[007]
174.65.11.127
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
No, they\'re not opinions. They\'re simple statements of fact from various characters on what happened. \
to:
No, they\\\'re not opinions. They\\\'re simple statements of fact from various characters on what happened. \\\"The geth committed genocide\\\" isn\\\'t an opinion, as genocide isn\\\'t a subjective term. Now whether those facts are accurate is something else, but it\\\'s by no means a statement of opinion. And I love how you continue to say that the character involved MUST not know what they\\\'re talking about, even though not only would such a thing be hard to miss, but there are several plausible ways they could have first hand experience (the Council account, I mean).
They make it clear by having the geth deceieve you several times? Then having Shepard get pissed about being deceived by a geth? And again, simply saying \\\"no one contradicted it\\\" proves absolutely nothing as to how true it actually is. You\\\'re getting into \\\"the writer intended you to think this\\\", which is not only baseless, since you\\\'re not the writer, but brings up the obvious double standard relating to the geth genocide. No one ever contradicts Anderson\\\'s or Tali\\\'s claims, not even the geth. They\\\'re just accepted by everyone. No one raises the possibility that they might be wrong, even the most bleeding heart pro-geth characters. And I\\\'m not making a single thing up; the only one doing so right now is you with this \\\"the Council account is based solely on the quarian account\\\" stuff. I\\\'m simply stating, in objective terms, what happened in the game; geth claimed this, everyone else claimed that, no one contradicted either claim. That is purely objective and neutral. Saying \\\"this happened\\\" solely because character x said so while dismissing character y is not objective or neutral, it is bias by stating one account as a fact.
Just because the question isn\\\'t raised doesn\\\'t mean it has to be taken as 100% fact. No one questions Tali\\\'s claim that the geth killed billions during the war, in fact Liara (a Council species member) agrees with it, yet you\\\'re content to attempt to dismiss that. And again, if you want to get meta, why would the writers have numerous characters state the geth did this, have it never be contradicted unlike some other geth myths, and make every in-universe detail support it if it wasn\\\'t true?
EDIT: No. I can\\\'t tell if you\\\'re deliberately misrepresenting my position or genuinely don\\\'t understand, but I\\\'m not in favor of taking those statements as facts. In fact, I\\\'m not advocating taking any characters\\\' statement as a fact. I advocated the completely neutral and objective approach of just saying \\\"the geth said this\\\" and \\\"the Council said this\\\". Nothing contradicts the geth letting the quarians go intentionally, but nothing supports it either, so it can just be marked up for what it is: a geth claim. The same goes for the Council calling it genocide. Nothing contradicts it- in fact several details support it- but it\\\'s never explicitly confirmed, so it can just be marked up for what it is: the Council\\\'s account.
And excuse me, you\\\'re the one who started this whole debate by saying that Anderson and Tali shouldn\\\'t be taken seriously at all, even though their claims are taken as facts in-universe (in fact, Anderson\\\'s is apparently what all of Council space believes) and never contradicted. In fact, they are supported by the few details that are agreed upon by both sides, as well as the geth\\\'s general demeanor and characterization. And, in Anderson\\\'s case, he has less of a reason to be biased than the geth, as humans had no involvement in the war.
If you want to go with the Doylist \\\"the writers wouldn\\\'t tell us something, have characters accept it, and leave it uncontradicted if it weren\\\'t true\\\" approach, that\\\'s fine, but you\\\'d have to drop the double standard on it and apply it to both sides. Heck, the Council\\\'s account has much more of a Doylist reason to be correct given just all the details that agree with it (Rannoch\\\'s state, the quarians not using weapons that would damage Rannoch to the degree that it was damaged, 99.9% of quarians dead, toxins on Rannoch, no quarians left alive in geth space today, Legion saying that the quarians have a right to be mad at the geth, it\\\'s never ever contradicted even as the game tries to portray the geth sympathetically, etc.).
They make it clear by having the geth deceieve you several times? Then having Shepard get pissed about being deceived by a geth? And again, simply saying \\\"no one contradicted it\\\" proves absolutely nothing as to how true it actually is. You\\\'re getting into \\\"the writer intended you to think this\\\", which is not only baseless, since you\\\'re not the writer, but brings up the obvious double standard relating to the geth genocide. No one ever contradicts Anderson\\\'s or Tali\\\'s claims, not even the geth. They\\\'re just accepted by everyone. No one raises the possibility that they might be wrong, even the most bleeding heart pro-geth characters. And I\\\'m not making a single thing up; the only one doing so right now is you with this \\\"the Council account is based solely on the quarian account\\\" stuff. I\\\'m simply stating, in objective terms, what happened in the game; geth claimed this, everyone else claimed that, no one contradicted either claim. That is purely objective and neutral. Saying \\\"this happened\\\" solely because character x said so while dismissing character y is not objective or neutral, it is bias by stating one account as a fact.
