Quote Originally Posted by Cleretic View Post
I see this argument a lot, as if Venat's whole problem was 'but nobody would believe me'. That wasn't the problem, the problem was that she felt they couldn't handle the truth; that if Hermes knew he'd refuse to help with the necessary defenses (which Hermes himself agrees with), that if someone like Emet knew they'd tell him (which... you know, he would), and that a whole bunch of average citizens would react to that whole 'hey the apocalypse is coming' information poorly (which we know they do).

Ironically, Venat's problem is the exact reverse of struggling to get people to believe her: Venat is so positively regarded, and the Ancients so suited to checking the veracity of an assertion, that anyone she tells would immediately understand the truth and that the truth is terrifying. That game changes once the Convocation are tempered and won't listen even if they are approached (as the poster above me pointed out), but not in a way that makes things any better.

But if this is where this thread is going, I'm gonna go ahead and ollie out, because this mono-argument has been tedious for all but one of the months in which it's been held, and you haven't listened to these points the last seventeen times they were made either.
Thordan also believed the people of Ishgard could not handle the truth regarding the Dragonsong War yet he was ultimately proven wrong and the conflict - despite lasting a thousand years - drew to a close.

It isn't a controversial opinion to suggest that genocide is not an appropriate alternative to having difficult conversations. We even see with Garlemald that the people there, bitter enemies to those who ventured there to help out, are treated with dignity and respect and are not just wiped out even if it would have been the easiest solution and prevented further problems in the future.

What you seem to be asking for is for people to just shrug and accept genocide of innocent men, women and children as a necessity when viable alternatives existed. Though you're correct on one thing at least, this debate has certainly been had many times in the past and will no doubt continue well into the future. I do believe that numerous posters have provided sources to counter the points raised in favour of genocide being a necessity, though.