That doesn't mean what you think it means. "With us or against us" means there's no one playing both sides, or having sympathies for both sides. It doesn't mean there are no noncombatants. You of all people should know what the term noncombatant means.
And if the people that make up the race don't matter then the race doesn't matter. So what exactly are you fighting for? Your own survival? If that's the case, you're doing it wrong. You have a better chance hiding. A single person, or a small group can hide from the Reapers for the rest of their lives. Might even make it a cozy hidey-hole if they plan for it. You could take Miranda and whoever else... except I don't think Miranda would be amenable to the idea. Or to your more extreme ideas for that matter.
In another time and place, it would make an interesting story.
I'm not so sure a galaxy where civilians are thrown into the meat grinder callously, even eagerly is "a better place". There's a difference between what you absolutely have to do, and what you do just because you can't be bothered by the alternatives.
Come to think of it, you might fit into this failure that is Cerberus after all. You'd likely be more efficient in terms of operations. But you seem to profess to be just as wasteful and needlessly malevolent.
They can get a husk to do backflips. Woohoo, call the news the war is won. And to do that they... massacred hundreds if not thousands of civilians. Or worse, actually.
Oh and we potentially can already do what they've been trying to do courtesy of Leviathan, with zero procedural casualties...
*slow clap*
Again. There's doing what you have to do. And there's being cartoonishly evil because **** it, why not?
And that isn't what I meant by it. I meant that you either contribute to our side of the war effort, or you support the Reapers via inaction (or worse). I'm not entirely certain who would have a sympathetic view of the Reapers motivation: They really don't leave a lot of room for grey. They're clear in their intentions and plans, and they gave me the issue of them killing us all.
I think survival matters. I think the best way to ensure that survival is by creating the Crucible and destroying the Reapers with it. As I said to iakus, cowardice and running can only get me so far. Eventually, the Reapers will catch up to me somewhere down the road. I can't hide like Leviathan. I doubt the Reapers are going to make the same mistake that they made with the Protheans on Ilos. And yes, I do disagree with Miranda in that regard. Hell, part of me even thinks she'd end up rejecting my Shepard for being even more extreme than TIM in some aspects.
Indeed it would.
And there's an in-between in there too. I'll take the option of what is most practical at the time. I probably came off wrong. I'm not going to callously start shipping every citizen who didn't enlist off to a death camp the exact moment a husk appears. But I'm willing to judge from circumstances in each situation that requires it whether or not to just blow them all away or make an effort to rescue them and utilize them. It's a scorched earth policy to a certain extent, and I have an economic model I made a while back that I came up with on this issue. It's nothing fancy, no bells and whistles. However, to summarize, I may be extreme, but there is one thing I adhere to as the word of god: results. If a method isn't getting me results, then I'll do something else. I'm not willing to be wrong: I'll keep working until I'm right. And this is where we disagree. Yeah, I'd be a lot better in terms of operations. But (prior to indoctrination), I'm not seeing the waste with Cerberus actions. As for the malevolence, if it gets me what I need, it doesn't matter. If the malevolence has no effect at all on the outcome, and is completely separated from it, then I have no problem either. It's only when the malevolence inhibits utility and results that I'd consider changing my approach in that regard (and I mean I would change it).
As for Sanctuary, we both know more was accomplished there than just 'backflips'. That is an appeal to ridicule fallacy on your part to say otherwise, and to make your claim against mine in that regard as well. I think the intention of BW was to create a scenario that did legitimately create a gain against the Reapers, but was still horrifying and unethical from a moral perspective. That said, I'll make a stance here: those civilians existed outside my goals and plans. There was no utility I could achieve from them, therefore I didn't care about them. What happened to them is of utterly no concern or care of mine. Should it be?
Also, from a meta-perspective, Leviathan was added later. Can't really do much against something that goes in and retroactively adds something that makes Sanctuary redundant. In that respect, I'd change it more to a place where conventional Reaper tech can be studied to make advances similar to the Thanix guns. The refugees can do what they will, as long as they don't hinder my plans or help the Reapers (in which case, they will be obliterated). They'll receive no assistance from me.
And a little bit of a question: What's wrong with being cartoonishly evil? What's ontologically wrong with it?
Retour en haut