Just because the question isn\\\'t raised doesn\\\'t mean it has to be taken as 100% fact. No one questions Tali\\\'s claim that the geth killed billions during the war, in fact Liara (a Council species member) agrees with it, yet you\\\'re content to attempt to dismiss that. And again, if you want to get meta, why would the writers have numerous characters state the geth did this, have it never be contradicted unlike some other geth myths, and make every in-universe detail support it if it wasn\\\'t true?
EDIT: No. I can\\\'t tell if you\\\'re deliberately misrepresenting my position or genuinely don\\\'t understand, but I\\\'m not in favor of taking those statements as facts. In fact, I\\\'m not advocating taking any characters\\\' statement as a fact. I advocated the completely neutral and objective approach of just saying \\\"the geth said this\\\" and \\\"the Council said this\\\". Nothing contradicts the geth letting the quarians go intentionally, but nothing supports it either, so it can just be marked up for what it is: a geth claim. The same goes for the Council calling it genocide. Nothing contradicts it- in fact several details support it- but it\\\'s never explicitly confirmed, so it can just be marked up for what it is: the Council\\\'s account.
And excuse me, you\\\'re the one who started this whole debate by saying that Anderson and Tali shouldn\\\'t be taken seriously at all, even though their claims are taken as facts in-universe (in fact, Anderson\\\'s is apparently what all of Council space believes) and never contradicted. In fact, they are supported by the few details that are agreed upon by both sides, as well as the geth\\\'s general demeanor and characterization. And, in Anderson\\\'s case, he has less of a reason to be biased than the geth, as humans had no involvement in the war.
If you want to go with the Doylist \\\"the writers wouldn\\\'t tell us something, have characters accept it, and leave it uncontradicted if it weren\\\'t true\\\" approach, that\\\'s fine, but you\\\'d have to drop the double standard on it and apply it to both sides. Heck, the Council\\\'s account has much more of a Doylist reason to be correct given just all the details that agree with it (Rannoch\\\'s state, the quarians not using weapons that would damage Rannoch to the degree that it was damaged, 99.9% of quarians dead, toxins on Rannoch, no quarians left alive in geth space today, Legion saying that the quarians have a right to be mad at the geth, it\\\'s never ever contradicted even as the game tries to portray the geth sympathetically, etc.).
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
No, they\'re not opinions. They\'re simple statements of fact from various characters on what happened. \
to:
No, they\\\'re not opinions. They\\\'re simple statements of fact from various characters on what happened. \\\"The geth committed genocide\\\" isn\\\'t an opinion, as genocide isn\\\'t a subjective term. Now whether those facts are accurate is something else, but it\\\'s by no means a statement of opinion. And I love how you continue to say that the character involved MUST not know what they\\\'re talking about, even though not only would such a thing be hard to miss, but there are several plausible ways they could have first hand experience (the Council account, I mean).
They make it clear by having the geth deceieve you several times? Then having Shepard get pissed about being deceived by a geth? And again, simply saying \\\"no one contradicted it\\\" proves absolutely nothing as to how true it actually is. You\\\'re getting into \\\"the writer intended you to think this\\\", which is not only baseless, since you\\\'re not the writer, but brings up the obvious double standard relating to the geth genocide. No one ever contradicts Anderson\\\'s or Tali\\\'s claims, not even the geth. They\\\'re just accepted by everyone. No one raises the possibility that they might be wrong, even the most bleeding heart pro-geth characters. And I\\\'m not making a single thing up; the only one doing so right now is you with this \\\"the Council account is based solely on the quarian account\\\" stuff. I\\\'m simply stating, in objective terms, what happened in the game; geth claimed this, everyone else claimed that, no one contradicted either claim. That is purely objective and neutral. Saying \\\"this happened\\\" solely because character x said so while dismissing character y is not objective or neutral, it is bias by stating one account as a fact.
Just because the question isn\\\'t raised doesn\\\'t mean it has to be taken as 100% fact. No one questions Tali\\\'s claim that the geth killed billions during the war, in fact Liara (a Council species member) agrees with it, yet you\\\'re content to attempt to dismiss that. And again, if you want to get meta, why would the writers have numerous characters state the geth did this, have it never be contradicted unlike some other geth myths, and make every in-universe detail support it if it wasn\\\'t true?
EDIT: No. I can\\\'t tell if you\\\'re deliberately misrepresenting my position or genuinely don\\\'t understand, but I\\\'m not in favor of taking those statements as facts. In fact, I\\\'m not advocating taking any characters\\\' statement as a fact. I advocated the completely neutral and objective approach of just saying \\\"the geth said this\\\" and \\\"the Council said this\\\". Nothing contradicts the geth letting the quarians go intentionally, but nothing supports it either, so it can just be marked up for what it is: a geth claim. The same goes for the Council calling it genocide. Nothing contradicts it- in fact several details support it- but it\\\'s never explicitly confirmed, so it can just be marked up for what it is: the Council\\\'s account.
And excuse me, you\\\'re the one who started this whole debate by saying that Anderson and Tali shouldn\\\'t be taken seriously at all, even though their claims are taken as facts in-universe (in fact, Anderson\\\'s is apparently what all of Council space believes) and never contradicted. In fact, they are supported by the few details that are agreed upon by both sides, as well as the geth\\\'s general demeanor and characterization. And, in Anderson\\\'s case, he has less of a reason to be biased than the geth, as humans had no involvement in the war.
