if a game doesnt have any guns in it is gay. Football games are the best

NBA Jam was pretty good too.

ISS: Pro Evolution was totally fun. You could change players to look like you.

Wait, FFs do have guns...

:zillafire: Guns are a recurring weapon type in the Final Fantasy series!

They are ranged weapons which propel bullets toward foes. :zillayay:

:zillawalk: Guns are only available in some of the latest games, and are usually equipped by Gunners or Machinists!
:zilla:

:imout:

Football games have guns...

Oh, wait.... SHIT! THEY DO!

i agre wit op

If they did I may watch it - it's dull as week old shit normally.

i agre wit op

Guns are only available in some of the latest games, and are usually equipped by Gunners or Machinists!

Mm... lemme think. I'm sure there were similar weapons to guns in IV and VI (Magitek armors, most importantly, and Edgar's tools... I think there was a gun-ish weapon among them. Although he at least had a chainsaw, so it's all good). However, since VII, they are regular part of the equipment.

I don't think he's counting gun arms.

I don't think he's counting gun arms.

I'm pretty sure Vincent has a gun.

:zillayay:

Football games have guns...

No thats all of our Football Players in the US, the make 7 figures by the way. Who knows what drugs they use and carry too.

if a game doesnt have any guns in it is gay. Football games are the best

Such a sad, sad individual...

FF games are not gay. people kill each other there with meteors, huge ass swords, dragons, gods of fire,ice,lighting etc, guns, knives, kicks and punches, even balls at some point, and guns, and there lots of hot girls making it very ungay.
While in football games all you have is 11 players of each team, all guys btw, running around and kicking a ball. There aren't even any girls. I'd say that's gay AND stupid.
Of course there is also women's football., but still...

FF games are not gay. people kill each other there with meteors, huge ass swords, dragons, gods of fire,ice,lighting etc, guns, knives, kicks and punches, even balls at some point, and guns, and there lots of hot girls making it very ungay.
While in football games all you have is 11 players of each team, all guys btw, running around and kicking a ball. There aren't even any girls. I'd say that's gay AND stupid.
Of course there is also women's football., but still...

Quality post.

dude, FF is NOT GAY. Besides, there are gunners in Final Fantasy Tactics, a gunblade in FFVII, if i'm not mistaken, and there are supposed to me alot more guns somewhere else. besides, why do you judge a game's gayness by the amount of guns present???
Whatever. F F I S N O T G A Y.

dude, FF is NOT GAY. Besides, there are gunners in Final Fantasy Tactics, a gunblade in FFVII, if i'm not mistaken, and there are supposed to me alot more guns somewhere else. besides, why do you judge a game's gayness by the amount of guns present???
Whatever. F F I S N O T G A Y.


Quality post.

Wait, FFs do have guns...

Apperances of Firearms
FF7 (Vincent),
FF8 (Gunblades of Squall/Leon, and Seifer)
FF10 (enemies...)
FF Tactics (usable weapons),
FF11(unknown, never could play to find out.....)
FF12 (unlock in licenses, everyone can use them)

-and anyone else's mentioned appearances I missed.

I love how people defend FF to be not gay.

Final Fantasy games are homoerotic by default, just look at the main characters - pretty bishounen boys. Just like their antagonists. Pretty bishounen boys. In some cases they're so metrosexual that people think they're girls.

In all seriousness, though... "Boo hoo, a troll called my favouritest game gay, and I'm superhetero, so every subjective opinion of my game being homosexual makes me gay and I have to refute it although it's clear that the original poster was just a troll who will never appear again in aeons. I just post this to show how superhetero I am and to display how much calling me or my interests gay is hurting my superhetero ego."? That's all I make out in these people.

I'm not siding with anyone and have no idea what's going on.

Apperances of Firearms
FF7 (Vincent),
FF8 (Gunblades of Squall/Leon, and Seifer)
FF10 (enemies...)
FF Tactics (usable weapons),
FF11(unknown, never could play to find out.....)
FF12 (unlock in licenses, everyone can use them)

-and anyone else's mentioned appearances I missed.

In FFVIII, it's Squall. Leon is his KH persona. The gunblade did not fire a projectile, like typical guns. It was used to increase the damage Squall and Seifer do in melee combat. Guns were also used by fellow Garden student Irvine Kinneas as well as the forces of Galbadia.

