I don't think Marluxia was misunderstood at all, or Vexen. Marluxia was power hungry and wanted it all to himself. It seems pretty right out there. I also don't feel that I'm a fanish person to say that I would have picked Zexion first because really, in the end he was one of the original members that crossed over, yet when Vexen approached him to get him to do things of investigating Xemnas deeper, Zexion did not want it. I do think both Zexion and Lexaeus got totally screwed there being stuck with the others. However, I chose Xigbar as the other person since I feel he knows things others don't and he didn't seem 'that bad' really and I understand the Org's goals as they could be. He has a past and it seemed to be a rather rough one if his appearance with all the scars etc was any indicator. I wouldn't say Axel or Roxas because I think in the end, they were pretty well understood that Axel is a wild card and did do his deeds for the Org but then left when he realized it just was not going to turn out well no matter what he did...and as for Roxas, eh, he was never misunderstood from the very beginning. His whole deal was comprehended, at least by me. So, Lexaeus, Zexion and Xigbar would be my choices. The others seemed pretty easy to figure out. Larxene could have turned out different perhaps, if Marluxia were not influencing her so much. She could also be tossed in that group. Marluxia though was just a bad egg. I partied when I killed him.
This is why I am not religious. I cannot condone a religion that wants to say that Adam and Eve is the way and Adam and Steve is not. Adam and Eve is for 'procreation' purposes. Adam and Steve is not. The earth is more than 6000 years old even if 50% of Americans assume otherwise. A man and a woman together can have children, but you know what? They don't have sex together just to produce them. Sex is 'enjoyable' and feels good and is something people share together as a mutual satisfaction too, as well as the emotional feelings it gives them. Why do people forget that? Bonobos don't forget it. Sex is not some evil thing. Nor is it something to be ashamed of to say the persons involved didn't do it to have a baby. They did it for mutual connection, love and feeling and sex just feels good when done right. I am also not with the 'sex after marriage' thing as I think people shouldn't just have sex straight out in a budding relationship and should be drawn together to be friends foremost, but I will ask...why wait till after marriage? What if the guy is too big for the girl? What if the guy can't get it up? What if the girl finds sex to be really uncomfortable or the guy's sexual desires to be over the top? What if it's vice versa? Sex before marriage to me seems more a logical thing than waiting until after to find out the bad points you didn't know prior. It gets it out in the open and lets you know if sexually the two people are even compatible. This isn't to say I think they should just have sex all the time because then you lose focus on the intimacy in other ways such as developing the friendship bonds that will carry a marriage onward, but still, I can't see being with someone and devoting my 'life' to that person if I don't know what I am getting into. It's better to know ahead of time and break it off or go 'whoo-hoo!' than to later find out it just isn't working and spend all that money and time on a divorce. The world is not evil at all. The world is simply 'the world' and you give it a label to express your discontentment about what 'others' do. If you believe in God, you do. However, the bible was written in a time to bring people together to mold a specific society with the beliefs they held 'then'. Homosexuality has existed as long as humans have. I find that a 'loving' God would not condemn such a behavior and instead hope his flock of followers would see that homosexuality is a part of life. What does being homosexual do to others that is so bad? About the only thing I can think of off the top of my head is that if 'everyone' was homosexual and didn't want kids...well, there goes the population and the human race dies out. This is a totally extremist point of view and it is simply not valid. So what else? Because I am straight, I have no desire for another of the same gender. I can say I'm not the least bit attracted to a gay person, but can I be friends and also share things with someone who is gay? Of course! I am NOT in that person's bedroom. I do not control that person's sexual behavior anymore than that person has control over mine. Can a gay person vote, work, be a contributor to society, treat children well, work as a volunteer, build things, care about others? Of COURSE he/she can! So a person's sexuality should not be a problem. Also the 'for the kids' ordeal has led us down paths to make all sorts of stupid laws to keep children blind to what is really out there in life. Some laws helped but others are to put blinders on kids and so when they become teenagers and exposed to what real life is, they are shocked, horrified, intimidated or the opposite which is to hop right in and do everything that as a parent, you wouldn't want them to such as drugs, crazy stunts, beating up on others etc. Kids can be 'too protected' and I'd rather my kid know that homosexuality exists than to not. If my kid were gay, I don't care. It is my child. Lastly without trying to offend 'good religious people' I have to say this. Those who judge others off of blind faith don't have a right to have kids. They are a harm and a disease to progress of life and have you SEEN the horrible atrocities committed by those who are super blind in their religion on children? I can tell you that a LOT more kids do things negatively because of a religion forced down their throats instead of being allowed to research and choose for themselves. Someday bible-thumpers will realize that in the end, their so called 'doing it for the children' is really more like 'doing it so our faith goes on' and isn't about the welfare of kids at all. Every time I hear someone say things like "My parents don't want me because I'm gay and they are religious", "My parents don't love me because I disbelieve in their religion", "My parents hate me because I believe in Evolution" etc...where's the harm stemming from? It seems to me I'd rather have a kid that isn't going to commit suicide because I am an unbearable tyrant slapping books on his/her head or force that kid to run away and mold life out of my own. Religion isn't the problem really, but the fanatics are one serious issue and they have no rights ever to say 'it's for the children'. None.