If you want to go with the Doylist \\\"the writers wouldn\\\'t tell us something, have characters accept it, and leave it uncontradicted if it weren\\\'t true\\\" approach, that\\\'s fine, but you\\\'d have to drop the double standard on it and apply it to both sides. Heck, the Council\\\'s account has much more of a Doylist reason to be correct given just all the details that agree with it (Rannoch\\\'s state, the quarians not using weapons that would damage Rannoch to the degree that it was damaged, 99.9% of quarians murdered, toxins on Rannoch, no quarians left alive in geth space today, Legion saying that the quarians have a right to be mad at the geth, it\\\'s never ever contradicted even as the game tries to portray the geth sympathetically, etc.).
They make it clear by having the geth deceieve you several times? Then having Shepard get pissed about being deceived by a geth? And again, simply saying \\\"no one contradicted it\\\" proves absolutely nothing as to how true it actually is. You\\\'re getting into \\\"the writer intended you to think this\\\", which is not only baseless, since you\\\'re not the writer, but brings up the obvious double standard relating to the geth genocide. No one ever contradicts Anderson\\\'s or Tali\\\'s claims, not even the geth. They\\\'re just accepted by everyone. No one raises the possibility that they might be wrong, even the most bleeding heart pro-geth characters. And I\\\'m not making a single thing up; the only one doing so right now is you with this \\\"the Council account is based solely on the quarian account\\\" stuff. I\\\'m simply stating, in objective terms, what happened in the game; geth claimed this, everyone else claimed that, no one contradicted either claim. That is purely objective and neutral. Saying \\\"this happened\\\" solely because character x said so while dismissing character y is not objective or neutral, it is bias by stating one account as a fact.
Just because the question isn\\\'t raised doesn\\\'t mean it has to be taken as 100% fact. No one questions Tali\\\'s claim that the geth killed billions during the war, in fact Liara (a Council species member) agrees with it, yet you\\\'re content to attempt to dismiss that. And again, if you want to get meta, why would the writers have numerous characters state the geth did this, have it never be contradicted unlike some other geth myths, and make every in-universe detail support it if it wasn\\\'t true?
EDIT: No. I can\\\'t tell if you\\\'re deliberately misrepresenting my position or genuinely don\\\'t understand, but I\\\'m not in favor of taking those statements as facts. In fact, I\\\'m not advocating taking any characters\\\' statement as a fact. I advocated the completely neutral and objective approach of just saying \\\"the geth said this\\\" and \\\"the Council said this\\\". Nothing contradicts the geth letting the quarians go intentionally, but nothing supports it either, so it can just be marked up for what it is: a geth claim. The same goes for the Council calling it genocide. Nothing contradicts it- in fact several details support it- but it\\\'s never explicitly confirmed, so it can just be marked up for what it is: the Council\\\'s account.
And excuse me, you\\\'re the one who started this whole debate by saying that Anderson and Tali shouldn\\\'t be taken seriously at all, even though their claims are taken as facts in-universe (in fact, Anderson\\\'s is apparently what all of Council space believes) and never contradicted. In fact, they are supported by the few details that are agreed upon by both sides, as well as the geth\\\'s general demeanor and characterization. And, in Anderson\\\'s case, he has less of a reason to be biased than the geth, as humans had no involvement in the war.
If you want to go with the Doylist \\\"the writers wouldn\\\'t tell us something, have characters accept it, and leave it uncontradicted if it weren\\\'t true\\\" approach, that\\\'s fine, but you\\\'d have to drop the double standard on it and apply it to both sides. Heck, the Council\\\'s account has much more of a Doylist reason to be correct given just all the details that agree with it (Rannoch\\\'s state, the quarians not using weapons that would damage Rannoch to the degree that it was damaged, 99.9% of quarians murdered, toxins on Rannoch, no quarians left alive in geth space today, Legion saying that the quarians have a right to be mad at the geth, it\\\'s never ever contradicted even as the game tries to portray the geth sympathetically, etc.).
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
No, they\'re not opinions. They\'re simple statements of fact from various characters on what happened. \
to:
No, they\\\'re not opinions. They\\\'re simple statements of fact from various characters on what happened. \\\"The geth committed genocide\\\" isn\\\'t an opinion, as genocide isn\\\'t a subjective term. Now whether those facts are accurate is something else, but it\\\'s by no means a statement of opinion. And I love how you continue to say that the character involved MUST not know what they\\\'re talking about, even though not only would such a thing be hard to miss, but there are several plausible ways they could have first hand experience (the Council account, I mean).
