Quote:
Originally Posted by The Green One
I already answered that in my previous post. IS dooming this world the only way? Do they know it as fact? Can they know it as fact? Furthermore, how do they know this method will even work? Do they have a prior instance to reference? Are they grasping at straws out of desperation?
Look we're clearly just going around and around in circles until one of us gets bored and walks away. We have differing points of view on the same piece of information and I don't see us seeing eye to eye on this if we're now on the third repetition of this. Let's just agree to disagree at this point. I don't feel I'm wrong on this and neither do you. There's no objective "right" answer to this. Just different points of view. Which highlights the problem.
|
One question: where did you answer my question? I didn't see any spot where you addressed the idea of them trying to save or protect people in their own world while refusing to do what they "know" will save everyone.
Otherwise indeed I agree. I can't deny that your POV could be valid as much as mine. But I don't see that as necessarily a problem. All depends on how things pan out. If we were to both read/watch to the very end of the entire story and feel satisfied that questions we had were answered, even if we disagreed on those answers, I think it'd be a good story. It's hardly unusual for even brilliant masterpieces to have multiple interpretations depending on individuals' assumptions and opinions. Especially when dealing with a trolley-type plot. Sometimes one really is faced with ethical questions that have no right answer, but that in and of itself makes it a compelling trial to face characters with.