I don't think you understand what a philosophical flaw is. Seems like a philosophical flaw to you is just you personally not liking it, and the supposed "flaw" is not based on any logical error. Last I checked something being a "deal with the devil" is not a logical fallacy. It's ok to not like it, but don't conflate your preference to some knowledge of a flaw. Secondly, you're misrepresenting the goal. As the Hive see it, the universe will end, [b]that will truly be nothing[/b]. If they succeed, and they wipe out all weakness, then the universe will take a final self-sufficient perfect form; [b]that is not nothing[/b]. Secondly, the goal is not to wipe out all other life, it's to wipe out all other life that happens to be weak enough that they can be wiped out. If there is life out there so strong that they cannot be wiped out, the Hive would agree that this life is meat to join the final shape. On the subject of consequences of philosophies, the Hive moved from a lowly short-lived species that were about to be wiped out by cataclysm, and now they have risen to a vast interstellar civilization of immortals that have dominated for over 20,000 years, and continue to remain a colossal power. Even Oryx who has seemingly failed still lives on as the immortal ravenous heart within the Touch of Malice. On top of that, there are still two more Hive queens of similar power as Oryx out there. In terms of consequences, the Hive are still doing great, and it's all thanks to their philosophy. Funny that you should bring up the consequences of philosophy when you bring up Jesus, especially considering how many wars and atrocities have been committed in his name -- sure they would not be what he intended, but that is the consequence. The irony. Seems like you're ignoring a bunch of important points that I made (even after I pointed out that you ignored it, and reiterated it for you), and instead of arguing against my points, you're just throwing a bunch of quotes and Star Wars references at me as if the words of those people have some merit that surpasses actual logic. The fact that someone said something that you can quote is not a substitute for arguing a point. At this point I'm actually wondering if you're trolling or not because of the persistent ignoring of key points. For example, I referenced the actual stuff from Books of Sorrow to support that it is not just some rationalization (the philosophy predating him, the unnecessary risk of allowing court challenges, him initially disobeying it), and yet you don't actually address these points to try to refute them, but instead just throw more quotes. Furthermore, the burden of proof is on you to present evidence (from the lore, not random Jesus and Star Wars quotes) that the philosophy is just a rationalization because you're the one making the claim, and I already presented my evidence for why it isn't (though I'm sure you'll ignore it again). I don't see any point in arguing about this if you're just going to ignore my points. I'm not replying again after this for reasons I just explained, but in the future, please learn to actually argue a point instead of just throwing quotes as if it's some substitute. Have a good day. I'm done, so The Last Word is "Yours…not mine." - Renegade Hunter Shin Malphur to Dredgen Yor (see what I did there? :p)