I'm not seeing what is so complicated about this.
Javik says that honor doesn't matter because a bunch of people died.
Shepard rebuffs him by reminding them he's seen a lot of people die too, and that honor still matters.
Thus, indicating that honor is not dependent on whether people died or not.
I'm not seeing what is so complicated about this.
Javik says that honor doesn't matter because a bunch of people died.
Shepard rebuffs him by reminding them he's seen a lot of people die too, and that honor still matters.
Thus, indicating that honor is not dependent on whether people died or not.
I am. You're using intentional vague language and being smug when you're misunderstood.
You're logic makes no sense. And you're making a strawman of Javik's statement. He's asking what is the ultimate consequence of honor? What does it gain you besides death? What does it give you? Why does it matter? And I don't believe you can give an answer to this David.
How does honor matter?
I'm not seeing what is so complicated about this.
Javik says that honor doesn't matter because a bunch of people died.
Shepard rebuffs him by reminding them he's seen a lot of people die too, and that honor still matters.
Thus, indicating that honor is not dependent on whether people died or not.
And how does Shepard's rebuke prove that honor matters?
EDIT- Nvm, Massively beat me to it.
That's not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is whether it doesn't matter based on a bunch of people dying, as Javik claims.
That's not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is whether it doesn't matter based on a bunch of people dying, as Javik claims.
As I said, Javik didn't claim that. You did.
That's exactly what Javik claims. There's a trillion dead people, therefore honor doesn't matter.
That's exactly what Javik claims. There's a trillion dead people, therefore honor doesn't matter.
No, Javik claims that honor is not something that will matter in death. And he thus implies that honor doesn't matter in life. I'd say you're misinterpreting, but I know better: You're misrepresenting (to others and to yourself).
I think I can guess what Javik would think of your "rebuke" David.
I'm sure he would. Unfortunately for him, truth is not meant to be a placation.
No, it's a means for you to stroke your ego.
I'm guessing Javik would be looking to box himself up for another 50,000 years if you tossed that at him.I'm sure he would. Unfortunately for him, truth is not meant to be a placation.
I expect so. He does plan to commit suicide. It's clear there's no place for him.
I expect so. He does plan to commit suicide. It's clear there's no place for him.
No ****. Everything he's ever known is gone, and he's not going to have the patience to deal with the idiocy of modern races.
Although, I can also defeat your argument by stating that it's not an objective observation, since his opinion can be chosen by the player on that topic. He is willing to live if he doesn't view his shard.
I'm sure he would. Unfortunately for him, truth is not meant to be a placation.
Indeed, which is why he'd be facepalming at your Shepard's insistence in the belief in some non-concrete, abstract ideal that has the comparable effective range of a soggy paper-plane against a Reaper (and the same physical effect).
I expect so. He does plan to commit suicide. It's clear there's no place for him.
But making him view the shard is at the top of the wheel!No ****. Everything he's ever known is gone, and he's not going to have the patience to deal with the idiocy of modern races.
Although, I can also defeat your argument by stating that it's not an objective observation, since his opinion can be chosen by the player on that topic. He is willing to live if he doesn't view his shard.
One of those rare instances where choosing the paragon option doesn't mean "instant win."
Indeed, which is why he'd be facepalming at your Shepard's insistence in the belief in some non-concrete, abstract ideal that has the comparable effective range of a soggy paper-plane against a Reaper (and the same physical effect).
Do you remember the question I asked you about how you feel about fiction?
It's not just heroic fiction, either. Even the most 'cynical' fiction with very dim views of mankind agrees as Game of Thones or House of Cards or 1984 agree that men who only see power in money and weapons are utter fools, and that real power always resides elsewhere. And that's not my opinion now, it's fiction's, so don't go tattling.
I imagine you must feel very isolated by that.
One of those rare instances where choosing the paragon option actually comes back to bite you in the ass.
Not in the least. It's the better option.
Nvm. This post contained ignorance on my part.
How is pouring salt in an old wound to sate your own curiosity the "better option?"Not in the least. It's the better option.
This is all so much more entertaining when I can't see David trolling us all and can just see everyone responding to his trolling.
Do you remember the question I asked you about how you feel about fiction?
It's not just heroic fiction, either. Even the most 'cynical' fiction with very dim views of mankind agrees as Game of Thones or House of Cards or 1984 agree that men who only see power in money and weapons are utter fools, and that real power always resides elsewhere. And that's not my opinion now, it's fiction's, so don't go tattling.
I imagine you must feel very isolated by that.
I don't think you understood their portrayal of power and money and weapons. They were all quite practical and economical with it. The people who had it always won. So I think your understanding of fiction is broadly flawed.
You don't win with heroism. You win with pragmatism. You win with resources and power. That is reality, so don't go tattling.
Hm. I think I prefer having him use the 'Shard, myself.
Granted, I didn't expect it to be *that* painful, and probably wouldn't have encouraged it if I knew.
Still, I'd take the pain to see that which I care for. Love hurts.
Have you perhaps just not read?
As 1984 makes very clear, almost word-for-word, is that the 'proles' have the numbers and force to theoretically crush the Party any time they wished. They hold the force. Winston remarks they could do it any time they wish, and much of his misery stems from frustration over their apparently unnecessary helplessness.
Have you perhaps just not read?
As 1984 makes very clear, almost word-for-word, is that the 'proles' have the numbers and force to theoretically crush the Party any time they wished. They hold the force. Winston remarks they could do it any time they wish, and much of his misery stems from frustration over their apparently unnecessary helplessness.
Wha? What 1984 were you reading? The one by Van Halen?
As I recall, it was nigh physically impossible for the Proletariat to rebel, since all thought or idea had been entirely eliminated from the populace. Any smart or above average (for a Prole) person was killed. The Party had eyes and ears everywhere. The Proles had zero power, and zero potential. Winston only surmises that the only hope is for a clever enough person to one day be born and be clever enough to recognize that he has to hide his cleverness to ever hope to have a chance. Which he wouldn't.
And how do I 'read' Game of Thrones or House of Cards? I've read a Song of Fire and Ice up to 'A Feast For Crows', and I really don't think you'll be happy to see what happens there.
I've also read 'Heart of Darkness', as well as non-fiction such as 'Discourses on Livy' (Machiavelli) and 'Infanterie Greift An' (Erwin Rommel). They'll tell you firsthand what untempered 'honor' leads too on the Battlefield, and that a superior trained, equipped, fed, and funded force will always be victorious.
Retour en haut