Search Results

Maybe it's Validius or whatever, since that name came from somewhere. I still don't know if it was from anything canon or not. No one will tell me!

That is a very interesting theory and I believe if it's not all correct, it's pretty close to it. It's one of the better ones I've read on here.

Maybe in the end they'd bore each other with long speeches. =:) Xemnas would stop existing, not having the will to listen anymore, and Ansem would go to Darkness entirely having a tantrum that no one wants to hear him. They both were monologuing a lot. I think Ansem was worse though. I kept telling him to shut up.

Well, this is the whole problem. We both are at odds on the game's message of what 'good and evil' are. I would disagree with you that Darkness automatically equates in the terms of KH to evil, but this here is opinion. The message we need 'evil' to experience 'good' seems kind of silly to me. It's more of an issue of we experience suffering and strife and it makes us enjoy the positive things we can have when we get those. It makes much more sense to just see it as the destructive part of the universe that can lure and corrupt those of weak heart but stubborn wills that just want power, or those who are negative due to anxiety and coerced. Really I think the message of KH is that we all have -dark thoughts, feelings- and -light thoughts and feelings- and just what would happen if people could be tied into the power of that which was all around them? Obviously to me, Darkness can't be meaning simply 'evil' in KH because Riku used it for good, and obviously once he let it out to turn into 'Ansem', he didn't become corrupted again. He had mastered his connection of emotions and his own Heart to not be encouraged by Darkness to want to do more than he should in having to destroy things. However, I think here we are going to disagree, but I see what you mean when discussing this to Nobodies, I think. We'll see as we go on here.

The reason is they carried along their memories and 'memes'. Even if they could not remember, such as with Roxas and Namine, their memes were on an instinct level to draw from their lives formerly as Kairi and Sora (or Ven or whatever). Memes are behavioral patterns and learned habits. So, yes, they had their intellect but even without memories they still had these reactions based on memes in their former lives, which were trained by their initial 'emotional' responses to stimulus in that life; not as a Nobody. This is why I say I agree that it is instinctive but at the same time, more than you give them credit for and why I say they do have 'personalities'. They are individuals. You can definitely tell Axel from Demyx from Xigbar from Xemnas.

You are right. He could not 'feel' emotions, but with the memes of his former life, he knew he did at one time feel them incredibly strong and by his own words, they seemed to be consuming him so that he did not remember any of the more 'positive' emotions that Sora rambled off. I agree to get their Hearts back, of course, is an instinctive motivation for the Nobodies. The reason is because they can feel and know that they are incomplete and wouldn't it be weird to know that ordinarily you would 'feel' a certain way but there's nothing? Saix sums it up with one line out of a few. "If I had a Heart, this is where I would die of laughter." Axel's reaction to Sora saying he made him feel like he had a heart is another example. They remember and know what is missing and it is a void in them so of course they want to feel it. However, we fight 'habits' we obtain all the time. Someone said they were not operating off instincts, and I disagree with that. This does not make them 'neutral' to me. They did not 'feel' Darkness but had memories of it, and they also used this to make 'others' suffer and were killing off them. So that is why I say whether emotionally or not, their drive in itself was making others have no choice to react and because they 'do' have Hearts, these people are going to not be 'happy' about it. They also have instincts for survival, so coupled with hearts, their reactions to the actions of Nobodies causing these in the first place means the Nobodies in the greater scheme cannot be 'neutral'.

