Refuse in the place of Destroy

So since Restrider's topic is not necessarily about promoting Refuse over the other endings(As well people complain about this discussion on the main topic despite talking about Destroy all the time). I thought I'd make a topic for it where we can discuss this as well where people can contribute to the list of things supporting Refuse.

Points:

1.Refuse should not be defined as giving up. At least not in the context people keep saying. It is refusing to play the Reaper's deception, it is not refusing to stop the Reapers. The only way to beat the Devil when he offers you a contract, is to not sign it. If you sign it, even after revising it to reduce potential problems(Destroy) you still get screwed over. There is no scenario where you sign a contract with the Devil, and you get what you want.

2.The reapers cannot remove Shepard's resolve, but they also are not forced to promote it. In fact with Refuse, they don't promote it at all and despite not wanting it to be there at all... they can't stop it from being there. If Refuse is not Shepard's resolve, why can't they just get rid of it? The only thing they can't remove, is Shepard's resolve, they can remove anything that isn't his resolve. But people keep saying the Reapers hate Refuse because Shepard loses his value(But doesn't in Synthesis, even though the only thing that matters in the indoc attempt is whether or not you change your resolve and so Synthesis and Refuse should suffer from the same problems), if this is so then they could easily remove Refuse since it's not Shepard's resolve.

We in fact see in Refuse, that they have control over Destroy too because they shut it down. And many have tried to say that it could just be that Shepard is locked into Refuse but we never see Control and Destroy shut down when you pick Synthesis, or Synthesis and Destroy when you pick Control, or Control and Synthesis when you pick Destroy(They shut off because of the damage, not because of the Catalyst... they were still open until everything exploded and whatnot). Besides it makes more sense the way I have proposed, that they have control over Destroy. Why? Synthesis and control are Reaper options, but they are a part of the Crucible in this mind world. Guess what is also part of the Crucible in this mind world... Destroy. What is not part of the Crucible? Refuse.

Dialogue:

"Not if we lose our humanity in the process! I'm out there fighting to stop crap like this!" - Commander Shepard

"I don't think so. I'm gonna stop the Reapers, but I won't sacrifice the soul of our species to do it." - Commander Shepard

Datapad Messages:

"No way we're all getting out of this war alive. Be fun to try, though." - Zaeed

"Rodriguez just ripped a husk's head off. May be some hope for her yet." - Jack(Replace Rodriguez with Shepard, and replace husk with Reaper, and "her" to us.)

"Hope did not save my people. But we never bothered to try. Maybe your cycle will be different." - Javik

"Nice work on Vosque. Glad you didn't have to get your hands dirty, Spectre." Aria

DLC:

Omega:

Many people have interpreted Aria's actions to support Destroy, however this feels completely wrong. If you are going to claim there is parallels to the ending, it has to actually fit.

- Oleg is parallel to the Catalyst.
- The situation is "engineered" by Oleg, just as it is with the Catalyst during the ending.

Following this, Aria attacking the red barrier is parallel to Refuse. Giving in to the terms of the situation, is parallel to Synthesis, Control and Destroy. So it's Synthesis, Control and Destroy, to give up and adhere to the barrier. It's Refuse, to reject the terms, to say "fuck the barrier!".

The button follows this. Oleg is trying to get you to press the button, he is tempting you to push it over not pushing it. If you push the button, you are doing what he wants. Just like the Catalyst prefers you pick Synthesis, Control and Destroy over Refuse. People focus too much on the order of importance, sure the Catalyst wants Synthesis first, Control second, and Destroy third. But the fact that he wants them at all is the point, because he doesn't want Refuse at all. He'd prefer Destroy before Refuse, and would never in a billion years want Refuse(This is also absurd, since ALLEGEDLY the Cycle continues, so why is he so hateful?). The only difference between Synthesis, control and Destroy is that they are different levels of acceptance of the Reaper's terms. Some people worship the Reapers and their goal, some like TIM believe they are sticking to their own resolve with minor tolerance of the Reapers' goal. If TIM was in the decision chamber, I'm sure Destroy and Control would be swapped and Control would be the 3rd worst option instead of Destroy.

