+- heRO-Server Forum (https://www.pandoraonline.net/forum)
+-- Forum: Game Related (/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Poll - Give Your Opinion! (/forumdisplay.php?fid=43)
+--- Thread: Religous views (/showthread.php?tid=9297)
RE: ??Religous views - Galt - 03-30-2009 08:23 PM
Lance Wrote:Robin hood in all technicalities was a thief. He could have earned the money and gave to the poor. No, he had to steal it from rich people.That's exactly what I thought.
RE: Religous views - Général_Argos - 03-30-2009 08:32 PM
The question is not if he could have been able to earn money without stealing, the question is if he would have been to earn that much money without stealing. And the answer is obviously no.
What is the difference between a king that make wars to other countries with his armies to get their fortune and someone who steal?
RE: Religous views - mahawirasd - 03-31-2009 03:26 AM
but in the end i always think that the end never justifies the means...
those who wishes to fight monsters must take care not to become one them self...
-w-
RE: ??Religous views - Monkey Feet - 03-31-2009 12:52 PM
Lance Wrote:Monkey Feet Wrote:Umm, no, stealing is not always bad. Look at Robin Hood, blah blah blah he wasn't doing bad, but wasn't doing good either.
Umm, so if something is told by the government, then it's perfectly fine? So I can bomb Europe? Umm, no, nobody has the perfect power.
Technically that's not self defense, choose your words carefully. And it is also in blind chance, meaning coincedance.
Basically, you are bending the truth as you go to get yourself the full advantage (and failing).
Robin hood in all technicalities was a theif. He could have earned the money and gave to the poor. No, he had to steal it from rich people.
Using government was a bad example. Since, most politicians have a twisted set of morals.
You'll notice I said "or something of the sort" . Stopping her would be closer to ... doing a service to your country or state or city.
Basically, you keep coming up with rhetorical questions that you or anyone else with a brain would already know. You can keep it up, because I can always do the same thing right back at you.
And the King was ofcourse a saint in all means. So you could've made that much money without stealing as Krim said? Ofcourse you can, you're perfect = )
Again, choose your words carefully.
Umm, no, it would be closer to... luck or coincedance.
mahawirasd Wrote:but in the end i always think that the end never justifies the means...
those who wishes to fight monsters must take care not to become one them self...
-w-
Sometimes, to stop a "monster", you gotta be a "monster".
Ex: How in the heck are you ganna kill... let's just say some dude with a potion that makes you into pretty much the size of the Empire State building and is indestructable by anything that's not his size or bigger? You gatta BE him or bigger.
RE: Religous views - Lance - 03-31-2009 02:13 PM
Hey, what I said was the truth. I never said it was the better way to get more money, just that what Robin hood did was unlawful.
I never mentioned anything about a king. That was Krim.
Annnnd, we have bombs that can reduce things MUCH bigger than the empire state building into dust. Does the missle itself have to be bigger than the monster? Or will the explosion being bigger work fine?
RE: Religous views - Monkey Feet - 03-31-2009 02:21 PM
Unlawful, but effective.
Killing things is "illegal", and you're killing stuff on HeRO, monsters, even though it's digital, it's still "killing".
The king has something to do with Robin Hood, and I mean a lot.
Because you'd really nuke your own country a few times so other countries can attack and take over anytime, right? = )
RE: Religous views - Lance - 03-31-2009 02:38 PM
Lol. Technically, by definition of the word 'kill' , you can't kill something thats not alive. So, your digital bodies don't count.
And if it meant getting rid of an indestrucble threat, I would (after evacuating of course) bomb the silly monster. It doesn't have to be nuke, that would be big overkill.
Also, you never specified where the monster was, just because he is as big as the empire state building doesn't mean the monster ends up in New York.
RE: Religous views - Monkey Feet - 03-31-2009 02:45 PM
Then technically, Robin Hood didn't do anything illegal, since it was basically only a "story", meaning it's 100% perfectly fine. *It IS fake, right? = O*
Umm, yea, because saving yourself only is they way you role, even though that's being selfish, and killing thousands of others, which pretty much makes you a "monster".
I never said it WASN'T in New York, or it was a he. Maybe it was a hermonthetite or however you say it @_@ (I just had sex ed last thursday, and for some reason, they got on that subject /swt
But if I had to choose, it'd be in Foxbrough, or however you say it, Massachussets, since the Pats costed me $5 and I hate Tom Brady. *Cough no talent* Ofcourse Randy Moss and Matt Cassel (USC! USC! USC!) has to be out of there first >: )
RE: Religous views - Lance - 03-31-2009 03:24 PM
Wrong! Robin hood was a real person. So what he did was still illegal.
And he's a horrible role model!
Hey! Read my text before you go and reply. I said "(after evacuating of course)". Evacuation means getting people to safety, not killing them along with the monster.
RE: Religous views - Monkey Feet - 03-31-2009 03:49 PM
Not unless he was shot and put in jail it wasn't, as long as you don't get caught or anything, it's fair play. Pfft, yea, and so is Rick James >_>
Because the monster would be nice enough to hold the door for thousands of people right? = )