The reason why people are corrupted by Darkness is because they have a Heart and it can be prone to 'darker', negative feelings as well as positive 'benevolent' etc feelings. It can be a giver and a taker. The Heart is complex and DiZ/Ansem with all his brains fell victim to it as well, letting the darker emotions take over, and he had to admit he didn't get all the aspects of a heart. However, it doesn't make him 'evil'. The very reason I say KH doesn't declare the 'darker' emotions or the nature of Darkness in that universe's existence is destructive rather than 'evil' is because most of the people in the game that had common sense declared it as such. Only the people with limited minds and seeking power, or those who were paranoid saw Darkness and dark emotions as being 'evil' and Light being 'good'. Yen Sid's analysis of the Nobodies made them beyond a 'good and evil' scenario. It was a matter of saying they shouldn't exist in the first place, which placed them as an 'ultimate evil'. However, Riku all through this story questions (whether mostly hidden or not) that 'truth' because DiZ was also saying it. It was a nobophobe movement on 'their' part. Sora also as time went on opened himself up to things, but he really could not find it capable to do so for some time because he had to be in the way of the Organization's plans. They were doing 'acts' of destruction and I propose to you that people looking at the actions might say they are 'evil' based on that, rather than the state of their being. Riku questioned this a lot and looked for the 'reasons' and spoke to Namine and Axel more. He also grabbed Kairi before Axel could because he had talked to him in TT and knew what he would do. He could have gone and beat the tar out of Axel but instead just took her because he must have saw something in Axel to merit not doing this. The reason is in my mind, because Axel was trying to do this deed to get his friend back. It was a 'wrong' act, but not one that was 'evil' to -Riku-. So the point I raise is that whether 'some' people called the Nobodies evil or not, it was their own perception, not the game's perception, and we are led as players of the game to make our own choice too. We could easily say Ansem the Wise with all of his hatred and writing the Nobodies off as plagues was as 'villainous' too, but the reason you would be doing so would be because he has a 'Heart' to feel that way. At one point he even told Riku to get rid of Namine. Obviously the 'good guys' weren't agreeing here as Riku did no such thing and later abandoned DiZ to do what he felt was right.

I agree with you that no one is 'pure good' or 'pure evil' in even the game's terms, except for possibly Xehanort's Heartless who extracted all good emotions and went with only the darker ones, and Darkness itself. The power of Darkness and he became pretty much one, which made him not really 'emotional', but feeling that zeal of raw destruction. The reason Riku hides the Darkness is because it was the black spot on his soul in a way that was his own, but more so, Xehanort's Heartless's. However, because Riku had more control over his own emotions after all of his trials at CoM, he knew how to use Darkness outside and around him that he's connected to without letting it do more damage to his Heart. So yes, it's the difference between Darkness of the Dark realm and of existence around versus what is inside a person. That's why again, I say Darkness is not an 'evil' thing. It is just easy to be consumed by it because people go 'ooh power!' and it's like an addiction for that rush of feelings etc. Even in game terms, I am not seeing where the nature of Light or Darkness are declared by Nomura as 'good and evil'. I think it's perception of some characters.

I understand why you feel that way. I disagree but eh, I think I've expressed above why I do. Yes, though, Riku essentially having the Darkness purged from his Heart and not belonging to the Dark Realm anymore meant symbolically that he had been redeemed. However, it doesn't mean Riku isn't going to have hurt feelings, negative reactions etc. It simply means now that he is not plagued by using Darkness which was corrupting him all through KH after Maleficent and Xehanort's Heartless messed with him. He can now feel things freely without the weight of the Universal element trying to askew it and drive him to being more destructive and taking action on emotions. Riku probably now after all he went through, could have the most control of his emotions than anyone in the game. He had great intentions but fell hard and rose out of it.

Darkness emotions are not evil. Who does not feel rage, hatred, etc. The 'evil' part seemed more the issue of not being able to change the emotions and instead doing -acts- on them or letting them consume the person. Everyone becomes full of rage, fury, hatred etc, but most people can get rid of those with minimal or no harm involved. Just because someone cannot feel what they are doing is wrong does not mean they are still not responsible for those acts. The study on psychopaths and how we deal with them in life shows that they really don't often feel what they are doing is wrong. So the way they try to reach through to them instead is by showing the people that it is not 'productive' to them to do acts where they make others suffer, and they could bring horrible repercussions on themselves if they don't change their behavior. The same can be said of the Nobodies. They had rational minds, whether they had hearts or not. They simply found no reasons to see what they were doing was wrong. It doesn't however make them innocent of the acts they did. Obviously Axel saw that when he 'apologized' to Sora about Kairi etc. The fact of that apology in itself states that with a Heart, Axel would have felt bad. Sora made him feel like he had a heart, so of course, it encouraged him to have a pseudo-conscience. It's an example again of memes in play and memory of a Heart.