If you push the button and accept the terms(Aria and Nyreen/Geth and EDI) you pointlessly kill them. If you don't push the button they survive and no unnecessary sacrifices are made. You are rewarded for refusing. People say it's because you actually choose to sacrifice the few(Aria and Nyreen/Geth and EDI) over the many. But technically this is more akin to Refuse, because in Destroy you will destroy the Reapers no matter the cost, it is not about the sacrifice of the few over the many simply because Destroy's resolve would not change if you killed everyone BUT the Geth and EDI instead. It's about killing the Reapers, no matter what.

Pushing the button says saving Aria and Nyreen is worth it no matter what. While refusing to kill all those people is saying it must be justified, that there is a limit to how much you can sacrifice. That you cannot violate your Humanity without it ending badly. This is seen throughout the series, in Saren, TIM, Overlord, etc.

Citadel:

IronicParticle wrote:The hustler game in the Citadel DLC, is obviously rigged. There is 3 options, and none of them are right. Now logically, the only real way to win, is to not play. You get ripped off IF you play. Here's an interesting note, one of the hustlers will say "You lose, too bad, hahahaha!" or something to that effect if you go away and avoid playing.

This is the same attitude people feel is given from the endings, because Bioware is all like "Oh, Refuse kills everyone!"... however these are Hustlers, so inherently the attitude is depicted as reverse psychology in this situation. The Hustler wants you to play obviously, so he acts like you suffer the most if you don't play.

Now here's the thing, from an in-game perspective. Who is really flipping you off in Refuse? Most people thought it was a flip off from Bioware? My question is, why? In-game, you are talking to a Reaper, not Bioware. As well, one must ask why it's painted so negatively. That's Reaper manipulations obviously, it's not real, just like the Synthesis scenes. Also, why the hell would a game company flip people off? THAT NEVER HAPPENS! As well makes no sense business wise. So that's not what was going on here.

It just feels to me, that this Hustler's game is greatly foreshadowing the ending...

The claw game has been interpreted for purple to mean Refuse, which makes no sense. Refuse is not a color, it is not even a choice presented. It comes from Shepard and is a part of Shepard, and there is no colored wave for it. So it's vastly more likely purple is low EMS Destroy, especially since Refuse would be to NOT PLAY.

This seems the perfect question to sum up this Destroy versus Refuse issue:

"What do you do when there is an evil you cannot defeat by just means? Do you stain your hands with evil to destroy evil, or do you remain steadfastly just and righteous even if it means surrendering to evil?" -Zero

Selim Bradley wrote:This seems the perfect question to sum up this Destroy versus Refuse issue:

"What do you do when there is an evil you cannot defeat by just means? Do you stain your hands with evil to destroy evil, or do you remain steadfastly just and righteous even if it means surrendering to evil?" -Zero

Honestly if the only one to take on the evil is me, then I'd choose to be evil simply because it's not about me, it's about everyone but me. I'm trying to do what is right, ironically becoming evil seems like the right thing to do.

But this is where I have to point out that you have to assume the premise to get the conclusion. I'd only choose to become evil simply IF the premise is true, that not only will becoming evil stop evil, but that it's the only way. I've never seen evil beat evil, it's not actually like fire at all where you can use fire to put out fire. If you use evil, you just breed the cycle yourself and stop a single irrelevant instance of it. Basically you solve nothing, evil solves nothing. The problem itself is not the solution.

In fact, when you lean on evil from a position of good... it crumbles effortlessly. Hence why evil tries to corrupt you BEFORE you do it, it tries to make the first move to make it appear as though it is the easier path. The only way to defeat it is for everyone to stand up and lean on the evil, tell it to GTFO. It's much like the Quarians when you make peace, Shepard assures them that if they can believe just for a second that the fighting will stop the moment they stop, peace will be achieved. If people could believe just for a second, instead of hand waving it as unrealistic fantasies, evil would not stand. It would crumble. But evil is so deeply rooted that not enough people will stand up.