In FFIX, Guns can be wielded as low as level 6 by the following job classes:
Thief
Ranger
Corsair.

In FFIX, Guns can be wielded as low as level 6 by the following job classes:
Thief
Ranger
Corsair.
You must be thinking of something else, there are no job classes in FFIX.


Oh, and Final Fantasy: Unlimited -- Kaze carries a powerful weapon known as the "Magun" which uses Soil bullets to form summons. He also carries a conventional gun, though it's not usually very effective.

My bad, it's too early in the morning lol.

I meant FFXI, not FFIX.

I could make the argument that having guns instead of swords, axes, blunt objects, etc. makes a game gay because all you have to do with a gun is press the trigger and you kill someone, no skill, no effort.

To kill someone with a melee weapon, you generally have to have years of training, particularly in an age where such weapons were the mainstay. One of the things that makes 'fantasy' so attractive is that it tends to illustrate worlds where you could actually use honorable weapons such as swords and make a difference through your willpower alone, whereas today you would just get slaughtered.

Therefore, any game that has guns is gay because gun wielders are pussies compared to people who used melee weapons in the past.

Pray tell, what makes two people fighting with swords any more honorable than two people fighting with guns?

Squall had a gun blade- he's bad ass

In other words, any child can kill a trained, full grown man easily with a gun. In the past, said child would get trashed. Using melee weapons requires far more skill, training, strength, and agility than using a gun. This is why school shootings are so nasty. Even if a kid has a machine gun and is woefully inaccurate with it, they can kill many people before being taken down themselves. The weapon makes the person dangerous in these days, whereas in the past you were only truly dangerous if you were trained and readied with the weapon. A trained man with a tree branch could defeat any child with a zweihander (two-handed sword).

Hopefully that helps clarify my argument.

But any child can easily kill a full grown man by stabbing him in the back with a knife also. On the other hand, a trained gunman is usually going to take out a thug on the street who holds his gun almost upside-down and over his head.

Your examples are unequal, but the results are similar if you apply equivalent circumstances. Thus your argument is fallacious and likely based around a romanticized ideal and embellished in manners that would support your rose-colored view.

I would argue that a child killing a man with a knife is far more unlikely than a child taking a man down with a gun given the disparity in strength and knowledge of where best to put the blade. But I see what you mean. But don't you agree that elements of personal valor are no longer as relevant or possible with today's modern warfare? That is part of the reason why World War I was so nastily bloody. People went into it expecting to be able to be successful and keep alive and heroic based upon their will and spirit to do battle against the enemy. But such ideas of battle have no application with the use of automatic guns. Hence my argument that using guns tends to be a whole lot lamer than the use of melee weapons in personal combat. There isn't as much allowance for determination, valor, and courage given their ability to be fired from a distance and kill even if the trigger is squeezed by an untrained 6 year old.

However, there are certainly exceptions. Special forces and most of the United States army and marine corps have trained and trained to overcome such hurdles and make it far more likely that they will survive in battle. And that is cool. But that is not the norm for people who use guns.

I would argue that a child killing a man with a knife is far more unlikely than a child taking a man down with a gun given the disparity in strength and knowledge of where best to put the blade.

On the other hand, a decent knife would do a lot more damage than a bullet, so accuracy is far less important, and a child would have much less ability to properly aim a firearm, and especially to manage recoil.

But since you're talking about honor, there's not much honor in any case about a fully grown man fighting against a kid.


But don't you agree that elements of personal valor are no longer as relevant or possible with today's modern warfare?

Not at all. Try to tell me Alvin York is less valorous than any medieval knight in history. You'll be wrong if you do. And that guy wasn't trained to be a superhuman killbot with a nuclear-powered bullet trajectory calculator and balls that generate an impenetrable force field. He was just some random guy who had a bit of basic military training.

Well, his balls may actually have been big enough to create a force field...

There are plenty of other examples, but he's the most insane I can think of off the top of my head.


That is part of the reason why World War I was so nastily bloody. People went into it expecting to be able to be successful and keep alive and heroic based upon their will and spirit to do battle against the enemy. But such ideas of battle have no application with the use of automatic guns.