They make it clear by having the geth deceieve you several times? Then having Shepard get pissed about being deceived by a geth? And again, simply saying \\\"no one contradicted it\\\" proves absolutely nothing as to how true it actually is. You\\\'re getting into \\\"the writer intended you to think this\\\", which is not only baseless, since you\\\'re not the writer, but brings up the obvious double standard relating to the geth genocide. No one ever contradicts Anderson\\\'s or Tali\\\'s claims, not even the geth. They\\\'re just accepted by everyone. No one raises the possibility that they might be wrong, even the most bleeding heart pro-geth characters. And I\\\'m not making a single thing up; the only one doing so right now is you with this \\\"the Council account is based solely on the quarian account\\\" stuff. I\\\'m simply stating, in objective terms, what happened in the game; geth claimed this, everyone else claimed that, no one contradicted either claim. That is purely objective and neutral. Saying \\\"this happened\\\" solely because character x said so while dismissing character y is not objective or neutral, it is bias by stating one account as a fact.
Just because the question isn\\\'t raised doesn\\\'t mean it has to be taken as 100% fact. No one questions Tali\\\'s claim that the geth killed billions during the war, in fact Liara (a Council species member) agrees with it, yet you\\\'re content to attempt to dismiss that. And again, if you want to get meta, why would the writers have numerous characters state the geth did this, have it never be contradicted unlike some other geth myths, and make every in-universe detail support it if it wasn\\\'t true?
EDIT: No. I can\\\'t tell if you\\\'re deliberately misrepresenting my position or genuinely don\\\'t understand, but I\\\'m not in favor of taking those statements as facts. In fact, I\\\'m not advocating taking any characters\\\' statement as a fact. I advocated the completely neutral and objective approach of just saying \\\"the geth said this\\\" and \\\"the Council said this\\\". Nothing contradicts the geth letting the quarians go intentionally, but nothing supports it either, so it can just be marked up for what it is: a geth claim. The same goes for the Council calling it genocide. Nothing contradicts it- in fact several details support it- but it\\\'s never explicitly confirmed, so it can just be marked up for what it is: the Council\\\'s account.
And excuse me, you\\\'re the one who started this whole debate by saying that Anderson and Tali shouldn\\\'t be taken seriously at all, even though their claims are taken as facts in-universe (in fact, Anderson\\\'s is apparently what all of Council space believes) and never contradicted. In fact, they are supported by the few details that are agreed upon by both sides, as well as the geth\\\'s general demeanor and characterization. And, in Anderson\\\'s case, he has less of a reason to be biased than the geth, as humans had no involvement in the war.
If you want to go with the Doylist \\\"the writers wouldn\\\'t tell us something, have characters accept it, and leave it uncontradicted if it weren\\\'t true\\\" approach, that\\\'s fine, but you\\\'d have to drop the double standard on it and apply it to both sides. Heck, the Council\\\'s account has much more of a Doylist reason to be correct given just all the details that agree with it (Rannoch\\\'s state, the quarians not using weapons that would damage Rannoch to the degree that it was damaged, 99.9% of quarians murdered, toxins on Rannoch, no quarians left alive in geth space today, Legion saying that the quarians have a right to be mad at the geth, etc.).
They make it clear by having the geth deceieve you several times? Then having Shepard get pissed about being deceived by a geth? And again, simply saying \\\"no one contradicted it\\\" proves absolutely nothing as to how true it actually is. You\\\'re getting into \\\"the writer intended you to think this\\\", which is not only baseless, since you\\\'re not the writer, but brings up the obvious double standard relating to the geth genocide. No one ever contradicts Anderson\\\'s or Tali\\\'s claims, not even the geth. They\\\'re just accepted by everyone. No one raises the possibility that they might be wrong, even the most bleeding heart pro-geth characters. And I\\\'m not making a single thing up; the only one doing so right now is you with this \\\"the Council account is based solely on the quarian account\\\" stuff. I\\\'m simply stating, in objective terms, what happened in the game; geth claimed this, everyone else claimed that, no one contradicted either claim. That is purely objective and neutral. Saying \\\"this happened\\\" solely because character x said so while dismissing character y is not objective or neutral, it is bias by stating one account as a fact.
Just because the question isn\\\'t raised doesn\\\'t mean it has to be taken as 100% fact. No one questions Tali\\\'s claim that the geth killed billions during the war, in fact Liara (a Council species member) agrees with it, yet you\\\'re content to attempt to dismiss that. And again, if you want to get meta, why would the writers have numerous characters state the geth did this, have it never be contradicted unlike some other geth myths, and make every in-universe detail support it if it wasn\\\'t true?
EDIT: No. I can\\\'t tell if you\\\'re deliberately misrepresenting my position or genuinely don\\\'t understand, but I\\\'m not in favor of taking those statements as facts. In fact, I\\\'m not advocating taking any characters\\\' statement as a fact. I advocated the completely neutral and objective approach of just saying \\\"the geth said this\\\" and \\\"the Council said this\\\". Nothing contradicts the geth letting the quarians go intentionally, but nothing supports it either, so it can just be marked up for what it is: a geth claim. The same goes for the Council calling it genocide. Nothing contradicts it- in fact several details support it- but it\\\'s never explicitly confirmed, so it can just be marked up for what it is: the Council\\\'s account.