Shepard, when standing up in refuse. Has the entire support of the galaxy. He is standing up to this threat to the Galaxy, on behalf of the galaxy itself. And the reapers will crumble and fall because of it, and it will likely start with the fall of Harbinger.

Heck that sums it up, the problem itself cannot be the solution.

But Shepard is the avatar of the galaxy, so they are the galaxies will. Let's break the quote down:

"What do you do when there is an evil you cannot defeat by just means?"
This seems simple enough. The Reapers are this "evil that cannot be defeated by just means". In this example, just means is no Reaper tech. We cannot fight them without using theit technology, whether that be the Relay Network, Thanix Cannons, or even the Citadel/Crucible superweapon.

"Do you stain your hands with evil to destroy evil?"
Now we get more into the Endscene. This option is similar to Destroy, where you are listening to the Catalyst when he says if you use this weapon, you destroy us. However, this destroys all things with Reaper code in them, most notably the Geth. By doing this option, you are commiting an atrocity by wiping out the Geth, hence "staining your hands with evil" but it results in the knowing that you destroyed the Reapers.

"Or do you remain steadfastly just and righteous even if it means surrendering to evil?"
This option is similar to Refuse. Even after the Reapers offer you a way to kill them by using their technology, you refuse and stand by your morals. Only by not accepting any option, does Refuse happen in dialogue, hence "you remain steadfastly just and righteous". However, you now stand at an uncertainty because it is highly likely that you will lose to the Reapers and be dominated by them, hence "even if it means surrendering to evil".

There is no correct answer to this question because it is a paradox. In either case, evil remains. Same with the question "Which is better: Destroy or Refuse?" There is no correct answer, because one isn't better than the other and it is up to each individual person which path to choose.

Selim Bradley wrote:This seems the perfect question to sum up this Destroy versus Refuse issue:

"What do you do when there is an evil you cannot defeat by just means? Do you stain your hands with evil to destroy evil, or do you remain steadfastly just and righteous even if it means surrendering to evil?" -Zero

Erm, not really. Again, Refuse is NOT surrendering. I honestly have no idea why people keep saying this. : /

Either way, one point for Refuse is that it's the only ending that remains true to the themes of the series, in particular self-determination and doing the impossible. All of the other endings, including Destroy, totally wreck self-determination to varying degrees and, while space magic may be impossible, that's not the kind throughout the series.

Another thing for Refuse: Destroy may be the sensible correct choice, in that you would take it in real life for the good of everyone, but Refuse is the idealist correct choice, in that it's staying true to Shepard's beliefs and convictions. In a battle of the mind with giant space Cthulhus who are masters of manipulation, which do you think is more important?

I appreciate your opinion on the matter...but I politely disagree. Not on the premise of the idea, but on the interpertation of the events. I think it is remiss to simply lump destroy in with the other choices as Reaper constructs. I think that what you are forgetting - regardless of what the true nature of the crucible is - this cycle and Shepard do have an influence on it. In game, when the crucible is described - it is described as a device improved upon by every cycle. In other words every cycle adds something to the crucible. And whether or not what we see is "literal" or "hallucination" we can assume that there is something of this cycle in what we see with the crucible. Is it so hard to believe that this part of crucible that is represented by the choice of destroy is what this cycle added? And therefore, not just simple a "Reaper controlled choice"?

Lokanaiya wrote:Erm, not really. Again, Refuse is NOT surrendering. I honestly have no idea why people keep saying this. : /

I never said Refuse is Shepard giving up. I said the word surrender represnts the fact that Shepard is surrendering to the fact that they might lose if they choose to not use the Crucible, which is exactly what Shepard says when choosing Refuse:
"And if I die, I'll die knowing I did everything I could to stop you." - Shepard

Oh my god Selim is me!!!