How does charging through gunfire to get into a decent position to shoot people really differ from charging through a volley of arrows to get close enough to hack their nads off?

- My point about the child being able to kill someone easily with a gun was not that such a situation is honorable, but that it is possible given how guns do not require a genius to use to immensely damaging effect. When I referred to 'honorable' weapons, I was referring to grown men versus each other. And it is obvious that knives can be just as damaging as bullets, but it requires you to get a whole lot closer to someone to use, and therefore requires more skill to use without getting killed or beaten off before you can use it.

- Alvin York had military training and was instructed how to use a gun. Whether that training was limited or not isn't the point I was trying to make. And I fully acknowledged that there are exceptions to the rule. With this argument I've been thinking specifically of people in third world countries and other such areas of conflict where people have little to no training, and yet arm themselves and children to inflict devastating bloodshed on those who they perceive to be their enemies. It is hard to imagine the possibility of a child armed with a sword and then sent against an enemy having any success. But 'children of war' are common particularly in African nations under warlords, and they are able to cause significant damage to people and property simply by shutting their eyes, 'spraying and praying'. Such a thing would be impossible in earlier warfare with sword, bow, crossbow, or any other pre-modern implement.

- As for your last point, I can only say that that was what shields were for in earlier warfare. You can block an arrow. But you can't block a bullet without exceptional equipment such as kevlar vests or whatever those SWAT shields are called. Thus, I would claim that charging through gunfire is a lot different from charging through arrows.

- In any case, it seems like this is far more opinion based than I had initially thought, and we could probably go back and forth like this til the end of time. I would be curious to hear if other people have an opinion on the matter, though.

Hmmm, interesting thread.

NBA Jam was pretty good too.
this

Hate to bring up the gun thread but as a 3rd person and a person with a relatively large nose I find it near impossible to prevent myself.

Guns are certainly not as honorable as a Sword, but mainly because of society. Society see's knights of past as men of great chivalry...really they weren't. Most of them were cruel, abused there power and try to wriggle out of fighting. They put up with a lot of shit during the majority of their life (which was in training) however, so that is kinda a reason. Undoubtedly there were some who we hear about in stories, it would be idiotic to say there weren't, however the vast majority were.

However I think puddles123 is a much better debater, and through reading all these posts I tend to side more with him. It is true that guns require much less skill to kill someone more skilled. That is not to say shooting a gun requires no skill, and those special ops guys can take down someone much much more easier and 'honorably' to an extent then an inexperienced child. All together though swords were more honorable then the modern day gun.

On to melee weapons in general. Swords are an exception because in past history they were used by your 'honorable knights' but take a look at the axe. The axe was generally defined as used by Barbarians. Some knights were actually trained in the use of axe's, but not many (in fact hardly any). Axe's can be used just as 'honorably' as the sword but due to their lack of 'honorable' use in past days, as well as its clumsiness it isn't as honorable as a gun (in my opinion please don't bite my head off, i'm trying to remain neutral).

The same goes for mace's, spears, etc. as above.

The Bow is identical to the gun (just modernized) except for the obvious fact that it was the weapon that required the most amount of skill. Say what you want but this fact is undeniable. A kid with a bow wouldn't to jack shit compared to a kid with a gun. If we look historically back, Royal archers were actually much more honorable then knights so you should be arguing about this.

None the less I think that in modern warfare the gun is most definitely not an un-honorable weapon. It is a weapon that deserves great honor just not in the hands of African children. It is all about technology now and we should no longer be considering it as how much skill is needed, but how 'honorably' the weapon is used. It is because the gun and the sword and the axe were used un-honorably that your having this argument. If they were all used by honorable people in a skillful fashion then I think they are both equal.

That is the most nonsensical post I've ever read. You get one chance to not be regarded as an utter fool, however. Define honor. You throw the word around so haphazardly that it's impossible to know how you define it, or indeed if you do at all. Clear that up and you may get a second chance.

First of all this thread is stupid xD.

Guns, swords whatever.
Guns are cool if they're revolvers, western duels, the wind, the stare, the moment of tension, the sunshine... "DRAW!" *bang bang bang* xD. I've seen to much spaggetti westerns these days.
Symbolism's, honor and all that depends on how it's used the weapon. That's what I think.