And excuse me, you\\\'re the one who started this whole debate by saying that Anderson and Tali shouldn\\\'t be taken seriously at all, even though their claims are taken as facts in-universe (in fact, Anderson\\\'s is apparently what all of Council space believes) and never contradicted. In fact, they are supported by the few details that are agreed upon by both sides, as well as the geth\\\'s general demeanor and characterization. And, in Anderson\\\'s case, he has less of a reason to be biased than the geth, as humans had no involvement in the war.
If you want to go with the Doylist \\\"the writers wouldn\\\'t tell us something, have characters accept it, and leave it uncontradicted if it weren\\\'t true\\\" approach, that\\\'s fine, but you\\\'d have to drop the double standard on it and apply it to both sides. Heck, the Council\\\'s account has much more of a Doylist reason to be correct given just all the details that agree with it (Rannoch\\\'s state, the quarians not using weapons that would damage Rannoch to the degree that it was damaged, 99.9% of quarians murdered, toxins on Rannoch, no quarians left alive in geth space today, Legion saying that the quarians have a right to be mad at the geth, etc.).
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
No, they\'re not opinions. They\'re simple statements of fact from various characters on what happened. \
to:
No, they\\\'re not opinions. They\\\'re simple statements of fact from various characters on what happened. \\\"The geth committed genocide\\\" isn\\\'t an opinion, as genocide isn\\\'t a subjective term. Now whether those facts are accurate is something else, but it\\\'s by no means a statement of opinion. And I love how you continue to say that the character involved MUST not know what they\\\'re talking about, even though not only would such a thing be hard to miss, but there are several plausible ways they could have first hand experience (the Council account, I mean).
They make it clear by having the geth deceieve you several times? Then having Shepard get pissed about being deceived by a geth? And again, simply saying \\\"no one contradicted it\\\" proves absolutely nothing as to how true it actually is. You\\\'re getting into \\\"the writer intended you to think this\\\", which is not only baseless, since you\\\'re not the writer, but brings up the obvious double standard relating to the geth genocide. No one ever contradicts Anderson\\\'s or Tali\\\'s claims, not even the geth. They\\\'re just accepted by everyone. No one raises the possibility that they might be wrong, even the most bleeding heart pro-geth characters. And I\\\'m not making a single thing up; the only one doing so right now is you with this \\\"the Council account is based solely on the quarian account\\\" stuff. I\\\'m simply stating, in objective terms, what happened in the game; geth claimed this, everyone else claimed that, no one contradicted either claim. That is purely objective and neutral. Saying \\\"this happened\\\" solely because character x said so while dismissing character y is not objective or neutral, it is bias by stating one account as a fact.
Just because the question isn\\\'t raised doesn\\\'t mean it has to be taken as 100% fact. No one questions Tali\\\'s claim that the geth killed billions during the war, in fact Liara (a Council species member) agrees with it, yet you\\\'re content to attempt to dismiss that. And again, if you want to get meta, why would the writers have numerous characters state the geth did this, have it never be contradicted unlike some other geth myths, and make every in-universe detail support it if it wasn\\\'t true?
EDIT: No. I can\\\'t tell if you\\\'re deliberately misrepresenting my position or genuinely don\\\'t understand, but I\\\'m not in favor of taking those statements as facts. In fact, I\\\'m not advocating taking any characters\\\' statement as a fact. I advocated the completely neutral and objective approach of just saying \\\"the geth said this\\\" and \\\"the Council said this\\\". Nothing contradicts the geth letting the quarians go intentionally, but nothing supports it either, so it can just be marked up for what it is: a geth claim. The same goes for the Council calling it genocide. Nothing contradicts it- in fact several details support it- but it\\\'s never explicitly confirmed, so it can just be marked up for what it is: the Council\\\'s account.
And excuse me, you\\\'re the one who started this whole debate by saying that Anderson and Tali shouldn\\\'t be taken seriously at all, even though their claims are taken as facts in-universe (in fact, Anderson\\\'s is apparently what all of Council space believes) and never contradicted. In fact, they are supported by the few details that are agreed upon by both sides, as well as the geth\\\'s general demeanor and characterization. And, in Anderson\\\'s case, he has less of a reason to be biased than the geth, as humans had no involvement in the war.
They make it clear by having the geth deceieve you several times? Then having Shepard get pissed about being deceived by a geth? And again, simply saying \\\"no one contradicted it\\\" proves absolutely nothing as to how true it actually is. You\\\'re getting into \\\"the writer intended you to think this\\\", which is not only baseless, since you\\\'re not the writer, but brings up the obvious double standard relating to the geth genocide. No one ever contradicts Anderson\\\'s or Tali\\\'s claims, not even the geth. They\\\'re just accepted by everyone. No one raises the possibility that they might be wrong, even the most bleeding heart pro-geth characters. And I\\\'m not making a single thing up; the only one doing so right now is you with this \\\"the Council account is based solely on the quarian account\\\" stuff. I\\\'m simply stating, in objective terms, what happened in the game; geth claimed this, everyone else claimed that, no one contradicted either claim. That is purely objective and neutral. Saying \\\"this happened\\\" solely because character x said so while dismissing character y is not objective or neutral, it is bias by stating one account as a fact.
