They'd figured out their own way if the Quarians hadn't went "DESTROY THEM ALL!" and they werne't sucking nutrients from the Quarians bodies for 9 months.

So really not seeing why the pro-choice/life debate is even here.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 20 mars 2013 - 06:45 .

[remydat]

Sovereign24 wrote...

I've done two ME3 playthroughs.

First one I wiped out the Quarians.

Second one I made peace.

Wiping out the Quarians made the moment feel so much more epic.

Peace is just a cop out and imo takes away from the significance of that moment.

Lol, that is just mean dude.  Mean.  Even I don't have the balls to look my beloved Tali in her eyes and then kill her people.  Which is why I can only reveal how I really  feel about her idiot military leaders on a message board when she isn't looking, lol.

[remydat]

Ryzaki wrote...

Yeah where the pro-life/pro-choice analogy falls on its face in regards to this debate is the Geth aren't depenant on the Quarians to live.

They'd figured out their own way if the Quarians hadn't went "DESTROY THEM ALL!" and they werne't sucking nutrients from the Quarians bodies for 9 months.

So really not seeing why the pro-choice/life debate is even here.

I brought it up to explain my position on the Quarians as I found it to be similar ie making a mistake is not a good excuse for then trying to kill that mistake.

Artifex_Imperius wrote...

Surprisingly enough the council races did not attack the geth after ME1. since reapers were just a myth then. why didn't the council retaliate it was clear then that the geth posed a serious threat.

Surprising.  Nah, they ain't stupid.  The sad thing is not only did they not attack to avenger the billons of dead quarians, they allegely sent diplomats to talk peace.  They probably said to themselves, "you know ever since we got done with the Krogan as cannon fodder and killed countless of their unborn children, we have been looking for a new group to replace them.  These Geth seem pretty efficient at killing so let's see if they are interested in our job offer."

Incidentally, playing ME2 again, I had forgotten a few things.  One of which being the Asari have a nice slave trade on Ilium.  I just love how the Asari that comes out to meet me explains how wonderful it is for the slaves, lol.  Yep these are your Council races my friends.

Modifié par remydat, 20 mars 2013 - 06:53 .

[Ryzaki]

Sovereign24 wrote...

I've done two ME3 playthroughs.

First one I wiped out the Quarians.

Second one I made peace.

Wiping out the Quarians made the moment feel so much more epic.

Peace is just a cop out and imo takes away from the significance of that moment.

*brofists*

Though renegade peace actually feels awesome.

Paragon peace makes me facepalm though. Shep sounds like a sissy when he needs to be telling people to STFU and GTFO. "I hope you make the right choice" *snort* B**** please. You better stop shooting before you get shot more like.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 20 mars 2013 - 06:47 .

[Sovereign24]

Ryzaki wrote...

Sovereign24 wrote...

I've done two ME3 playthroughs.

First one I wiped out the Quarians.

Second one I made peace.

Wiping out the Quarians made the moment feel so much more epic.

Peace is just a cop out and imo takes away from the significance of that moment.

*brofists*

Though renegade peace actually feels awesome.

Paragon peace makes me facepalm though. Shep sounds like a sissy when he needs to be telling people to STFU and GTFO. "I hope you make the right choice" *snort* B**** please. You better stop shooting before you get shot more like.

Unfortunately when I did peace, I did it via Paragon. Hated it so much.

Destroying the Quarians will always be my head cannon though, since it had such a profound affect on my playthrough. Took me several more missions to come to grips with it.