As I said, the Nobodies, though emotionless, were not 'always' emotionless, so they had things of their natures that carried over. Even if they could not feel the emotions, they knew they -would- were they whole. It prompted them to do things. Perhaps it made them feel connected to who they once were. They were instinctive but also, do not discount the memes of habits they carried over. Without these memes of their former lives and the memories, they would not have been driven to go after their Hearts at all. Demyx's reactions were set instinctively to "react" out of fear, whether he 'felt' it or not. It is something he would have felt if the situation were put in front of him and he had a Heart, so his reactions without a Heart were the same, minus the emotion. That is the instinct I speak of. He rose above that instinct to fight Sora, because when Sora called him on it, he had to agree, there was nothing other than a behavior trained act that made him do it. It wasn't emotion at all. All of the Nobodies had habits and things they used to do that they continued to try to do whether they needed to or not. It was what made them believe they still did exist. If they did not have these, they would have faded from existences. It was their wills to exist that kept them around. The Nobodies would have been easier to judge had they never 'had' former lives with Hearts. The line of 'good and evil' would be a cut and dry case, so I think Nomura really did this on purpose, even if I can't ask. It makes us think.

Well on that argument though, you are saying it takes a Heart to be evil in KH terms. Whether someone can 'feel' a conscience over making others suffer, die, etc is what you are basing evil and good on. I would still say the perception of others designates someone as evil or good, not that person. People can 'say' they are evil, and we can laugh at them because their perceptions are flawed. Once they start murdering or doing something else wretched against others, we will start believing them. If someone declares themselves neutral and unfeeling or even that they are good guys, if they are doing acts of destruction, others are going to believe they are probably evil. Others won't. This is why I say the game is not so simple in defining 'good and evil' as some think. Even in the game, though they had to be stopped, characters viewed the Nobodies in different ways. I don't think even the Nobodies viewed themselves all the same. Otherwise, they would have worked better together.

I agree they were neither Light or Dark. However, most people weigh good and evil as based on deeds and how it affects 'them', and not the person just doing the acts. Because you can say the 'methods' were wrong, that is the point I raise on why some would feel they are evil. The deeds made them not neutral. Their mental state has little to do with it even if some would call a 'heartless' person evil too. This is why people here can debate amongst ourselves as to whether they were mistreated or not. Some members clearly did less than others. I would say though that because the conflict became an 'us versus them' issue for survival, they easily are as you say, antagonists. Placing them as villains is a perception by others. I have no doubt they did not feel they were 'villains'. However, the vast majority of KH characters did. I would personally agree that they were 'antagonists', since you use the word 'villains' to exemplify 'evil people', as even in wars around us that we have to see an 'us versus them' scenario, I don't see the 'other side' as evil.

I think this is where we ultimately disagree. I do not equate evil and good with Darkness and Light as the message of KH. I don't think that was Nomura's thoughts but then again, you and I are not going to know that unless we somehow get to ask him. It's the acts to me that put people against others and were seen more as evil and good. I believe the 'acts' of using Darkness to take advantage of others or off them for personal gain is what the game coins as evil. We have yet to see someone of 'Light' be 'evil', though they were sometimes very short-sighted, bordering on prejudice. However, that to me in itself could be the 'evil' of Light. It makes people in the game assume something doesn't have a right to exist, or because it is 'Dark' it is evil. Clearly in the game, if Yen Sid and DiZ are to be considered 'right', then whether the Nobodies were using Hearts or not didn't matter to define them as evil. They simply were not meant to be and were ghosts clinging onto the will to live and should have let go, by what they thought. To them, this was probably 'evil'. Even Maleficent's -evil- tendencies were overshadowed entirely by the Org's mentality and power of will.

It is almost an irony that the Heart is such a powerful thing in KH and yet the Nobodies were really neither Dark nor Light as you said. Their power came from will to exist and that drive to do so. It became more powerful than Darkness or Light and actually threatened them. So the will to 'have' a Heart was even more powerful in a way than having a Heart and using it for 'good or evil'. It wasn't more powerful than Light or Darkness but it seemed to be more powerful than many of the people who had Hearts and tried to write the Nobodies off as nothings. No one really denies that the villains of KH were evil probably. However, the Nobodies may always be an issue that is not so easily resolvable, because as you said, they were driven to live by instinct and not by evil or good really. They were in a stagnation situation and were going to either exist or not. So, to me, it was Nomura's way perhaps to get people to think about the concepts of 'good and evil' versus a scenario of 'us versus them'. He tossed some 'villains' in that we could look at and see they weren't motivated by a Heart but more by the loss of a Heart and wanting it back. So, as I said, evil and good in the way of the Nobodies really is a perception.

This has been a good debate and I appreciate the fact we've managed to talk it out as we have. I await your reply.