I think this needs to be moved to the upcoming KH thread instead of Intelligent Discussion, since in here we talk about other things that are well, not usually KH. However, Hocus Pocus would be cool. I also wouldn't mind seeing the Jungle Book, Snow White's world, Prydain with the Horned King featured and I'm sure I could think of others. I already know Sleeping Beauty's world will be in it so that's great too. Nice to see them adding more worlds to it.
Hmm interesting question. I would say, since it was pointed out, that you'd grow 'old' but not die...no. Being elderly forever would be a pain in the butt, especially if Social Security went out! Then I would be too old and feeble to work and no one would support me and that would just stink! That's part of the right of being an old coot. =:) However, if it was something that would freeze me in the age I am now, hmm, maybe. I mean, I can do all that society has to offer at my age and not be told legally I cannot. However, being 'immortal' instead of just extending life, I don't know if I'd go for that. As others have pointed out, things change and life changes, people die, etc. It would sooner or later possibly be too much for me to bear. I'd be visiting some doctor in the Netherlands to put me out of my misery. It would be fun for a while though, going around and experiencing life to the fullest. I'd have to say no in the end and hope instead for something that would just extend life rather than keep me around forever. Of course, it could be fun for another reason too...imagine ..Repliku would be around forever to terrorize people! Okay, done now. People can stop crying.
That's fine. Just saying that you seemed to put out that 'anger' is the only emotion there you had a problem with people expressing. I have no problem with it unless they are going to hurt themselves or someone else. People 'fear' hatred and anger. They tend to naturally shy away from it or become hostile themselves. It is though, a part of life and I get angry as much as the next person. I try to make it short though because I don't like it as much as others don't. It is not 'always' easy to tell when you are being "over the top". However, paying attention to 'others' helps. If someone is just focusing on expressing his/her zealous emotion of the moment and spreading that around, that person cannot pay attention to anyone else. It is not 'always' going to happen that you or I or anyone can always catch ourselves doing things that harm others or offend them. Sometimes, people need a shocker anyway. Paying attention to others though is important. Otherwise it is kind of selfish. Some people tend to whine they can't control their emotions at all. I disagree with that. You cannot always control what they do, but you can focus on what it is 'you do' when super emotional to others. The more you care about others, the more you can develop and express emotions so they aren't harmful to them or yourself. I just said if someone is too sensitive to the person displaying a torrent of emotions they cannot themselves see dealing with, they should have the right to leave and get out of the path of it. What is exactly wrong with that? Are you telling me that because someone is running crazy with his/her feelings, people should have to stand there and take it when more of them are being hurt or dragged into it? That totally cancels out your argument, if so. Just as you or anyone is allowed to display emotions, others will ALWAYS have 'some' reaction to it. This will be favorable sometimes and other times, no it will not be. You can't control anyone's emotions but your own. It is impossible. People can motivate others to feel a certain way but if they have a willpower, they aren't going to just give in. Having respect of emotions, as I said last post, is a two-way street. You can't force your emotions on others and expect them "ALL" to just accept it. If they leave, it's a sign you are doing too much for those particular people. If they stay and get in the mood you are, well, you aren't. As you pointed out, it depends on the people and their frame of mind at the time. I have respect for others emotions as well as my own. I acknowledge if I'm depressed continuously, no one is going to want to deal with that. If I'm too hyper for them, they may be like 'wtf' and head for the hills too, and if I'm angry, people are going to want to leave if they aren't mutual in that. Human emotion is not so unpredictable if you study yourself and those around you and ask questions to yourself and to others. My point was not to say that a person will -not- feel those things I listed. My point was that others may 'disagree' strongly with such a display of behavior 'at those events'. Does it happen? Sure. I don't cry at funerals and people thought I was very cold at a couple of them so I stopped going to them because others were upset at my reaction. When people were angry at a dance club, most of us tried to calm the person but eh, if it didn't work, we were there to party. I did not say it was not understandable or it wasn't going to happen. The point was that people WILL react to what someone does and it's not going to be as predictable as knowing your 'own' reactions and you have to deal with it as much as someone else has to deal with your emotions. NO ONE has control over what someone else thinks or feels. Confusion of emotion is one of the leading causes of miscommunication and fighting. You entirely missed the issue here I was pointing out. In the end, what you do in a scene like that is what is going to make people have opinions of you. The person may 'laugh at a funeral' but at the same time, why are they there then if others obviously are not and it's going to cause some fight? Surely said person would realize OTHER PEOPLE's emotions and have some taste and hold back some of their witty repertoire? But you are saying they have NO control. I disagree. We can all curb our outward demeanors. Otherwise, we'd all be in a lot more trouble in society than we are. I can tell you that no, you cannot always act appropriate to surroundings again. That 'appropriate' depends on the crowd you are dealing with. I did NOT say anyone "HAD" to hide their emotions. I said that people should accept the fact that even as they 'show' their true emotions, OTHERS don't have to deal with the particular display of them if they don't feel like it. It seems very wrong to me that people just expect others to just say 'oh well' and sit there and change their emotions to fit the needs of 1 person or 3 when those few are the minority. There are SEVERAL ways to express emotions and part of changing and gaining control is learning how to do that so it does not harm yourself or others around you and yet you express the same feelings. That is not suppressing anything, but instead adapting. We do that all through our lives from being little children, teens. and adults. You don't obviously do the same behavior you did as a little kid when someone gets you sad or mad or happy...do you? I would think not. No need to apologize. I do get what you are saying and it was well said. You bring up points and I appreciate them and they are important for me to see. I think you misread some of my intentions though or I did not put forth the proper effort to make them clear. When dealing with 'emotional' discussions, these things happen. =:) I just want to say that emotional growth as well as thought growth in a rational manner are things that change and expand if we study and examine them in ourselves and others. What you feel now may be the same as what you feel 5 years from now, but how you express that may be different. That is part of learning to be a good 'social' being, which by nature we humans are. Being 'you' is important but at the same time learning to adapt to expression of emotion in a way that won't ostracize you is also key to growth. You don't have to 'hide' anything but at the same time, there is a level of adaptation here to the crowd you are in and the friends you make. The life long friends are going to be those that accept you but also you grow together because no one remains the same forever. There's even a post in this forum section asking what changed in the way people thought from 3 years ago.
Nomura himself said Kairi's name meant 'sea' or an affiliation with 'water'. Riku's name means 'earth' but more 'shore line' or something by the sea etc. Their names mean a bit more than told but in the end it equates in simplicity to Kairi = water/sea, Riku = earth/shore, Sora = Wind/Air. Their suffixes do mean a couple other things too but Nomura seemed to intend these ones as he has said so in interviews. Also, 'ri' is just added on to make it more feminine. The 'Kai' part was what was used mainly for her name.
The Heartless all have 'yellow' glowing eyes. The people that end up with Darkness tend to have orangish/yellow because they aren't Heartless yet. I wouldn't say it makes you 'evil' necessarily but it does say that the person now has a tremendous amount of Darkness they've allowed into themselves, at least as far as we've seen. Also, what other explanation is there for Terra's eyes doing that?