Selim Bradley wrote:

Lokanaiya wrote:Erm, not really. Again, Refuse is NOT surrendering. I honestly have no idea why people keep saying this. : /

I never said Refuse is Shepard giving up. I said the word surrender represnts the fact that Shepard is surrendering to the fact that they might lose if they choose to not use the Crucible, which is exactly what Shepard says when choosing Refuse:
"And if I die, I'll die knowing I did everything I could to stop you." - Shepard

Wrong, Shepard is not surrendering to that fact. It's an actual tactic in debate, I'm not sure what the proper term is. But you say that even IF it was true, which you don't even in the slightest believe so, [insert point here] refutes [insert thing here] regardless.

I've actually used this before in a religious debate. Being an Atheist I've made arguments from the position that IF a god exists. It in no way reflects how much I think it is possible. At the very least, it does acknowledge a possibility, but it says nothing about how large you feel that possibility is. I am willing to compromise and say a god MIGHT exist, but the possibility seems so tiny that it's just as likely the universe was created by pan-dimensional turtles having gay intercourse.

So did Shepard acknowledge the possibility? Yes. But we know Shepard, Shepard would not think such a possibility to be large enough to happen in the first place. And Shepard only acknowledges the EXTREMELY MINUTE POSSIBILITY to state a truth that renders that minute possibility 100% irrelevant. And hey, why the hell is Destroy better in that regard? You'd have to be ignorant and batshit insane to think there is NO possibility, not even a REAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLYYYYYYY small possibility. That would be beyond Hubris. It's not better to be close-minded, in ANYTHING.

Also, people always say that Shepard does not know that it is all in his head. but he still should have doubts about the Catalyst, he should not take his word as 100% certainty. Yet if he was to even START to doubt Destroy, he'd notice how REALLY untrustworthy it is. So as the player making the choice, you should factor this in.

DSharrah wrote:I appreciate your opinion on the matter...but I politely disagree. Not on the premise of the idea, but on the interpertation of the events. I think it is remiss to simply lump destroy in with the other choices as Reaper constructs. I think that what you are forgetting - regardless of what the true nature of the crucible is - this cycle and Shepard do have an influence on it. In game, when the crucible is described - it is described as a device improved upon by every cycle. In other words every cycle adds something to the crucible. And whether or not what we see is "literal" or "hallucination" we can assume that there is something of this cycle in what we see with the crucible. Is it so hard to believe that this part of crucible that is represented by the choice of destroy is what this cycle added? And therefore, not just simple a "Reaper controlled choice"?

I already understand the position of Destroy.

But think about it this way. The Catalyst is the catalyst of the Cycle itself. Shepard is the Catalyst of this galaxy. The thing that our galaxy adds to the Crucible... is Shepard. Shepard IS this cycle's addition because Shepard is the Catalyst for this cycle's choice. He IS the addition.

When you think about it like this, think about what the Catalyst said... "You being here, the first organic EVER". Think about it for a second, you aren't really activating the Crucible. You are in what we assume Shepard's mind. What could he have meant? It seems no organic has ever been able to have their say with the Reapers, no organic has been able to be on their level and suggest their own choice and make it so. Every cycle added to it, what the Reapers allowed, in fact it's possible every race so far has only added Reaper ideas. Shepard by the end of the game, is equal to the reapers and posses a threat to Harbinger himself. He is truly their equal.

Shepard is an anomaly. What does this mean? Is means, he is out of the ordinary... but in terms of what? The cycles, he makes this cycle different. every other cycle as I said, was not an equal to the Reapers. their contributions are what the Reapers allowed, whereas Shepard gets full say on the Galaxy's side of things.

Aside from all of this. The main reason I think Destroy is a Reaper choice is for a very simple reason:
Destroy is presented TO you, Refuse is presented BY you.

Refuse comes from Shepard. But since the Reaper is the one to even bring up Destroy, and explains the terms of it. It comes from him, the deception is to try and make Shepard accept that it came from himself/herself instead of the Reapers. That's what the Reapers are doing, trying to make Shepard accept their presented options, as his own.