There could be more similarities to Star Wars made really if people wanted to go through and attempt to draw similar conclusions. However, the same stuff from Star Wars really comes from eastern philosophy in a lot of ways.

The lightsabers are an obvious one
Darkness and Light - The Sith use the Dark Side of the Force and the Jedi use the Light Side of the Force
Path of Twilight - (Gray area in Star Wars) some Jedi or Dark Jedi would be here deciding if they go to Light or Dark.

Though they all recognize Light and Dark are needed and most people (without the direct influence of the Force) are a sort of medium of both creative and destructive tendencies) the people with links to the Light side or Dark side must make a choice where they go to advance and become closer to that.

Lucas though wouldn't sue for these things because as I said before, the concepts of Light and Dark etc exist even in the Dao with Yin and Yang and it is all pretty recognizable to come from that in part at least. The Force is a concept explanation by Lucas of the Dao and Aikido stuff. Nomura and some others really are fans of Star Wars but I don't believe they tried to do anything off of it really. The story seems pretty different. If Lucas didn't sue Eragon, I suppose he wouldn't sue Nomura heh.

As Nol pointed out, she is referring to the time she spent with him in the fake Twilight Town. She talked to him in the street at the fake Twilight Town and also in the mansion in the white room, where they had a lengthy discussion.

Namine seemed pretty alone at the Castle Oblivion and that is the reason she lured Sora there in the first place, which Marluxia picked up on and used to his advantage. He told her if she did not do what he said she would remain at the castle forever alone. She linked to Sora as a familiar being because she's Kairi's Nobody and recognized him in a more spiritual way perhaps than actual memory.

I believe you are right with this theory. You might want to check out the BBS section on the forum and talk there which is in the Upcoming KH games forum. We've been talking a lot about this since it has to do with Terra and Master Xehanort.

I never heard him say anything really other than like a gasp when he was near to dying. I've never had him die so I don't know beyond that. Usually when Riku was close to death he casted Cure Potion so most of the time that chance didn't happen either to hear him. I'll try to fight with him though and see if I can hear anything for sure or not. I have a saved game so I'll just check sometime in a few hours.

You should probably talk about this over in the BBS topic which is in the Upcoming KH games forum. We've been plugging away at theories to this for a while.

Well, I apologize if I came off that way but your posts saying I'm annoying because I disagree with you are not right either. Seriously, the point is to say this....

I do think the very post inquiry was fine in itself and the questions asked, within reason..."Is Sora a nobophobe?" but then there are responses declaring he's a serial killer which kind of to me suggests some serious romaticizing the villains. They were not all bad, but he's certainly not a 'serial killer'. How do you see it as not doing such? People romanticize the 'bad guys' all the time because of course, sometimes they have actual sad reasons to be doing what they are. Vampires, Hannibal Lector, Anakin Skywalker, Kahn, Werewolves, etc are all people that although they did some bad things, we can relate to why they might go nutsos and do them. However, the hero at the same time, when made a 'serial killer' is a clear example of ignoring what the villain did to earn such a status.

Does that make more sense? That is all I was pointing out. No one has to agree with me. They can defend it, of course. I'm not saying I am absolutely right and my mind can't be altered. It is merely an observation from my point of view.

My apologies if I offended someone with that. It was not the intention.

I chose Xehanort (Heartless) because I do not believe he was just Xemnas's Heartless, but perhaps Master Xehanort, who remembered things and would use it to his advantage to mess with Xemnas. Physically, I think Xemnas might take him but raw power and outsmarting...I think Xehanort's Heartless could deal him the death blow. I have to admit though that I think it could go either way with these two.

I missed playing King Mickey the first game I played and then went through again to do it because I never lost really any battles he'd have shown up in. I had to let Xaldin kill me the second time so I could have him show up. It was fun to play as him and though he has no finishing moves, it was still cool. The reason he has no finishing moves, I understood, was because Sora is supposed to actually do the defeating of the bad guys. Mickey is just there to kick some butt and bring Sora back. So, you aren't the only one who enjoyed it. =:)

The Nobodies were not going off of just instinct of seeking a Heart. They had personalities, things they did that made them unique, personas. If they did not, then they really -were- nothings and so why should anyone feel guilty of killing something without a -soul-? They'd be zombies. They did have souls and memories which gave them more than just being automaton base animals programmed to seek out hearts. Heartless do that function.

