Level 158 Comments: Faptastic
OfflineSend mail to scruffstah Block scruffstah Invite scruffstah to be your friend
|Last status update:|| |
|Date Signed Up:||2/28/2012|
|FunnyJunk Career Stats|
|Content Thumbs:||26 total, 38 , 12|
|Comment Thumbs:||585 total, 809 , 224|
|Content Level Progress:|| 50.84% (30/59) |
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
|Comment Level Progress:|| 50% (5/10) |
Level 158 Comments: Faptastic → Level 159 Comments: Faptastic
|Total Comments Made:||431|
- Views: 1358*title*
33 2 Total: +31
latest user's comments
|#208 - Wouldn't they have just as much of a right to be right there a… [+] (4 new replies)||12/21/2012 on Faith In Humanity...||+1|
#275 - anon (12/21/2012) [-]
No, they just stood there. They didn't say anything or prevent anyone from entering the school. The campus permitted it, so there are also no loitering charges. The WBBC was just to chicken shit to try and enter.
|#478 - Actually, think about it. Columbine is still talked about. 13 …||12/18/2012 on CAUTION (feels)||+2|
|#15 - Asheville, ************. [+] (1 new reply)||12/08/2012 on Stay classy North Carolina||+5|
|#525 - Because in Assassin's Creed the Templars TOTALLY aren't a dan… [+] (11 new replies)||12/01/2012 on Things that I have learned...||+5|
#542 - vladhellsing (12/01/2012) [-]
Do you remember why Altair killed those nine? It wasn't because they disagreed with them - in fact it turns out the Assassins & Templars share a common goal - but "I take issue with the means", as Al Mualim said. Whereas the Assassins fight against oppressors so that the people might learn to think for themselves and achieve harmony, the Templars would force peace through submission "and rob us of our free will in the process".
#564 - Keoul (12/01/2012) [-]
"Men must be free to do what they believe It is not our right to punish one for thinking what they do, no matter how much we disagree"
This quote still seems out of place in the AC world as they're all still punishing each other for what they believe is right. That is what I've been trying to say and as you've just pointed out they've been doing the opposite throughout the entirety of the first game, even in the end he kills his master because he disagrees with what he believes in. Right or wrong assassins still punished people because their actions did not agree with them, morality is a subjective thing after all so we cannot just say "they're the good guys so it was justified"
#570 - vladhellsing (12/01/2012) [-]
You misquoted, the line is "Men must be free to believe what they do" not "do what they believe". Big difference.
He didn't kill him because he disagreed with what he was thinking, he killed him because he posed a threat - because his actions were dangerous. That was the case with all his targets; if the Assassins targeted people simply based on what their beliefs were then they'd be bumping off people left and right. The Templars posed a threat to the Assassin's liberal idea of peace and so Al Mualim targeted a few specific individuals to cripple the Templars as best they can to prevent their plan from taking effect (setting aside his own betrayal for the time being). And the irony of the Assassins using violence to achieve peace is an issue that's dealt with more than once, so it's not like the writers were trying to dodge the question but rather trying to address it. It's rare for a game to be able to accomplish that.
#587 - Keoul (12/01/2012) [-]
I was quoting the OC, so you just proved my original post was correct?
"The templars posed a threat to the Assassin's liberal idea of peace" that quote was from you just then, I'm not saying the AC series is a bad game, just that the quote seems ill fitting considering what takes place.
#569 - trostell (12/01/2012) [-]
The Templars in Assassin's Creed are against free thought, and the exchange of ideals, while the Assassins are trying to promote the spread of knowledge, the ability to think and see for oneself instead of just doing as you are told. It's why you are given only one goal, to stop the men who try to oppress the freedoms of the common man, freedoms that should never be taken or suppressed by anyone, least of all other men.
#591 - Keoul (12/01/2012) [-]
The Templars were simply trying to attain peace using force, if everyone has a common enemy or if everyone is suppressed would there be conflict? no there wouldn't. They were trying to get peace only in a more aggressive manner than the Assassins who believed people could attain peace themselves.
Think of it this way, the Templars believed that without guidance people would continuously argue amongst themselves while the Assassins believed that people can attain peace without being forced into it and anyone who wants to force their will onto others need to be eliminated. Both wanted peace but had different methods of attaining it.
#595 - trostell (12/01/2012) [-]
Except that would give the Templars power over all men. Power corrupts. When a man has power over other men, he will almost certainly abuse it. Altair's master wanted power over other men, something no human has any right to, ever. All humans should be equals, able to choose their own paths, not have someone order them around from birth until death.
#640 - Keoul (12/01/2012) [-]
Hmm that's an interesting idea and this could get VERY philosophical.
I guess it depends on your perspective on the matter, would you rather everyone choose to be violent of their own free will or force everyone to be peaceful to one another? After all conflict is an inevitability of free will, you will inevitably find people who don't agree with you and conflict will arise.
I suppose, again, it really depends on how far you'd go for peace.
|#376 - I really hope that they're stereotyping of the USA is a joke,…||11/29/2012 on American Stereotypes||+5|
|#258 - Running with Scissors, Inc.*||11/29/2012 on Game companies as friends||+3|
|#280 - They could have them because they like them. I know I prefer t… [+] (1 new reply)||11/29/2012 on The incredible pitbull,...||+1|
|#268 - Why would you need one? They're good guard dogs. I feel a whol… [+] (3 new replies)||11/29/2012 on The incredible pitbull,...||+1|
|#243 - Alright, firstly: my cat could kick a Dachshund's ass, so they… [+] (5 new replies)||11/29/2012 on The incredible pitbull,...||+1|
#257 - angelmatvey (11/29/2012) [-]
My standard-sized dachshund is thirteen years old and he could still wipe the floor with any cat that dares mess with him. Just saying. It's the miniature dachshunds that are pussies.
I'm not really trying to single out pit bulls from other dogs, I feel the same way about any dangerous dogs. German Shepherds are gorgeous, but why would you need one in your home?
#268 - scruffstah (11/29/2012) [-]
Why would you need one? They're good guard dogs. I feel a whole hell of a lot more safe with a dog that could protect me than I would with a Dachshund. (no offense meant towards your preference) I have a Great Pyrenees mix right now, but when I get my own dog, I'm most likely getting a Pit Bull and a Rottweiler, because I know I can train them, because I've spent my whole life training dogs, and I know they're amazing dogs when trained well.
|#225 - The problem with your argument is that they are such great com… [+] (1 new reply)||11/29/2012 on The incredible pitbull,...||+1|
#245 - angelmatvey (11/29/2012) [-]
Pit bulls can be great companions, yes. But they can also seriously damage another dog or even a human if they were to attack. Other dogs are good companions as well, and when there are so many dogs to choose from, it doesn't seem logical to buy the dog that could kill someone.
Adopting an abused animal is a different story altogether, as long as you're doing it to save or improve the dog's life.