Just because the question isn\\\'t raised doesn\\\'t mean it has to be taken as 100% fact. No one questions Tali\\\'s claim that the geth killed billions during the war, in fact Liara (a Council species member) agrees with it, yet you\\\'re content to attempt to dismiss that. And again, if you want to get meta, why would the writers have numerous characters state the geth did this, have it never be contradicted unlike some other geth myths, and make every in-universe detail support it if it wasn\\\'t true?
EDIT: No. I can\\\'t tell if you\\\'re deliberately misrepresenting my position or genuinely don\\\'t understand, but I\\\'m not in favor of taking those statements as facts. In fact, I\\\'m not advocating taking any characters\\\' statement as a fact. I advocated the completely neutral and objective approach of just saying \\\"the geth said this\\\" and \\\"the Council said this\\\". Nothing contradicts the geth letting the quarians go intentionally, but nothing supports it either, so it can just be marked up for what it is: a geth claim. The same goes for the Council calling it genocide. Nothing contradicts it- in fact several details support it- but it\\\'s never explicitly confirmed, so it can just be marked up for what it is: the Council\\\'s account.
And excuse me, you\\\'re the one who started this whole debate by saying that Anderson and Tali shouldn\\\'t be taken seriously at all, even though their claims are taken as facts in-universe (in fact, Anderson\\\'s is apparently what all of Council space believes) and never contradicted. In fact, they are supported by the few details that are agreed upon by both sides, as well as the geth\\\'s general demeanor and characterization. And, in Anderson\\\'s case, he has less of a reason to be biased than the geth, as humans had no involvement in the war.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
No, they\'re not opinions. They\'re simple statements of fact from various characters on what happened. \
to:
No, they\\\'re not opinions. They\\\'re simple statements of fact from various characters on what happened. \\\"The geth committed genocide\\\" isn\\\'t an opinion, as genocide isn\\\'t a subjective term. Now whether those facts are accurate is something else, but it\\\'s by no means a statement of opinion. And I love how you continue to say that the character involved MUST not know what they\\\'re talking about, even though not only would such a thing be hard to miss, but there are several plausible ways they could have first hand experience (the Council account, I mean).
They make it clear by having the geth deceieve you several times? Then having Shepard get pissed about being deceived by a geth? And again, simply saying \\\"no one contradicted it\\\" proves absolutely nothing as to how true it actually is. You\\\'re getting into \\\"the writer intended you to think this\\\", which is not only baseless, since you\\\'re not the writer, but brings up the obvious double standard relating to the geth genocide. No one ever contradicts Anderson\\\'s or Tali\\\'s claims, not even the geth. They\\\'re just accepted by everyone. No one raises the possibility that they might be wrong, even the most bleeding heart pro-geth characters. And I\\\'m not making a single thing up; the only one doing so right now is you with this \\\"the Council account is based solely on the quarian account\\\" stuff. I\\\'m simply stating, in objective terms, what happened in the game; geth claimed this, everyone else claimed that, no one contradicted either claim. That is purely objective and neutral. Saying \\\"this happened\\\" solely because character x said so while dismissing character y is not objective or neutral, it is bias by stating one account as a fact.
Just because the question isn\\\'t raised doesn\\\'t mean it has to be taken as 100% fact. No one questions Tali\\\'s claim that the geth killed billions during the war, in fact Liara (a Council species member) agrees with it, yet you\\\'re content to attempt to dismiss that. And again, if you want to get meta, why would the writers have numerous characters state the geth did this, have it never be contradicted unlike some other geth myths, and make every in-universe detail support it if it wasn\\\'t true?
EDIT: No. I can\\\'t tell if you\\\'re deliberately misrepresenting my position or genuinely don\\\'t understand, but I\\\'m not in favor of taking those statements as facts. In fact, I\\\'m not advocating taking any characters\\\' statement as a fact. I advocated the completely neutral and objective approach of just saying \\\"the geth said this\\\" and \\\"the Council said this\\\". Nothing contradicts the geth letting the quarians go intentionally, but nothing supports it either, so it can just be marked up for what it is: a geth claim. The same goes for the Council calling it genocide. Nothing contradicts it- in fact several details support it- but it\\\'s never explicitly confirmed, so it can just be marked up for what it is: the Council\\\'s account.
And excuse me, you\\\'re the one who started this whole debate by saying that Anderson and Tali shouldn\\\'t be taken seriously at all, even though their claims are taken as facts in-universe (in fact, Anderson\\\'s is apparently what all of Council space believes) and never contradicted. And, in Anderson\\\'s case, have less of a reason to be biased than the geth\\\'s.
They make it clear by having the geth deceieve you several times? Then having Shepard get pissed about being deceived by a geth? And again, simply saying \\\"no one contradicted it\\\" proves absolutely nothing as to how true it actually is. You\\\'re getting into \\\"the writer intended you to think this\\\", which is not only baseless, since you\\\'re not the writer, but brings up the obvious double standard relating to the geth genocide. No one ever contradicts Anderson\\\'s or Tali\\\'s claims, not even the geth. They\\\'re just accepted by everyone. No one raises the possibility that they might be wrong, even the most bleeding heart pro-geth characters. And I\\\'m not making a single thing up; the only one doing so right now is you with this \\\"the Council account is based solely on the quarian account\\\" stuff. I\\\'m simply stating, in objective terms, what happened in the game; geth claimed this, everyone else claimed that, no one contradicted either claim. That is purely objective and neutral. Saying \\\"this happened\\\" solely because character x said so while dismissing character y is not objective or neutral, it is bias by stating one account as a fact.