Xemnas's reactions to what he wanted a Heart back for...anger, rage, etc all negative emotions. He talked to Aqua's armor, Roxas is obviously important to the plan. He was seeking revenge and those emotions were what was in his Heart before he became a Nobody. He did not recall or want to recall the others. This would lead a person to believe he has ulterior motives. We'll have to see in BBS if some theories hold true or not. However, even by his reactions in KH2, he was not doing this to just get his Heart back. He wanted super power and his memories of his heart only held for him the darker emotions.

I define 'evil' as something culture deems as ultimately against the ideal of their survival or it's a religious view against some deity. I really don't use the word much. You seem glued to it at the hip. Destruction also is not evil; just people tend to think of it as such because it tends to be most harmful if directed at them. Makes sense, huh? Therefore, some people are going to think the Org is evil.

Destruction can be used to stop horrible things from happening, as someone else mentioned. Destruction, death etc is part of life too and evolving, changing. Darkness is not evil but can be used quite easily for it and people become corrupted by the power of it. And where do you get that Nobodies don't USE Darkness. They make -dark portals-. They call their weapons from Darkness. When they dissipate it is Darkness that they dissipate into. Nobodies have no Hearts so they are using Darkness because they are composed of it so they get no negatives by it. Heartless aren't evil technically. They are composed of Darkness and just doing a mindless instinct function to seek out Hearts. That's it. Xehanort's Heartless was the exception. If Darkness was so evil, why was Sora still -thinking- and not doing evil acts? He wanted to get back to his friends as a Shadow and had no malice.

Nothingness was Xemnas's power alone. None of the others used that or had it. Their state of being is another matter. Xehanort (KH1 Ansem) made himself evil and used Darkness for evil, since you like the term evil so much. Xemnas himself even declares if he had a heart all he would want is the rage, anger etc. Therefore, if he got his heart back...wouldn't he too have been evil by your own definition, should such have happened? In that case, Xemnas would be 'evil waiting to happen and he was evil prior to becoming a Nobody, so his reactions of -instinct- are as a Nobody...then evil. That's the logic you are telling me here.

You keep using the term evil and good to describe Darkness and Light and what the Nobodies aren't etc. Proofs from the game Darkness itself is not all 'evil'.

1. Mickey did say as did others in the KH storyline that Darkness and Light are essential to balance.
2. Riku said it's not the Darkness that is bad but the people who need to be dealt with who use it badly.
3. Riku and Sora resigned to the fact they may be stuck in Darkness but they didn't turn evil...no, instead they said they would guard and defend against others -using it for evil-.

I'm sure I can find more examples. It has more of a function than merely to be 'evil', as you say. It is negative or destructive things. Someone who is naturally a destructive person is going to be drawn more to evil. They will have more 'darkness' in their hearts which is -negative emotions- and Darkness in the broader aspect is Destructive nature. Now, if someone does something rotten like plays a prank on someone that is pretty bad like pushes someone off a cliff and is grinning about it...they would have a destructive nature that as the more things they do and people suffer, the more they become obsessed with that power and feeling and exhilarated by it. Another feeling happens but is also powerful when someone does something very compassionate and is thanked for it sincerely and/or they can see the outcome is very positive for that person they helped.

THIS is where the Nobodies are -neutral- as you say. They cannot feel those things. I agree with you there. However, it is not their mentality alone we are analyzing here. It is their actions. Their actions, whether they can be influenced by dark/light/etc or not, is absolutely what makes them -not- neutral. Thoughts, feelings, are NOT what matters in crimes. It is the -deeds-. You can think all you want to about killing someone with your bare hands and oh well, no one can do anything about that: You go and do it, well...it's murder.

The Nobodies used the Heartless, they murdered droves of people in a mass genocide. They aren't being -corrupted- by Darkness but they were doing things people might just consider evil. Murder is usually a pretty nasty thing to do, especially in large numbers.

Marluxia was out for -power-. It was not just for a Heart. It was power, greed, selfishness and to also get rid of Xemnas who was a fanatical control freak. Some of it is instinct. Larxene and Saix liked to torment others physically and mentally because they enjoyed other people being in pain. Demyx reacted out of trained fear he probably had before becoming a Nobody, etc. These are all trained memes of their former existences and I cannot see how anyone could deny that each of them had their own personality, likes and dislikes, to include each other. Preferences and memes are not emotions. Their instinct goes deeper than you give them credit for. All of the Nobodies had their quirks, failures, positives, and even to defeat them they took it as a 'game'.

