soo are the dragons really the enemy?

[Tiggy]

There is no difference in what the English and Japanese dialogue communicated. Both referred to the past conflict as a motivator for the ongoing war.

How can you say that they are the same? In one it is said that the war is because of the sins of the ancestors. Past tense and long ago. In the Japanese version it is clearly said they are about to commit the same sin as one commited in the past. Future tense with a reference to a past action so coming soon but similar. Quite different in terms of the information conveyed. Past tense and future tense make a significant change in what the information means.

[Intaki]

I don't think the dragons are bad guys, personally.

In spite of the fact that we know the dragons are more than willing to slaughter every man, woman, and child they can get their hands on, in addition to basically tempering people?

How can you say that they are the same?

Because they are? Both of them refer to the desire to continue the war as being rooted in the past. The Japanese version (or rather, the Redditor with an agenda version) simply tries to justify it further by insinuating that because Ishgard did bad things before, it follows that it will do so again. But that's never established as the main cause of the call to war.

[Tiggy]

The Japanese version (or rather, the Redditor with an agenda version) simply tries to justify it further by insinuating that because Ishgard did bad things before, it follows that it will do so again. But that's never established as the main cause of the call to war.

And yet that is a perfect example of how the Japanese version provides MORE information thus making them not the same. Yes, the share some overlapping information, but they are not exactly the same as you pointed out as well. Making the statement that "There is no difference in what the English and Japanese dialogue communicated" a false oversimplification of the quote at hand as we can explicitly point out one piece of data that was clearly not in both.

[Intaki]

Making the statement that "There is no difference in what the English and Japanese dialogue communicated" a false oversimplification of the quote at hand as we can explicitly point out one piece of data that was clearly not in both.

Except it really isn't. I'm not going to keep posting on this issue since it'll likely just end up as another thread lock, but understand that if you believe the Dravanians' desire to destroy Ishgard is rooted in anything but the past, you are going to be severely disappointed.

[Tiggy]

One has historical context, the other clearly does not.

but understand that if you believe the Dravanians' desire to destroy Ishgard is rooted in anything but the past, you are going to be severely disappointed.

You can objectively look at the information without conveying a specific personal expectation. Do not put words in my mouth because you failed to understand what I said. I simply pointed out that those two snips of data have a clear objective difference and that the original statement made by you was clearly false. No where did I express personal expectations on the matter. No where did I say what I think will happen. I simply pointed out objective differences and how they clearly make your statement quite plainly a false oversimplification. Even you two posts ago commented about the differences between the two admitting they aren't the same statements so you yourself are tacitly admitting that your original statement is wrong. You can debate what the words actually mean, but that's not what I was commenting on at all. Saying they are the same is false plain and simple. Suggesting that we will get a differing version of the story in general is an entirely different argument and that appears to be what you are suggesting and possibly what square is doing. That was never the point of my comment at all.