The debate between Refuse and Destroy, boils down to which is Shepard's way of destroying the Reapers?

And the answer is another question: Which comes from Shepard and which comes from the Reapers?

My answer to that question: Only 1 can come from Shepard, the other comes from the Reapers. And Refuse, undeniably comes from Shepard. So what does that say about Destroy?

Think about it... what are the Reapers known for? Bending their enemies to their will. What does that involve? Promoting their options from most favored to least favored, and trying their hardest at negatively treating your option. Spreading propaganda about it and whatnot. When Destroy came along everyone argued that what was going on, was the Reapers were trying to convert you to Synthesis first and Control second... and that he was in NO way promoting Destroy and in fact he was trying to spread propaganda by including the Geth and EDI.

Then when Refuse challenged this idea, it was hand-waved away as ruining Shepard's value and that's why it is hated and why they promote Destroy. This is completely unfounded and in fact is impossible. There is only 2 possibilities, either you are indoctrinated, or you are not indoctrinated. Simply because ANY BUDGE in in resolve, results in indoctrination. There is no "losing value". If Destroy is Shepard's resolve, then Refuse results in indoctrination. So why the fuck, would they HATE Refuse?

Not to mention the EDI and Geth thing does not seem like propaganda, it seems like a necessary sacrifice and the Reapers know this and expect Shepard to pick it for that reason. You want to know what is propaganda? Well look at political adds, according to them NOTHING good comes out of homosexual marriage. If homosexual marriage is legalized, according to propaganda Human civilization will become Pandora's box.

Propaganda's purpose is to slander something 100%, not 20% like the whole Geth and EDI situation in Destroy.

Yet look at Refuse. The Reaper says it is impossible and that the Reapers will win and ironically the reverse of Shepard: Even IF the reapers die later, you still doomed everyone Shepard... congratufuckinlations.

I would also like to challenge the idea that Synthesis is their most preferred option.

Why doesn't TIM believe in Synthesis? Why doesn't EVERYONE indoctrinated believe in Synthesis? At least more people should believe in Synthesis if it is the Reapers' most preferred option, how are so many organics intellectually capable of disagreeing with the Reapers who are god-like levels of intelligence? The vast majority should be Kensons and Sarens.

I actually believe the Results contradict what you guys are claiming is what goes down with indoctrination. TIM believes in Control. The big stupid jellyfish is following the Protheans/Collectors. Rana Thanoptis is a scientist, scientists seek to improve their species usually. And look what she was told by the Reapers: "The voices foretold the ascension of the asari".

Oh, advancement of her race... that totally wouldn't appeal to her! /sarcasm

Besides, Synthesis is not really what the Reapers seek. They do not seek harmony and peace and to let the organic races advance, they only seek the harvest.

Also while on the subject of Synthesis. Again people say you are supposed to make your choice as if it is really going to do what it says because Shepard does not know that he is being indoctrinated. Yet everyone brings up how untrustworthy Synthesis is. I thought that was irrelevant? At face value Synthesis is this: Would you force eugenics, if it meant eternal peace and a complete lack of suffering? Is forced eugenics worth a true Utopia. And logically it's the same with Control and Destroy:

If a dictatorship would result in peace and prosperity, would it be worth it?(control)

If backstabbing your friends would destroy the Reapers, would it be worth it.

It's just ranked according to scale as you go from Synthesis to Destroy. Synthesis is the worst violation of morality, but offers a benefit vastly better than the others, so it balances out compared to the others. Control is middle in the scale, and destroy is the lowest. They are all equal propositions.

To sum it up, the Reapers prefer the option that is a twisted version of your resolve. They only seem to treat them differently because some choices require more care than others. Synthesis is equal to Destroy in the sense that it is simply higher up on the scale of morality, but it is still balanced out. However organics can be irrational sometimes, you guys even suffer from trying to treat Destroy as an entirely different situation than Synthesis. It's an organic bias and is irrational technically speaking, and the Reapers have to handle Synthesis with care for this very reason.

