It is an unfortunate thing. Episode two is the destruction. and how this invader knew when to poke is subject to scrutiny.
I believe there is a traitor in the midst. A traitor in the form of a little girl, who seem innocent, quiet but seems to be hiding something. Mysterious. Shady. So I'm betting she's the one. My suspection was even made more strong when that suspected person left the scene of the crime.
Now that's done. Another debate that would keep the discussion going is a subject of morality.
In this episode, we see two characters on different sides. An the invasion goes to action, it is left to the two to spoil the enemies plan. But them duo have opposite directives on going at it. One is to capture and so not kill, the other shows no mercy.
Are you on the latter cause I am. There are situations that you are able to do that, you know, capture them bad people doing bad things, cause there is an opportunity in it. But, there are times when you are not given the time at all. And so that scenario, like the one in episode two, was one where you'd either choose the life to the other, and it's not a dilemma at all, which you'd choose.
Here is another issue I noticed in this. The one that's philosophy is not to kill no matter what, one of the two that's doing the saving, is a difficult philosophy to follow. And if chosen to guide your whole life, then you'd subject your life to a series of headaches. You care for every life, but if you have to choose, a life for the other, and that other is going to kill that other. Which would you choose? Of course you can try the none lethal way, no matter how dangerous it is that every minute counts to save another life. To me this is flawed.
I believe there is a traitor in the midst. A traitor in the form of a little girl, who seem innocent, quiet but seems to be hiding something. Mysterious. Shady. So I'm betting she's the one. My suspection was even made more strong when that suspected person left the scene of the crime.
Now that's done. Another debate that would keep the discussion going is a subject of morality.
In this episode, we see two characters on different sides. An the invasion goes to action, it is left to the two to spoil the enemies plan. But them duo have opposite directives on going at it. One is to capture and so not kill, the other shows no mercy.
Are you on the latter cause I am. There are situations that you are able to do that, you know, capture them bad people doing bad things, cause there is an opportunity in it. But, there are times when you are not given the time at all. And so that scenario, like the one in episode two, was one where you'd either choose the life to the other, and it's not a dilemma at all, which you'd choose.
Here is another issue I noticed in this. The one that's philosophy is not to kill no matter what, one of the two that's doing the saving, is a difficult philosophy to follow. And if chosen to guide your whole life, then you'd subject your life to a series of headaches. You care for every life, but if you have to choose, a life for the other, and that other is going to kill that other. Which would you choose? Of course you can try the none lethal way, no matter how dangerous it is that every minute counts to save another life. To me this is flawed.