The Nobodies have minds, rational thought, memes and their memories of what they formerly had. They are instinctive and react to what is thrown at them from basis of their former memes they carried with them. They knew what they were doing would be considered wrong by former teachings.

The point of this topic though is where the Org went wrong. Did they deserve to exist? It depends on the person looking at the scenario. Most people, if they knew some people were suffering as they were would say "of course". However, it is their direct -actions- that make them the villains. They cannot be corrupted by Darkness. It does not mean they did not cause a lot of Darkness using the Heartless, mass murdering, manipulating things to their goals, and enjoying some sadistic pleasures along the way.

Are you going to tell me -you- would just stand by and let a group of people kidnap your best friend, murder people in your town, bully you and tease you to get you to kill people for them, and let them coerce a friend into this cult they have going on where they kill themselves for some ritual, etc? That is where the Org went wrong. Sympathy and assistance could have been theirs. However, it is their methods to get their wish that was wrong; not their desire for Hearts.

Fights and verbal abuse and sexual abuse does happen in school. I can think of a few reasons why.

1. Too many children are put in classrooms and roaming the halls at the same time. Less children in a classroom means the teacher can focus on all of the students and catch issues better. Also, less children in each class means that students have more of a chance to learn more.

2. Diversity is encouraged from classes people assign to themselves and stereotypes. Blacks should act a certain way, Mexicans should, preppies should, Jennies should, Jocks should, Goths, Punks, Burnouts, etc. People get subjected to classes and stereotypes for a number of reasons and this encouraged diversity leads to people having issues and also promotes gang mentality. It also makes children depressed and angry because they are stuck and try to get to certain classes of the school society and get blocked. It's very hard to be friends with a diversity of people unless you have a very strong will to not be a follower. You are encouraged to be bound to a group.

3. Parents blow off things when teachers or others try to say their kid is bullying or being too harsh. Not all parents do, but quite a few tend to become very defensive and listen to their kid and ignore others. Parents also carry memories of school and tend to think that things cannot get better so they don't even try to motivate their children to -learn- instead of worrying so much about society standings and to have a decent self-esteem. Parents do need to be involved. Parents should also be ensuring their kids do not take weapons to school instead of some thinking it's a fine thing because others do so why not keep those kids defended too.

4. Peer Pressure is another one caused by those who are the social elite of their classes or groups. These people often are 'popular' because they are the most vocal and successful at being that stereotype. Unless something humiliating happens to them, they are arrogant and manipulate others. Those who don't go for peer pressure are considered weak whereas in reality it's the other way around.

5. For some reason the musical needs, theater stuff and other things like art and expressive things, clubs etc, seem to be at times dying off and need support whereas the only things promoted in school usually are sports. Having more extracurricular things where students of all kinds who like those sorts of things could hang out would seem to help kill diversity issues.

I'm sure there are other reasons, but those seem to me to be the most prevalent problems that need dealt with. The best way to be in that situation is neutral and just be yourself and show that this diversity crap is BS. Make friends with whoever and it also helps others in cliques to learn they can do the same. It makes these issues less and also you won't be as threatened yourself because you show you aren't the same as others who hold strong prejudice to other groups. It is human nature to -group- ourselves but it gets worse when some start aggressive acts. We should be able to travel in multiple sorts of groups instead of these rock solid classes that seem to transpire. I hated school for quite some time because of this stuff and was glad college is a lot different and diversity is actually something appreciated and it doesn't take you from the academia or being friends with others as much at all.

I have that book too. *snickers*. As I said, banned books sadly encourages me to go find a way to get them to see what is so bad about them. =:/

This isn't a problem just with America. Every country has banned books that are not permitted there, as well as movies or television shows. Clockwork Orange is an example of a banned book and movie in Great Britain. Quite a few books of GB and the USA are banned in Islamic countries etc.