But the Reapers are god-like levels of intelligence and you are in a mind battle with at LEAST 1 whom has the intelligence of all reapers combined. Yet you think it's as simple and clear cut, as Synthesis is their most preferred because they promote it the most? Seems out of place. You'd think they'd be preying on your logic, irrationality, and dabble a bit in reverse psychology, etc.

They'd be effortlessly capable of the biggest mind twist ever, like say, making you THINK they promote Synthesis the most and so it's what they want you to pick when in reality they've booby trapped the Destroy option in such a way that you won't see it coming from light years away. You won't even see it coming from the next 9000 universes over.

IronicParticle wrote:Wrong, Shepard is not surrendering to that fact.

So did Shepard acknowledge the possibility? Yes.

One way to use the word surrender is as a synonym for accept. That is how I am using that word.

Selim Bradley wrote:

IronicParticle wrote:Wrong, Shepard is not surrendering to that fact.

So did Shepard acknowledge the possibility? Yes.

One way to use the word surrender is as a synonym for accept. That is how I am using that word.

But you didn't refute my point. In this case that's a good thing, simply because the level of "surrendering" is rational and trivial and for the sake of stating a truth. Vastly better than being close-minded which is NEVER a good thing.

Basically the term seems out of place, it seems too strong.

IronicParticle wrote:

Selim Bradley wrote:

IronicParticle wrote:Wrong, Shepard is not surrendering to that fact.

So did Shepard acknowledge the possibility? Yes.

One way to use the word surrender is as a synonym for accept. That is how I am using that word.

But you didn't refute my point. In this case that's a good thing, simply because the level of "surrendering" is rational and trivial and for the sake of stating a truth. Vastly better than being close-minded which is NEVER a good thing.

I didn't refute your point because I don't disagree with it. As I said in my dissection of the quote:

Selim Bradley wrote:There is no correct answer to this question because it is a paradox. In either case, evil remains. Same with the question "Which is better: Destroy or Refuse?" There is no correct answer, because one isn't better than the other and it is up to each individual person which path to choose.

Selim Bradley wrote:

IronicParticle wrote:

Selim Bradley wrote:

IronicParticle wrote:Wrong, Shepard is not surrendering to that fact.

So did Shepard acknowledge the possibility? Yes.

One way to use the word surrender is as a synonym for accept. That is how I am using that word.

But you didn't refute my point. In this case that's a good thing, simply because the level of "surrendering" is rational and trivial and for the sake of stating a truth. Vastly better than being close-minded which is NEVER a good thing.

I didn't refute your point because I don't disagree with it. As I said in my dissection of the quote:

Selim Bradley wrote:There is no correct answer to this question because it is a paradox. In either case, evil remains. Same with the question "Which is better: Destroy or Refuse?" There is no correct answer, because one isn't better than the other and it is up to each individual person which path to choose.

Ah, I see.

But the problem is, Shepard's resolve is either out of our control... or it is predetermined by previous choices. And I can see that happening too, if there ever will be a reveal and we do get to finish the Reapers once and for all.

I mean, it would be a perfect way to make choices matter. Aside from choices affecting the ME universe, how will it affect Shepard? What consequences will Shepard suffer? And the answer could possibly be: Whether or not he/she even comes out of things as himself or not. Whether he/she will forget who they are or not.

Edit: Not really a problem then I guess. But it is if we can't control Shepard's resolve.

Lokanaiya wrote:
Erm, not really. Again, Refuse is NOT surrendering. I honestly have no idea why people keep saying this. : /

It pretty much is.

I'm getting bored of seeing this topic again and again and again. There's no need to keep remaking it.

Andromidius wrote:

Lokanaiya wrote:
Erm, not really. Again, Refuse is NOT surrendering. I honestly have no idea why people keep saying this. : /

It pretty much is.