NBA Jam was pretty good too.

QFT!!!!!!

Damn, I love that game.

Clear that up and you may get a second chance.

I'm surprised you're even giving a second chance, usually you're patience is much thinner than that :P


None the less I think that in modern warfare the gun is most definitely not an un-honorable weapon.
Especially after a sentence like that...

And am I the only one who never played NBA Jam? :(

NBA TE was inferior to the original. Razzle Dazzle vs. THE NAIL IN THE COFFIN! My brother and I once won 72 to 0 with the Hawks.

And am I the only one who never played NBA Jam? :(
Nope, I haven't either.


Which would you rather face?

I thought supdup shared with us a pretty good argument comparing the uses of bows and guns as projectile weapons, and how using a bow is more 'honorable' than utilizing a gun. After all, I've tried using a bow myself, and it is hard as hell to use to great effect or with good accuracy without time spent training. Heck, it is hard (at first) to even figure out how to draw back the string (or whatever it is technically called) and fit the arrow to it at the same time, much less release it without the arrow falling off. Anyone untrained would be very ineffective with it compared to simply flicking back the safety on a modern gun.

As for the use of the word 'honorable', I would define it more along the lines of fairness, and being able to use a weapon and make a difference with it on an individual basis. In other words, the modern day's use of artillery, airstrikes, automatic machine guns, etc etc, I find to be less honorable/fair because of their indiscriminate nature and the ability of a child to pick up a handgun or any personal firearm to be able to cause considerable damage with. Back in the day, swords, bows, and all the rest of the medieval type weapons were more fair and honorable by my definition given the capacity for individual triumph and the possibility to excel on your own. As I believe supdup mentioned, this can also hold true for guns, but given the possibility for any idiot or child to use a gun and kill someone with no training or skill, I regard them as being less honorable than the medieval alternatives. The picture of the 'gangsta' feralanima posted would be a good example. The guy is an idiot for holding and firing a gun like that, but that doesn't make him any less dangerous.

I thought supdup shared with us a pretty good argument comparing the uses of bows and guns as projectile weapons, and how using a bow is more 'honorable' than utilizing a gun.

Aside from the fact that he's completely wrong, of course.


After all, I've tried using a bow myself, and it is hard as hell to use to great effect or with good accuracy without time spent training. Heck, it is hard (at first) to even figure out how to draw back the string (or whatever it is technically called) and fit the arrow to it at the same time, much less release it without the arrow falling off. Anyone untrained would be very ineffective with it compared to simply flicking back the safety on a modern gun.

A single day of practice was enough for me to begin hunting effectively with a bow. Some people simply have more aptitude than others. It works the same way for guns. One of my brothers can't hit a damn thing with any firearm.

Also, archers in warfare were never known for displays of skill. In fact, it was usually the very definition of spray and pray. A bunch of guys fired a bunch of arrows into a wide area and whoever died, died.


As for the use of the word 'honorable', I would define it more along the lines of fairness, and being able to use a weapon and make a difference with it on an individual basis. In other words, the modern day's use of artillery, airstrikes, automatic machine guns, etc etc, I find to be less honorable/fair because of their indiscriminate nature and the ability of a child to pick up a handgun or any personal firearm to be able to cause considerable damage with. Back in the day, swords, bows, and all the rest of the medieval type weapons were more fair and honorable by my definition given the capacity for individual triumph and the possibility to excel on your own.

You do realize, I hope, that what you're describing is the very height of retardation. What you describe as honor is only useful in a friendly competition. If your objective is to kill someone, you're an absolute fool if you don't pull out all the stops to see your enemy die as swiftly and thoroughly as possible. If you toss down a gun to fight a mortal enemy to the death with your bare hands, you deserve a swift exit from the gene pool.


As I believe supdup mentioned, this can also hold true for guns, but given the possibility for any idiot or child to use a gun and kill someone with no training or skill, I regard them as being less honorable than the medieval alternatives. The picture of the 'gangsta' feralanima posted would be a good example. The guy is an idiot for holding and firing a gun like that, but that doesn't make him any less dangerous.

This is categorically false. The "gangsta" would have a very slim chance of actually hitting me (at least in any place that would disable me) before I could draw a gun and plant a bullet in his face. The chance is probably roughly equal to that of a retarded leper with a kitchen knife managing to kill a well-trained swordsman.