Just because the question isn\\\'t raised doesn\\\'t mean it has to be taken as 100% fact. No one questions Tali\\\'s claim that the geth killed billions during the war, in fact Liara (a Council species member) agrees with it, yet you\\\'re content to attempt to dismiss that. And again, if you want to get meta, why would the writers have numerous characters state the geth did this, have it never be contradicted unlike some other geth myths, and make every in-universe detail support it if it wasn\\\'t true?
EDIT: No. I can\\\'t tell if you\\\'re deliberately misrepresenting my position or genuinely don\\\'t understand, but I\\\'m not in favor of taking those statements as facts. In fact, I\\\'m not advocating taking any characters\\\' statement as a fact. I advocated the completely neutral and objective approach of just saying \\\"the geth said this\\\" and \\\"the Council said this\\\". Nothing contradicts the geth letting the quarians go intentionally, but nothing supports it either, so it can just be marked up for what it is: a geth claim. The same goes for the Council calling it genocide. Nothing contradicts it- in fact several details support it- but it\\\'s never explicitly confirmed, so it can just be marked up for what it is: the Council\\\'s account.
And excuse me, you\\\'re the one who started this whole debate by saying that Anderson and Tali shouldn\\\'t be taken seriously at all, even though their claims are taken as facts in-universe (in fact, Anderson\\\'s is apparently what all of Council space believes) and never contradicted. And, in Anderson\\\'s case, have less of a reason to be biased than the geth\\\'s.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
No, they\'re not opinions. They\'re simple statements of fact from various characters on what happened. \
to:
No, they\\\'re not opinions. They\\\'re simple statements of fact from various characters on what happened. \\\"The geth committed genocide\\\" isn\\\'t an opinion, as genocide isn\\\'t a subjective term. Now whether those facts are accurate is something else, but it\\\'s by no means a statement of opinion. And I love how you continue to say that the character involved MUST not know what they\\\'re talking about, even though not only would such a thing be hard to miss, but there are several plausible ways they could have first hand experience (the Council account, I mean).
They make it clear by having the geth deceieve you several times? Then having Shepard get pissed about being deceived by a geth? And again, simply saying \\\"no one contradicted it\\\" proves absolutely nothing as to how true it actually is. You\\\'re getting into \\\"the writer intended you to think this\\\", which is not only baseless, since you\\\'re not the writer, but brings up the obvious double standard relating to the geth genocide. No one ever contradicts Anderson\\\'s or Tali\\\'s claims, not even the geth. They\\\'re just accepted by everyone. No one raises the possibility that they might be wrong, even the most bleeding heart pro-geth characters. And I\\\'m not making a single thing up; the only one doing so right now is you with this \\\"the Council account is based solely on the quarian account\\\" stuff. I\\\'m simply stating, in objective terms, what happened in the game; geth claimed this, everyone else claimed that, no one contradicted either claim. That is purely objective and neutral. Saying \\\"this happened\\\" solely because character x said so while dismissing character y is not objective or neutral, it is bias by stating one account as a fact.
Just because the question isn\\\'t raised doesn\\\'t mean it has to be taken as 100% fact. No one questions Tali\\\'s claim that the geth killed billions during the war, in fact Liara (a Council species member) agrees with it, yet you\\\'re content to attempt to dismiss that. And again, if you want to get meta, why would the writers have numerous characters state the geth did this, have it never be contradicted unlike some other geth myths, and make every in-universe detail support it if it wasn\\\'t true?
EDIT: No. I can\\\'t tell if you\\\'re deliberately misrepresenting my position or genuinely don\\\'t understand, but I\\\'m not in favor of taking those statements as facts. In fact, I\\\'m not advocating taking any characters\\\' statement as a fact. I advocated the completely neutral and objective approach of just saying \\\"the geth said this\\\" and \\\"the Council said this\\\". Nothing contradicts the geth letting the quarians go intentionally, but nothing supports it either, so it can just be marked up for what it is: a geth claim. The same goes for the Council calling it genocide. Nothing contradicts it- in fact several details support it- but it\\\'s never explicitly confirmed, so it can just be marked up for what it is: the Council\\\'s account.