I'm getting bored of seeing this topic again and again and again. There's no need to keep remaking it.

so theoretically someone gives you a gun. tells you to point it at someones head. would you shoot or would you say no?

answer 1. you would refuse, but in doing so be shot yourself.
answer 2. you would shoot. then be shot yourself.
answer 3. you would shoot the person who gave you the gun.
answer 4. you would shoot yourself.

there is no good answer - at least for yourself. Unless you turn the weapon on those who are ordering you to use it.

Not really. It's more like having a Predator with 1 shot while fighting an Atlas. The other person offers you a missile launcher, but you opt out (which it is even named in the game files) just because you don't trust the other person.

Choose Destroy, and Shepard wakes up and breaks indoctrination.

Choose Refuse, and Shepard stays in a coma.

That's pretty much it.

Drewton wrote:Choose Destroy, and Shepard wakes up and breaks indoctrination.

Choose Refuse, and Shepard stays in a coma.

That's pretty much it.

Impossible, there is only being indoctrinated or not being indoctrinated. That's it.

You didn't even address the stuff, if you are just going to go "I'm going to ignore everything said and just insert the destroy claim irrelevantly" why even come here? Address the points made for crying out loud, don't just repeat yourself.

Andromidius wrote:

Lokanaiya wrote:
Erm, not really. Again, Refuse is NOT surrendering. I honestly have no idea why people keep saying this. : /

It pretty much is.

I'm getting bored of seeing this topic again and again and again. There's no need to keep remaking it.

I'm getting bored of seeing you bitch. This topic has not been "remade", there was Restrider's topic which is a DIFFERENT topic. Whenever it was brought up in the main topic it just got hated on and responded with bias and fallacies.

So now that people HAVE to stay on topic when they come in here, maybe we will actually do something productive instead of people like you going on and on about how "pointless" the discussion is. It's actually the most important discussion, because it decides Shepard's fate, and has up to this point not been taken seriously enough.

Edit also, again:

"It's an actual tactic in debate, I'm not sure what the proper term is. But you say that even IF it was true, which you don't even in the slightest believe so, [insert point here] refutes [insert thing here] regardless.

I've actually used this before in a religious debate. Being an Atheist I've made arguments from the position that IF a god exists. It in no way reflects how much I think it is possible. At the very least, it does acknowledge a possibility, but it says nothing about how large you feel that possibility is. I am willing to compromise and say a god MIGHT exist, but the possibility seems so tiny that it's just as likely the universe was created by pan-dimensional turtles having gay intercourse.

So did Shepard acknowledge the possibility? Yes. But we know Shepard, Shepard would not think such a possibility to be large enough to happen in the first place. And Shepard only acknowledges the EXTREMELY MINUTE POSSIBILITY to state a truth that renders that minute possibility 100% irrelevant. And hey, why the hell is Destroy better in that regard? You'd have to be ignorant and batshit insane to think there is NO possibility, not even a REAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLYYYYYYY small possibility. That would be beyond Hubris. It's not better to be close-minded, in ANYTHING."

Gummy wrote:Not really. It's more like having a Predator with 1 shot while fighting an Atlas. The other person offers you a missile launcher, but you opt out (which it is even named in the game files) just because you don't trust the other person.

Destroy is getting a missile launcher in exchange for backstabbing your friends. The doubt is just second hand, much like it is for Synthesis. again, Destroy is morally equal to Synthesis because the benefits are balanced to the scale of severity.

Refusing, is not a predator with 1 shot. It is a 1 shot weapon, but nobody is suggesting conventional victory either so the weapon is undefined. Of course it's called opting out, opting out of what? Reaper manipulations. A deal with the devil, never ends even 1% successful.

Destroy doesn't actually happen, right? So when you wake up, you won't be shooting the tube again and you won't be sacrificing the Geth and EDI. So, objectively speaking. You don't have to sacrifice EDI and the Geth, right? You don't HAVE to. There IS another way and you are for some reason saying that Shepard is so weak minded as to think there is no other way.