Yeah, I can see similarities to Zack and Terra in appearance. They do have the same sort of build, are both tall and have the same hair color, and both have longish hair. I see the differences too but get why you say they look the same. I'm not sure if Nomura intended that or if it's just how Terra ended up. Some characters in assorted FF games also look a lot alike to me.
I somehow don't see them dying really. They were really not able to deal against the Nobodies at all, but against the Heartless...that's more her realm as it was in KH. In the end, I assumed that is why Maleficent bothered to help Sora at all. Since she could not face off against the Nobodies and was basically made to seem pretty pathetic compared to them, she needed the others to do it because she couldn't be top dog evil anymore. If she wasn't in KH3 I'd be drastically surprised, though how important her role will be is a mystery. I think I wonder more if TWTNW actually existed afterwards or what the state of it actually was. Knowing that would pretty well declare whether she left or not. The ending of KH2 also showed the Nobodies leaving through that whirling vortex after Xemnas was defeated so I am also not sure if we will see Nobodies next time or not as well.
I agree pretty much with what Emblendered said. Xemnas was dressed how he was in black and white expressing his power of 'nothingness' which is eternal and is past emotion, past existence etc. It's symbolic which is why he says that 'it is eternal' which Sora responds 'it doesn't make 'you' eternal'. His clothing changes to the lazy armored knight to show a glamorized (lazy guy on a toilet I still say) version of the Knights that perhaps Xemnas was a part of at one time (as were Terra, Ven and Aqua). Also, his attacks were from the former Organization members showing he could siphon them and use them at will because he had former ties to all of them. It shows to me in a way he had them all bonded to him and that at any time he could have taken them away but used their abilities and strip them of theirs. Axel truly believed the threat he could be made to a Dusk and nothing more, as well as the fact Axel was stripped of his control of lesser Nobodies and had to fight them in the Betwixt and Between area with Sora. Ansem's Heartless Guardian behind him was his evil heart personified and manipulated showing Ansem had control over it and as Emblendered said, he didn't have to get his own hands dirty. He could continue the ruse that he was so powerful while letting the Heartless he was bound with and was a true part of him do the work. Ansem's big giant state where he was shirtless and all was in a different realm within Darkness. He could manifest himself as he willed and he had a lot of power to do so, so he went for big and powerful, with more things in the way that people had to defeat before they could even touch him. It's the same theory with the Guardian but bigger and uglier. He had the power he wanted in Darkness to mold himself how he wanted with the body he also possessed. After Sora and his buddies beat him up, he was restored back to his own form because he had lost considerable power and was not able to maintain it anymore.
It can't be helped? I don't think of it in that way really. I think of it more as a person is just what they are and they have things they are attracted to and other things that just repulse them. When people start realizing that just because they don't like something doesn't mean that someone else can't, the world will be a better place. I am straight and the thought of being with the same gender is just not something I am at all willing to do because I have no desire at all for it. However, I am comfortable with that fact and comfortable with the fact others can be attracted to what I am not. I am not that person and as long as people are 'mutual' who cares? I think it's a wonderful thing that two people can find happiness together be them the same gender or opposite. It's hard for anyone to find someone to be in a good solid relationship with. It's easy to go out and get 'sex' but much harder to find an honest attachment, friendship and relationship that is enduring. Those people that do find it should all get the same benefits because to me, there's no real difference.
This isn't really an 'Intelligent Discussion' topic but huskies are cool dogs.
Placebos are often used alongside test drugs and with good reasons. If someone can be 'healed' with a placebo, then the condition probably isn't as serious as thought and they can work on some other drugs for patients that have different mind frames. Also, it tests if the drug people are being given that isn't a placebo is worth it in the first place and is doing anything productive or not. It is also a way to monitor side-effects because if someone is given a placebo and told the side effects of the 'drug' and they get them, this is also a psychological thing to realize. It is a very interesting thing to study and see the power of the mind and how it can benefit us or be used against us and placebos show some interesting results.