They make it clear by having the geth deceieve you several times? Then having Shepard get pissed about being deceived by a geth? And again, simply saying \\\"no one contradicted it\\\" proves absolutely nothing as to how true it actually is. You\\\'re getting into \\\"the writer intended you to think this\\\", which is not only baseless, since you\\\'re not the writer, but brings up the obvious double standard relating to the geth genocide. No one ever contradicts Anderson\\\'s or Tali\\\'s claims, not even the geth. They\\\'re just accepted by everyone. No one raises the possibility that they might be wrong, even the most bleeding heart pro-geth characters. And I\\\'m not making a single thing up; the only one doing so right now is you with this \\\"the Council account is based solely on the quarian account\\\" stuff. I\\\'m simply stating, in objective terms, what happened in the game; geth claimed this, everyone else claimed that, no one contradicted either claim. That is purely objective and neutral. Saying \\\"this happened\\\" solely because character x said so while dismissing character y is not objective or neutral, it is bias by stating one account as a fact.
Just because the question isn\\\'t raised doesn\\\'t mean it has to be taken as 100% fact. No one questions Tali\\\'s claim that the geth killed billions during the war, in fact Liara (a Council species member) agrees with it, yet you\\\'re content to attempt to dismiss that. And again, if you want to get meta, why would the writers have numerous characters state the geth did this, have it never be contradicted unlike some other geth myths, and make every in-universe detail support it if it wasn\\\'t true?
EDIT: No. I can\\\'t tell if you\\\'re deliberately misrepresenting my position or genuinely don\\\'t understand, but I\\\'m not in favor of taking those statements as facts. In fact, I\\\'m not advocating taking any characters\\\' statement as a fact. I advocated the completely neutral and objective approach of just saying \\\"the geth said this\\\" and \\\"the Council said this\\\". Nothing contradicts the geth letting the quarians go intentionally, but nothing supports it either, so it can just be marked up for what it is: a geth claim. The same goes for the Council calling it genocide. Nothing contradicts it- in fact several details support it- but it\\\'s never explicitly confirmed, so it can just be marked up for what it is: the Council\\\'s account.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
No, they\'re not opinions. They\'re simple statements of fact from various characters on what happened. \
to:
No, they\\\'re not opinions. They\\\'re simple statements of fact from various characters on what happened. \\\"The geth committed genocide\\\" isn\\\'t an opinion, as genocide isn\\\'t a subjective term. Now whether those facts are accurate is something else, but it\\\'s by no means a statement of opinion. And I love how you continue to say that the character involved MUST not know what they\\\'re talking about, even though not only would such a thing be hard to miss, but there are several plausible ways they could have first hand experience (the Council account, I mean).
They make it clear by having the geth deceieve you several times? Then having Shepard get pissed about being deceived by a geth? And again, simply saying \\\"no one contradicted it\\\" proves absolutely nothing as to how true it actually is. You\\\'re getting into \\\"the writer intended you to think this\\\", which is not only baseless, since you\\\'re not the writer, but brings up the obvious double standard relating to the geth genocide. No one ever contradicts Anderson\\\'s or Tali\\\'s claims, not even the geth. They\\\'re just accepted by everyone. No one raises the possibility that they might be wrong, even the most bleeding heart pro-geth characters. And I\\\'m not making a single thing up; the only one doing so right now is you with this \\\"the Council account is based solely on the quarian account\\\" stuff. I\\\'m simply stating, in objective terms, what happened in the game; geth claimed this, everyone else claimed that, no one contradicted either claim. That is purely objective and neutral. Saying \\\"this happened\\\" solely because character x said so while dismissing character y is not objective or neutral, it is bias by stating one account as a fact.
Just because the question isn\\\'t raised doesn\\\'t mean it has to be taken as 100% fact. No one questions Tali\\\'s claim that the geth killed billions during the war, in fact Liara (a Council species member) agrees with it, yet you\\\'re content to attempt to dismiss that. And again, if you want to get meta, why would the writers have numerous characters state the geth did this, have it never be contradicted unlike some other geth myths, and make every in-universe detail support it if it wasn\\\'t true?
They make it clear by having the geth deceieve you several times? Then having Shepard get pissed about being deceived by a geth? And again, simply saying \\\"no one contradicted it\\\" proves absolutely nothing as to how true it actually is. You\\\'re getting into \\\"the writer intended you to think this\\\", which is not only baseless, since you\\\'re not the writer, but brings up the obvious double standard relating to the geth genocide. No one ever contradicts Anderson\\\'s or Tali\\\'s claims, not even the geth. They\\\'re just accepted by everyone. No one raises the possibility that they might be wrong, even the most bleeding heart pro-geth characters. And I\\\'m not making a single thing up; the only one doing so right now is you with this \\\"the Council account is based solely on the quarian account\\\" stuff. I\\\'m simply stating, in objective terms, what happened in the game; geth claimed this, everyone else claimed that, no one contradicted either claim. That is purely objective and neutral. Saying \\\"this happened\\\" solely because character x said so while dismissing character y is not objective or neutral, it is bias by stating one account as a fact.
Just because the question isn\\\'t raised doesn\\\'t mean it has to be taken as 100% fact. No one questions Tali\\\'s claim that the geth killed billions during the war, in fact Liara (a Council species member) agrees with it, yet you\\\'re content to attempt to dismiss that. And again, if you want to get meta, why would the writers have numerous characters state the geth did this, have it never be contradicted unlike some other geth myths, and make every in-universe detail support it if it wasn\\\'t true?
