Quote Originally Posted by AddictedToWitches View Post
So your argument is despite it making sense in the way it was written. . . you don't like it and think it's still unethical.
I mean, you can dislike the writing sure but this is next level cope.
I'll use very small words in a simple analogy so you understand.
You write a picture book. In chapter one, you show all these cute farm animals living with farmer Joe, and explain they have feelings and all life is precious. Farmer Joe makes nice pens and stables for all the animals and, in doing so, he comes to understand they have feelings and their lives are precious and they're happy together.
In chapter seven, there's a flood that threatens the farm. So he needs to build a dam, but realizes that the waters are inhabited by a bunch of fish and some beavers. He has no choice but to build the dam or his farm will be destroyed. Sure. But the chapter then goes "they're just fish and beavers anyway, their existence has no worth and is totally different from the animals from chapter 1, so it's totally fine to destroy them".
See the problem? I'm not saying if the fish are equatable to the animals or Joe or not- I don't pretend to have this answer. But it's dissonant to state "fish/beavers = worthless" and "farm animals = precious".
Yes, you need to build the dam to save yourself, but is there an additional element of tragedy here? That's what people are discussing, and noticing how incongruent is with the past work presented.

I don't think it's unethical to destroy the Endless to save the Source either. Did you read where I said "the WoL and Scions were justified in destroying the Endless to protect the Source"?
But ty for illustrating my point, it's all just "next level cope" and whatnot.