Not jumping on the bandwagon...

That last picture of the 'gangsta' holding the gun on the side like that, seems to me to be following the 'Point-gun-at-people-I-want-to-shoot-and-wave-it-from-side-to-side-and-pray-I'll-hit-someone' school of shooting.

I do back up Prak regarding 'A single day of practice was enough for me to begin hunting effectively with a bow.'. When I first tried my hand at even pulling back the bowstring, the arrow often fell to the ground. Yet after 3 hours of practice, I would say that while I was no expert/master, I did know how to use the bow effectively.

I AM THE FUCKING KING OF ENGLAND

A single day of practice was enough for me to begin hunting effectively with a bow.


When I first tried my hand at even pulling back the bowstring, the arrow often fell to the ground. Yet after 3 hours of practice, I would say that while I was no expert/master, I did know how to use the bow effectively.

It still takes practice to shoot with a bow, even if it was a very short amount of time. A gun on the other hand, you can pick up and shoot, some guns all you have to do is aim in the right direction while others do take practice to hit a target, but you don't need any practice to pull the trigger. So, unlike a gun, you need atleast some sort of practice to even use a bow.

- While a child can squeeze the trigger of a gun with no practice and have a decent chance of killing someone if they point it in the person's general direction, I think it doubtful that a kid could take up a bow and arrow and do the same thing. If nothing else (and I could be wrong with this) doesn't it take a decent measure of strength to pull back the string while simultaneously aiming at your target along with the need to take in mind the arc of the arrow's path and occasionally factors such as wind? I would like to see African warlords put a bow and arrow in a drugged kid's hands and see him do anything damaging with it.

- I'll expand on my honor definition. In dictionary.com, honor = honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions: a man of honor. An example would be, In lands ancient Japan, honor was always seen as almost a duty by Samurai. When one lost their honor or the situation made them lose it, the only way to save their dignity was by death. Seppuku (vulgarly called "harakiri," or "belly-cutting") was the most honorable death in that situation. The only way for a Samurai to die more honorably was to be killed in a battle by a sword.

Now I'm not trying to make the argument that being honorable in battle is a wise decision. I also think it a little bit retarded that samurai, for instance, will kill themselves after being defeated in battle instead of rallying and not giving up. Another example would be a knight dismounting to fight hand to hand after knocking some other guy off his horse. Not too smart, but certainly honorable. It is true that honor is more useful in a friendly competition, but that isn't the point. My point in starting this argument in the first place is that, because of ease of use and the extraordinarily damaging potential that can be achieved just by spraying and praying with a modern gun, modern weapons are less honorable than those of the medieval time. Less fair. One shouldn't be able to send children off to shoot people as that is just wrong. By contrast, the skill of use required by most medieval weapons made it largely wars of just adults or late teenagers.

This is why people found World War I so horrible. Being cut down by a machine gun in the distance doesn't seem very fair or honorable. At least with arrows you had the chance of getting through it with a shield and armor.

Your arguments about kids being able to kill more easily with guns are pure nonsense. Very few children could manage a gun's recoil.

It may not be as easy for a child to handle a guns recoil, but they still manage, even if very badly. Take a look at child soldiers, sure it may be a spray and pray tactic, but they still kill plenty of people and they didn't need any training of how to pull the trigger.

You just don't know when to quit, do you? Your point of view has been completely disproved and you're running in circles trying to defend it, while really just making yourself look like a pathetic self-absorbed goober.

I knew a girl a while back who was just like you. She once claimed that John Hancock signed all the names on the US Declaration of Independence, then after being disproved, said that she couldn't possibly change what she had learned.

I wash my hands of you until you grow a brain.

Regardless of recoil, I don't recall reading about or hearing any stories about children being trained to become soldiers with swords and bow and arrows in earlier times. Such a thing wouldn't be possible without the ease of use of today's modern weapons. That is the reason AK-47s are so popular, along with their reliability. Taking advantage of people's morality by fitting children with guns seems the very height of dishonorable to me, which is why I've mentioned it so often.