I agree with Mirai on this one for the most part. Even if we could time travel using 'light' it would be future travel, to back to a future moment in our time. I don't buy that we can go into the past as there is no evidence at all to really support it at this time. Radio communications and Light go forward, not backwards. Sure, the light we see comes from the 'past' of a star, but when that star emitted it, it was its present time. So really, there is nothing going back in time at all. This is the same with radio waves too.
Well it seems you are fine with letting someone be anything but expressing anger, really. So that is kind of not fair really. In the end if someone is expressing things to the point of being over the top and it takes over what others want to feel or do, it is rude regardless. Whether someone is being depressed, exuberant, furious etc, if someone is dominating an area with their emotion, they expect others to take notice of them. This isn't to say it never should be done or won't. Of course people should display what they feel. However, they should also understand that if it is unbearable to others, others have the right to walk away or wish they'd calm down too. It's really a two-way street here called both sides should be 'considerate' of others and how they feel, instead of always thinking about how they feel themselves. Someone who is depressed and glaringly showing it at someone's wedding is going to be just not in the right place doing that. Someone at a dance club who is furious is going to be out of place compared to those who are there to be happy and have fun. Someone who is giggly and making a fool of themselves at a funeral is in the wrong place for that. Someone who acts weak and pathetic at a rock concert with a bunch of hardcore rockers...same diff. I think that's where mostly these emotional things go wrong. It's when people do the wrong acts or try to be overly emotional in the total opposite emotion of the area they are in and ambiance. Of course there are jerks out there who are sensitive to people who feel anything different than they do or are party poopers etc so for them, too bad.
Yeah, I also thought this too. We can't even be sure Ven was from the castle, but know Kairi was.
Yeah, I agree. If TWTNW castle there endured, and she did get control of it, she'd leave it in a sorry state and just put a bunch of magic defenses and thorn stuff all around. She doesn't tend to fix things up. Also, she'd probably make an area for Pete so he'd leave her alone. *snickers*
BBS is 10 years in the past. KH3 that may be out later after these filler games, should be in the future. That's what I was referring to. If KH3 doesn't have the 3 of them, I'd be pretty disappointed. I'd like to see them when they are mature enough to not say 'gee whiz'.
Yeah, I doubt she did it to work with Riku, but Riku showed up in the nick of time and took advantage. He did that a lot in the story even though it was barely noticeable. However, she did want to get Sora on his way. It was just something odd I noticed. I believe that after Xemnas was defeated, Riku and Sora weren't even at the same location as before and the Nobodies seemed to vanish, maybe choosing non-existence, or just getting out of there. That scene could be taken either way. However, I'm not sure what happened to the actual TWTNW city and all with the Heartless, or anything since it never showed it being destroyed and Sora and Riku just ended up at the water. It's hard to say whether the castle was utterly demolished by Xemnas but it was pretty trashed as Riku and Sora had to leave and take the transport or else they were in some trouble because it was collapsing. The Heartless though, without the Nobodies there, may have been easier for Maleficent to control, but in the end, I think if she didn't secure the area, she probably had to leave. I had the -feeling- that TWTNW was destroyed when the Nobodies left, but that is a good mystery. So we either have it that Maleficent remained there and probably took over because the Nobodies left, or she skedaddled out of there after holding the Heartless back as long as she could. =:/
Maleficent held the Nobodies off and Riku took Sora away back to the ship after giving him the box with the ice cream and photo in it. I'm pretty sure she just dark portaled elsewhere herself once Riku had taken Sora. It does make me wonder if Riku didn't somehow coerce her there or if Riku just took advantage of the scene. Maleficent throughout KH2 seemed to have to realize that she was no longer top dog and that the Nobodies were a bigger threat to her even as they were out to make themselves exist while possibly making many others not exist. As for the scene with her and Pete taking on the Heartless, they were out of control but at the same time, with effort she may have been able to gain control of those and hold them back since she does have darkness abilities. After that, it's probably as mentioned, they took off because the area was unstable and it wasn't a good enough castle for her after all. I do think Maleficent's role through KH2 pretty well made her seem really pathetic and if she's in the next KH stuff, she gets to do something cool again.
