What lore do you ignore?

[Lady_Silvermoon]

*snip*

If someone says they love you as they murder you, they do not love you. If they believe they love you as they torture you, they do not love you. Her actions are so abhorrent that I don't care if she has moonbeams popping out of her chest, which she practically does, her actions are still the second worst genocide I've ever heard of behind the Thanos snap. Thordan believed he was doing what was right. Athena believed she was doing what was right. Why are they villains while Venat is a hero? If Athena or Thordan had declared more love for us, would their actions be good?

And keep in mind, part of my extreme reaction is due to them selling the audience on genocide. I'm passionate about this because I'm trying to convince real people in the real world there is no good reason or "necessary evil" reason to exterminate an entire race. And I can't believe this is where I am, and yet, that is the discourse. It is the "positive spin" they managed to put on this that keeps me up at night. That is why I don't go with the flow and bask in the light of millions dead just so my WoL can exist.

There is no good way to commit genocide. I will not be moved on this point. That is where the disagreement comes in. That you don't get why I won't accept the "good genocide." Did I not see the pretty lady? The soft smile? Hear the music or her sweet words? Nah, I saw all that, even fell for all that...then I thought about it and remembered there is no such thing as a good or tragic, but necessary, genocide.

Given the short story there is no reason to assume the timeline G'raha left is a "dead end." And also, we told the Ea that even if everything is fated to end, that is no reason to give up. So no, G'raha coming back isn't moral because the people of that timeline are "disposable" while the people of our timeline are not. It is that exact thinking that has me here doing everything in my power attempting to convince you that no matter what Endwalker said, there is no such thing as disposable people.

Yet even in 6.5 we're reminded again it's wrong to doom another world to save your own. So dooming the Ancients to save our world is wrong even by the morals of the game's storyline I finished up last week.

Also, for the people pointing out that Venat murdered all those people two years ago and I need to get over it already, as was already pointed out when someone went through my history to discuss me, I only finished Endwalker this July, so my journey from "the useless eaters had to go, couldn't be helped" to "OMG! What did these writers sell me on?" was rather recent.

ETA: How do you not see the conflict between the ideas of "hope everlasting" and "these people have no shot at survival, so it's okay to use them for parts"? Even the dead ends did not end up being dead ends in the end. They are back in the flow to be born as new life and the dynamis versions of them are building a new society. There are no dead ends. There are no people "not worth it." That is why I'm going back and forth because I can tell you're a good person with a good heart and to accept Venat's actions requires the acceptance of some really bad ideas. That the lives of some are just "worth more" than the lives of others for the 30 conflicting reasons they threw at the wall hoping one would stick with each player. Mine was the survival one, "Oh, well if the Ancients aren't built to make it...." Make it to what? The heat death of the universe? All things end, just because something will end doesn't mean we should forsake it. That's a lesson we went to the edge of the universe to each Meteion, yet somehow didn't manage to learn ourselves.