And god forbid I'm maintaining an argument that seems valid and rational. I don't see how you've disproved it yet. You seem more focused on the fact that a child would get owned by any trained military man, but the point is more that children are able to use weapons of war and some people in the world try to take advantage of that and the fact that the average person doesn't want to shoot a kid to kill people. A similar example would be attaching bombs to child jihadists and then having them go blow up a crowd. Hardly honorable to me, and I can't think of an equivalent action in the Medieval era.

Puddles, the previous post was not aimed at you. Despite your assertions being rather naive, you're at least competent with your presentation, thus worth responding to.

And you are correct about children being equipped for warfare. They would not be at all suitable on a medieval battlefield due to their inability to carry all the necessary implements. That does not, of course, mean that it has never happened.

Take the end of WW2 for example. As the allies closed in on Japan, the Japs (who were big on the whole total war concept) were calling up every man, woman, and child in their nation to serve as militia. Everyone capable of so much as holding something that could be used to harm another human being (including farming tools) was being instructed to fight against invaders. That's a major reason the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in lieu of a ground assault.

Honor just does not factor into total war. It never has in thousands of years, and such scenarios are really the only time kids are called into warfare.

This is true, although the use of total war in various wars has come 'in and out of fashion'. In the Renaissance and Enlightenment period (with some exceptions) limited wars with the aim of taking parts of land were the norm, thus allowing for more 'honorable' methods of combat. This was assisted by the strategies of the periods which tended to favor line and column warfare, which while idiotic, had pretty much everyone doing it. It wasn't until they ran into forms of guerilla warfare such as with the American Revolutionary War that this straightforward approach began to shift towards total war.

Of course, total war existed in many conflicts within the Medieval period and before, so I'm not trying to say that total war wasn't present, just that it wasn't omnipresent, therefore allowing for more honorable combat with predominantly male armies fighting each other for victory. Not involving any civilians.

But anyways, I digress. The point I keep pushing for with my argument is not that honorable combat is somehow superior to fighting to win, but that medieval weapons that one often sees in Final Fantasy games and fantasy novels are so attractive because of their allowance for individual triumph and honorable combat. With that period's weapons and methods of warfare, one didn't have to worry about being indiscriminately carpet bombed, cut to pieces by machine guns or sniper rifles hundreds of yards away, poison or biological weapons, children being sent out with automatic weapons or bombs attached to their person to kill you, bunker busters, etc etc. Thus my argument that warfare and the weaponry of the medieval period allows for more honor in battle and more fair and honorable combat.

In other words, your description of "honor" really boils down to the opportunity to win personal glory in a conflict as opposed to the impersonal nature of modern combat. This is the attitude of self-aggrandizing egomaniacal fantasists who have never been a participant in a real fight.

Real honor doesn't come from a method of slaughter. It is exercised through sacrifice and conviction. The man who tosses aside his weapon to fight fairly in a bar brawl is not honorable. He's a brute. The man who chooses to shoot a mugger in the face, then calls the police himself and waits for their arrival to take responsibility for his actions is honorable.

Well, I'm using the dictionary's definition of honor which is "honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions". The most applicable parts of that being 'fairness' and 'integrity'. I agree that honor comes through sacrifice and conviction, but that is exactly my argument. With medieval weapons and warfare, you had a greater chance to utilize your conviction, belief, honor, and sacrifice towards whatever worthy goal. As I mentioned before, in today's warfare, and with its advent in World War I, your conviction doesn't mean anything when faced with bombs or a hail of bulletfire. The earlier days of weapons that don't kill you instantly hundreds of yards away allowed for your conviction to actually have a good chance of being meaningful. Also, given the amount of cheap and available weaponry sold and spread throughout Africa, the Middle East, and third world nations, it makes it very easy for noncombatants and untrained civilians to get a hold of AK-47s and other modern firearms that can be used, through children or others, against soldiers who just want to fight the enemy's soldiers, not their populace. Certainly, this is an aspect of total war, but the prevalence of cheap modern guns makes it far easier for people who aren't supposed to be involved getting weaponry that can cause damage to the opposing military. Not very fair and certainly against the integrity of warfare and the idea that militaries generally try and overcome the enemy's military, as tenous as that can get.

Also, these days we focus so much more on bombarding the enemy from a distance and causing as much damage to the enemy as possible. This is certainly a logical and rational approach to wanting to win, but isn't an approach that allows for honor or your own personal conviction or valour to count for anything. Thus I regard it as being less honorable.