Personally, I disagree with the banning of books whether it disses a country, religion, culture, sexuality, or promotes those things, etc. It's how I feel about banning tv programs, movies etc. I don't believe in censorship for adults other than the fact we have the choice to not buy the book, to not believe in something, to not watch the movie etc. This is a global problem though, and not just an American one and I don't see it resolving until the majority of people in charge of countries believe that it should change. Sure, some things shouldn't be read or viewed by children without the parental figures determining it is appropriate, but adults to me should be able to check out nearly anything. Banning stuff most often means that something is so sensitive to some people that we all should go find a way to get it somehow. It encourages us to check out what's 'so bad' about it.

Of course, I suppose even I have to say there are some things I would not want to see on shelves of bookstores, such as ways to make Crystal Meth or some very harmful books that are threatening to people. I'll have to think on that more.

There is no doubt in my mind that the supposed 'scientists' that claim the earth will be destroyed at that date are also fanatically religious and they attempt to use science to protect and define their religion. I wish Religious Scientists would fade away so that others could do real science. Even studying spirituality can be done through science. It saddens me sincerely to hear people respond here and in the Creation vs Evolution thread with religious babble and putting down science and yet not even understanding the theory they are dissing. At least -please- study the subject before dismissing it utterly. It doesn't have to make you disbelieve in your deity to understand. Many scholars and scientists comprehend the Bible better than religious people, yet I have seldom met a religious person who has cared to examine the Big Bang Theory or Evolution. If we can study religion, I think it's only fair that religious people actually study science fairly instead of taking the easy way out and saying it's impossible.

I grow tired of the harm zealots cause, as well as those fanatical preachers like Ted Haggard (who I'm glad the hypocrite is gone but his church still exists) who try to prevent people from learning science. Children should know science. This world and the universes out there are tremendously awesome to learn about and yet it is discouraged by religion. One would think if someone were so religious, they might want to know about how those things their God created and enjoy it and stop waiting for the end of life. Enough people covered the Big Bang theory etc so I won't go there.

I suppose through these ramblings I am trying to say that the earth has been predicted many times in the last 2000 some years that it was going to go bye bye. Every century after Jesus died supposedly, people have declared the world was going to end and some commit suicide in groups or do ridiculous displays such as carrying signs and putting up graffiti to say it's all over. I remember having to go to religious classes at methodist churches where they'd try to tell children that the end was coming and how we should deal with it. That's mental conditioning. If people want to believe in a religion, sure thing, but it should not cause them to be hung up on the end of the world stuff. It should neither make them try to prove it with science, nor commit suicide in droves, quit their jobs, etc. Why not instead enjoy the gifts that are here and the time here and if your religions are accurate, you move on?

So in closing, I don't buy this is going to end the world at this date, as assuredly as I don't buy that the age of Aquarius is going to be the end either and if it does, I sure as hell can't be pointed at and told "REPLIKU, YOU ARE WRONG" because we'll all be dancing in a ring of fire and turned to ash. The earth's axis is not stagnant and does adjust but it certainly isn't like that. Ages end in cycles of the stars and worlds but it does not signify the end of all life on earth. There is no proof that they do. It simply means that the cycle is over and a new begins. Sorry once again for a long winded post. =:)

Hmm, you really make some excellent sigs so was wondering if you could mess with this and make something cool.

Username: Repliku (add this too please to the sig)
Text: Where will my heart go? (and) You're through, fake! (if it looks alright. if not scratch off the last one)
Font: any that looks cool and dramatic
Subtext:
Render: http://ff-rpg.net/images/ReplikuBanner.jpg these are pics of Riku Replica I made into a banner for fun. If you can take out and put in what you like making it sig size that would be cool.
Anything extra: If you can make it with sort of a dark ambiance, maybe a glow here and there, that's cool. No other specs really.
Thank you.

Those do all seem fake, especially the obvious DS one (Coded), but whoever did them really did a good job. I gotta give them credit for that.

Â

Yeah, what Mog said. Ansem began experimenting on Xehanort, seeing what a unique person he was, and even said in some ways he was 'super human'. Having no memories made him a good subject. However, when Ansem ordered it stopped and decided it was wrong, it was probably too late, woke the darkness in Xehanort enough etc. Xehanort was the one in the basement levels who created the machine to make the Emblem Heartless off of the Pureblood Heartless he discovered. He's also the one that went and distributed them everywhere after Ansem finally clued into what he was doing.

He was just basically taunting DiZ when he said that because in essence, if Ansem had never began the experiments, maybe this wouldn't have happened where Xehanort became such a baaaaaaaaad student.