Christ Centered Gamer

Weird. I think I would rather fight the powers than be the powers. Because if you become the power, there's always some chump who's going to fight you. Usually over nothing.

Vengeance, or glory?

Chozon1 wrote:Weird. I think I would rather fight the powers than be the powers. Because if you become the power, there's always some chump who's going to fight you. Usually over nothing.

So, would you prefer an anarchic system, where there is no one at the top?

Chozon1 wrote:Vengeance, or glory?

Neither. One should fight for - and with - honor.

Sstavix wrote:

Chozon1 wrote:Vengeance, or glory?

Neither. One should fight for - and with - honor.

So, like, a bit of both, then?

ArchAngel wrote:

Sstavix wrote:

Chozon1 wrote:Vengeance, or glory?

Neither. One should fight for - and with - honor.

So, like, a bit of both, then?

Not at all. Vengeance is an effort to right a perceived slight or wrong, which has the unfortunate tendency to lead into an unending cycle of violence and hatred. Glory is an attempt to prove dominance over others, either for yourself or the team you belong to.

Honor - true honor - isn't for revenge, nor is it for personal glory. It is a manner of conducting oneself in a noble, rational fashion. Honorable people do not act because of a personal vendetta or for self-serving purposes. Instead, they act in a manner to help others. They have a clearly defined sense of right and wrong, and when they find themselves in the wrong, they accept their punishments with grace and humility.

One way of looking at it is how it's depicted in the Ultima games. According to one interpretation, honor is the courage to stand for truth, against any odds, even if it means losing one's life in the process.

So it is the willingness to be honest - not just to others, but to oneself. It is the ability to be brave and stand up for what's right. It is the desire not to resort to underhanded or deceptive practices in order to win - even if it means losing in the process. Others may have their own interpretations of honor - the abhorrent practice of "honor killings" comes to mind - but those are not real honor. You know an honorable person by the way they conduct themselves. You can feel that they can be trusted and relied upon. That's real honor.

Sstavix wrote:So, would you prefer an anarchic system, where there is no one at the top?

Uh...no. Not at all.

Good shoes are really just necessary?

Chozon1 wrote:

Sstavix wrote:So, would you prefer an anarchic system, where there is no one at the top?

Uh...no. Not at all.

Then who do we fight?

Chozon1 wrote:Good shoes are really just necessary?

A wise person once told me "Every girl's crazy about a sharp-dressed man." So, yes.

We fight all who stand for injustice.

Gross?

Chozon1 wrote:We fight all who stand for injustice.

Ah, but what is defined as a just society? After all, justice implies following the law... but what do you do when the law is wrong? Sometimes there is a remarkable difference between doing what is legal and doing what is right.

Chozon1 wrote:Gross?

Oh yeah. 144 times is gross!

Justice implies doing what is right; that's why people love the Avengers and Batman. The line of thinking that justice = following the law is what allows supervillains to reign, and frankly, just isn't very worthwhile.

Money can buy happiness, as long as your happiness is not in the money itself?

Chozon1 wrote:Justice implies doing what is right; that's why people love the Avengers and Batman. The line of thinking that justice = following the law is what allows supervillains to reign, and frankly, just isn't very worthwhile.

I do agree. But then that could lead to moral debates as to what exactly constitutes "right."

Chozon1 wrote:Money can buy happiness, as long as your happiness is not in the money itself?

Sometimes I don't think money can buy happiness. If you don't mind taking on a depressing note, look at Robin Williams. All the money, fame and talent he had wasn't enough to keep his demons at bay. Money is a very useful tool, and can certainly help to make someone more secure in their lifestyle. But happy? No. Happiness needs something else.

Sstavix wrote:Oh yeah. 144 times is gross!

Speaking of which, I just got around to watching the Fellowship of the Ring. I have also been chopping a lot of onions.

Do you advise reading the book first and then watching the films?

ScotchRobbins wrote:
Speaking of which, I just got around to watching the Fellowship of the Ring. I have also been chopping a lot of onions.

Do you advise reading the book first and then watching the films?

I know I risk losing a bunch of my English major / nerd cred with this... but I actually didn't like the books. I had read them years and years ago - back when I was still in grade school, actually - and I found them pretty dull. The portions of the books that focused on Gandalf and Aragorn and everyone else I found boring and I even skipped great portions of the book, simply because I thought they were irrelevant filler. The most important parts were Frodo taking the ring to Mt. Doom to destroy it - so who cares what everyone else was doing? As a result, a bunch of the things in the movie were new to me, simply because I hadn't read them before.

I've sometimes thought I should go back and reread those novels now that I'm older, but I haven't found the time yet.

Sstavix wrote:

ScotchRobbins wrote:
Speaking of which, I just got around to watching the Fellowship of the Ring. I have also been chopping a lot of onions.

Do you advise reading the book first and then watching the films?

I know I risk losing a bunch of my English major / nerd cred with this... but I actually didn't like the books. I had read them years and years ago - back when I was still in grade school, actually - and I found them pretty dull. The portions of the books that focused on Gandalf and Aragorn and everyone else I found boring and I even skipped great portions of the book, simply because I thought they were irrelevant filler. The most important parts were Frodo taking the ring to Mt. Doom to destroy it - so who cares what everyone else was doing? As a result, a bunch of the things in the movie were new to me, simply because I hadn't read them before.

I've sometimes thought I should go back and reread those novels now that I'm older, but I haven't found the time yet.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scre ... Scream.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sstavix wrote: I know I risk losing a bunch of my English major / nerd cred with this... but I actually didn't like the books. I had read them years and years ago - back when I was still in grade school, actually - and I found them pretty dull. The portions of the books that focused on Gandalf and Aragorn and everyone else I found boring and I even skipped great portions of the book, simply because I thought they were irrelevant filler.

^ This. I have sort of stopped reading the LOTR trilogy because of this. The movies are ok but the books I think are very dull. I liked reading the Hobbit though.



?

Emwok wrote: ^ This. I have sort of stopped reading the LOTR trilogy because of this. The movies are ok but the books I think are very dull. I liked reading the Hobbit though.

I agree. The Hobbit was pretty good. But it also didn't get bogged down in a lot of extraneous detail. Now I know some people like extraneous detail, but I'm not one of them.

Emwok wrote:

?

I actually found that video somewhat dull, I'm sorry to say. I'm not sure what the point was....