if Peace is unobtainable....

#21ArwingMasterPosted 2/1/2013 9:19:26 AM
I choose geth. Nothing can justify the genocidal attitude the quarains have towards the Geth, whereas the non-heritic Geth only acted out of self-defense. After all, the Geth aren't the ones you have to talk down from killing an enemy that doesn't want to fight them.
---
"Son of a submariner!
#22HarvmoonmaniacPosted 2/1/2013 9:19:29 AM
Peace is always obtainable but is never around forever, war will eventually take hold no matter how long it takes.
---
I'm a fan of using "..." on message boards...
#23General_JumaPosted 2/1/2013 9:21:28 AM
Urdnot_Runt posted...
I'd choose the geth if I count save both. The Quarians show that they haven't changed and arent sny different than their ancestors centuries ago.

It's fair for the Quarians to lay in the bed they made while it's unfair for the geth to be persecuted when they did nothing wrong. The Quarians could just look at the bigger picture and call off the attack but of course they just wanna light their war. Seems like the Quarians just don't wanna make any sacrifices for the greater good so they get left behind.

I also feel like it generally is better for the story. Poetic justice and all. If it were a movie or a book I think siding with the geth would be way better.


Because killing 99% of their population(i.e. genocide) is doing nothing wrong
---
Not comic - animated. For eight years America was ruled by Pinky and the Brain.-Thanatos the Great
#24bessy67Posted 2/1/2013 9:22:37 AM
ArwingMaster posted...
I choose geth. Nothing can justify the genocidal attitude the quarains have towards the Geth, whereas the non-heritic Geth only acted out of self-defense. After all, the Geth aren't the ones you have to talk down from killing an enemy that doesn't want to fight them.


Again though, how can it possibly be genocide to destroy machines that your race created? That would be equivalent to calling it genocide if humans started destroying all cars.
---
"Immigrants. Thats all they do, you know. Just driving around, listening to raps, shooting all the jobs." - Malory Archer
GT: Bessy67
#25Wii0playerPosted 2/1/2013 9:24:53 AM
ToolOwnsYou posted...
We're also punishing the Quarians for the decisions that were made hundreds of years ago. Some acknowledge that it was wrong (Zaal'Koris), some defend the decision (Daro'Xen), but it's all opinion either way.

Humanity bullied the Batarians into some drastic measures too, but I don't see many Balak fans around.

Shepard didn't personally colonize all the free worlds he could find in Batarian space. Garrus didn't give the order to use the genophage. I didn't personally own a slave 150 years before I was born. I think Shepard has a line somewhere on Rannoch that the past doesn't have to define us anymore.

Regardless of what happened in the past, the decision affects the Quarians of today, not their ancestors.


The Quarians of today chose to attack the Geth again, in the middle of the single most important galactic war since probably the creation of the galaxy. The Quarians had plenty of chances to start over somewhere else, hell some of them may've been without a bio suit if they had just found another world to colonize in the Terminus. But no, they were all for the "homeworld", and choose to continue to attack a species that didn't want conflict.

They completely deserved what was coming to them at the end of the Rannoch mission.
---
"In Mass Effect 3, the path to victory is less clear at the outset. You wont just find some long-lost Reaper off button."-Casey ******* Hudson.
#26Wii0playerPosted 2/1/2013 9:26:49 AM
bessy67 posted...
ArwingMaster posted...
I choose geth. Nothing can justify the genocidal attitude the quarains have towards the Geth, whereas the non-heritic Geth only acted out of self-defense. After all, the Geth aren't the ones you have to talk down from killing an enemy that doesn't want to fight them.


Again though, how can it possibly be genocide to destroy machines that your race created? That would be equivalent to calling it genocide if humans started destroying all cars.


Because the Geth were beings who wanted to live.
---
"In Mass Effect 3, the path to victory is less clear at the outset. You wont just find some long-lost Reaper off button."-Casey ******* Hudson.
#27Urdnot_RuntPosted 2/1/2013 9:31:39 AM(edited)
General_Juma posted...
Urdnot_Runt posted...
I'd choose the geth if I count save both. The Quarians show that they haven't changed and arent sny different than their ancestors centuries ago.

It's fair for the Quarians to lay in the bed they made while it's unfair for the geth to be persecuted when they did nothing wrong. The Quarians could just look at the bigger picture and call off the attack but of course they just wanna light their war. Seems like the Quarians just don't wanna make any sacrifices for the greater good so they get left behind.

I also feel like it generally is better for the story. Poetic justice and all. If it were a movie or a book I think siding with the geth would be way better.


Because killing 99% of their population(i.e. genocide) is doing nothing wrong


It's not, under the circumstances. Those being the quarians attacked 100% of the time after they already tried and failed to commit genocide once.

Wii0player posted...
bessy67 posted...
ArwingMaster posted...
I choose geth. Nothing can justify the genocidal attitude the quarains have towards the Geth, whereas the non-heritic Geth only acted out of self-defense. After all, the Geth aren't the ones you have to talk down from killing an enemy that doesn't want to fight them.


Again though, how can it possibly be genocide to destroy machines that your race created? That would be equivalent to calling it genocide if humans started destroying all cars.


Because the Geth were beings who wanted to live.


Yup, And the narrative goes out of it's way to make that clear. When people don't acknowledge that and refer to the geth as "toasters", etc. they are just catering to their own headcanon.
---
You have one or more unread System Notifications. Please read them as soon as possible
^^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEf5VFKplzw
#28General_JumaPosted 2/1/2013 9:37:59 AM
Urdnot_Runt posted...
General_Juma posted...
Urdnot_Runt posted...
I'd choose the geth if I count save both. The Quarians show that they haven't changed and arent sny different than their ancestors centuries ago.

It's fair for the Quarians to lay in the bed they made while it's unfair for the geth to be persecuted when they did nothing wrong. The Quarians could just look at the bigger picture and call off the attack but of course they just wanna light their war. Seems like the Quarians just don't wanna make any sacrifices for the greater good so they get left behind.

I also feel like it generally is better for the story. Poetic justice and all. If it were a movie or a book I think siding with the geth would be way better.


Because killing 99% of their population(i.e. genocide) is doing nothing wrong


It's not, under the circumstances. Those being the quarians attacked 100% of the time after they already tried and failed to commit genocide once.


So when the Quarians switched to fleeing 300 years previous you really think there were only 17 million left at that point?
---
Not comic - animated. For eight years America was ruled by Pinky and the Brain.-Thanatos the Great
#29ZERO2936Posted 2/1/2013 9:50:14 AM(edited)
Geth. I've never liked or trusted the quarians. I'm not letting the geth die just because one moronic admiral refuses to stand down.

Also because of this analogy:

Lv100RedChocobo posted...
Geth. if a bully attacks a kid for his lunch money and fights back, causing a scene, I'm not helping the bully.
#30Tbx66Posted 2/1/2013 9:43:51 AM
Not taking sides, but the Quarians got what they deserved. Their ancestors were fools, and so are they.

Also, We should destroy all cars. Who knows. They might gain sentience one day and wipe us out.

Awesome suggestion as someone above said.
---
"You assume i give a damn. That's cute."