Let's say humanity has NOT been wiped out, but this 13 year old girl shows up to a hospital with a cough, and they learn she's carrying a new strain of cordyceps that if it begins producing spores, will 100% kill everybody on the planet. Basically the opposite of the scenario in the game.
The doctors sedated her for the scan but they say at any second the spores could burst. You must make a decision now.
You have three choices.
The first is to kill her and incinerate the body. This 100% prevents the outbreak.
The second is to try to quarantine her. Lock her in a prison against her will for her entire life
She can never interact with anyone again. There's a much higher chance than zero that the spores could escape and cause the apocalypse.
The last is the bullshit retard choice at the end of TLOU: you cry like a weepy emotional woman and you whine about "muh morality" and do neither of the above. You say the the moral thing is to leave the choice up to her even if she says no to quarantine. 100% chance everyone dies.
How is this a hard choice whatsoever lmao. Do you think early Man never faced a choice of casting sick people out, condemning them to death, but did so to spare the health of the tribe?
Actually take quarantine off the table. Let's pretend due to the spores bursting any minute, that there's no time to build and move her to quarantine. You either kill her or you don't.
Again how is this a hard choice?
That's the point killing Ellie was going to be fruitless, it was a hail mary even they knew wouldn't work. It was the Fireflies who were willing to kill an innocent child in the name of doing something. It was about them looking like they were doing good as opposed to doing good
Literally everybody who defends Joel writes this speculative drivel. You haven't even the slightest reason to doubt their research. Ellie was the first immune person they found. At worst you find ONE journal entry by someone who expressed cautious optimism. Everybody writes this shit about how they "never would have found a cure" but it's all retcon.
Joel also never once even indicates that's his motivation. His motivation is that he decided despite being a failure as a father the first time, he was entitled to a second chance. And us players are expected to agree with him?
Since you want to attach all these excuses, how about we remove the excuses? Let's say it was 100% guaranteed slam dunk for sure that they'd come up with a treatment? Does that change your mind? If not, then why even bothering mentioning their slim chance of success when it never mattered to you anyway?
Is it because you're a faggot clearly running from a discussion you got backed into a corner during? Answer the question. if the entire scope of the game was reversed and not killing Ellie would release the fungus, is Joel still a good guy for murdering all the doctors who are trying to stop the apocalypse because "its a girl muh famileeee"? This was literally the plot of 28 Weeks Later lmao.
In both situations, either she has the cure or the disease, not killing Ellie will kill all of humanity.
Go ahead and rationalize your nonsense why one is okay and presumably the other is not.
Let's flip it around.
Let's say humanity has NOT been wiped out, but this 13 year old girl shows up to a hospital with a cough, and they learn she's carrying a new strain of cordyceps that if it begins producing spores, will 100% kill everybody on the planet. Basically the opposite of the scenario in the game.
The doctors sedated her for the scan but they say at any second the spores could burst. You must make a decision now.
You have three choices.
The first is to kill her and incinerate the body. This 100% prevents the outbreak.
The second is to try to quarantine her. Lock her in a prison against her will for her entire life She can never interact with anyone again. There's a much higher chance than zero that the spores could escape and cause the apocalypse.
The last is the bullshit retard choice at the end of TLOU: you cry like a weepy emotional woman and you whine about "muh morality" and do neither of the above. You say the the moral thing is to leave the choice up to her even if she says no to quarantine. 100% chance everyone dies.
How is this a hard choice whatsoever lmao. Do you think early Man never faced a choice of casting sick people out, condemning them to death, but did so to spare the health of the tribe?
Actually take quarantine off the table. Let's pretend due to the spores bursting any minute, that there's no time to build and move her to quarantine. You either kill her or you don't.
Again how is this a hard choice?
Literally everybody who defends Joel writes this speculative drivel. You haven't even the slightest reason to doubt their research. Ellie was the first immune person they found. At worst you find ONE journal entry by someone who expressed cautious optimism. Everybody writes this shit about how they "never would have found a cure" but it's all retcon.
Joel also never once even indicates that's his motivation. His motivation is that he decided despite being a failure as a father the first time, he was entitled to a second chance. And us players are expected to agree with him?
Since you want to attach all these excuses, how about we remove the excuses? Let's say it was 100% guaranteed slam dunk for sure that they'd come up with a treatment? Does that change your mind? If not, then why even bothering mentioning their slim chance of success when it never mattered to you anyway?
Is it because you're a faggot clearly running from a discussion you got backed into a corner during? Answer the question. if the entire scope of the game was reversed and not killing Ellie would release the fungus, is Joel still a good guy for murdering all the doctors who are trying to stop the apocalypse because "its a girl muh famileeee"? This was literally the plot of 28 Weeks Later lmao.
In both situations, either she has the cure or the disease, not killing Ellie will kill all of humanity.
Go ahead and rationalize your nonsense why one is okay and presumably the other is not.