EDIT - And those examples that you mention with the man tossing aside his weapon to fight fairly and the man who shoots a mugger in the face then waits for the police are technically both considered honorable acts by your definition and the dictionary's.

The man who chooses to fight the bar brawl with his fists instead of his weapon is choosing to fight 'fairly' and is also choosing 'sacrifice' in order to achieve honor. The man who shoots the mugger in the face then waits for the police is acting with 'integrity' with taking responsibility for his actions and he is also utilizing his 'conviction' in order to do so, whether that 'conviction' is in his own righteousness or his 'conviction' in the law.

With that, I can officially declare our views on the subject to be 100% irreconcilable. Your view of "honor" is so heavily idealized and my sensibilities are so pragmatic that neither of us is going to budge from our positions. Thus further debate on the matter between us would quickly degenerate into nothing more than a flame war. Time to end this now, I think.

As a side note, the guy who throws aside a weapon in a barfight is a complete moron who revels in violence. The weapon could be brandished passively to shield him from the chaos around him, or if necessary to intimidate others into backing down. For you to think of the situation in any other terms implies things about you that you may not be comfortable with.

Probably true, we won't be able to budge each other on this issue. Ah well. In any case, I don't think I'm as naively optimistic as you portray me to be; I was simply trying to apply the dictionary's definition of honor (not my own view) to the application of weapons from separate periods of time. My own view is more that war applies to whatever is strategically superior or what allows someone the pragmatic upper hand in a conflict. That is the only way to win, although it would be nice if wars had more 'honor' involved.

But in any case, discussion closed. Was a good debate though.

Hmmm, what a witty post.. I just have to say.. WHY would someone who'd CLEARLY rather be throwing a virtual ball around come to a forum about Final Fantasy only to bash it? :O

"games without guns in them are gay. football games are the best" So, does that make football games "gay"? LOL

"games without guns in them are gay. football games are the best" So, does that make football games "gay"? LOL

By far the smartest thing said in this entire thread. Quite possibly one of the smartest things on this whole forum. lol

EL-OH-EL

;)

I mean, I understand football involves playing with balls, but damn! :O

Personally, I can never understand the fascination with watching two teams of grown men, running around in Daisy Duke style shorts after a inflated pig skin (Referring to Australian Rules Football). Still can't.

Completely agreed XD; and the fact that it's such a prominent part of American culture is quite baffling to me as well :O

Personally, I can never understand the fascination with watching two teams of grown men, running around in Daisy Duke style shorts after a inflated pig skin (Referring to Australian Rules Football). Still can't.

Don't forget the fact that they hug each other to get the ball off each other. And their big hugs!

Don't forget the fact that they hug each other to get the ball off each other. And their big hugs!

I've never seen grown men run around, leaping at each other in spastic displays of camaraderie on a sports field in person. Only when watching the news broadcasts and they show the sports results. I have seen movies like Major League, Wildcats, The Replacements etc showing one notion of how sports is perceived in America. The grandstanding plays etc, seem to be commonplace no matter what the sport/county/etc.

Though... I will admit I do like sports where players get hurt. A couple of years ago, a player for the Hawthorn Hawks football club snapped his lower leg after making a leap for the ball. I remember that clearly as you could see the bone snap and burst through the skin.

Also I do like the American NHL... solely for the fights which inevitably break out.

My father got me into watching wrestling (WWF or WWE.. can't remember which) but it's so FAKE :O I'm not much of a sports-goer myself, but wrestling just gets me with its overall fake-ness..

Read Have a Nice day! A tale of Blood and Sweatsocks and Foley is Good, both written by Mick Foley and are a great read. The first is autobiographical (apparently) and the second is a continuation of sorts.

I used to watch the WWF, back when it could call itself that... 97-02, the 'Attitude' era. Fun to watch then... nowadays, it's just daytime tv in spandex.

Ahh, Mick Foley; of all the things that lost me with wrestling, he was one of my favorites. I actually have a WWF game for PSX I've had since.. damn, 4th grade? with Mick Foley in it. It coincides with some of the wrestlers I did enjoy watching in those days, such as Shawn Michaels and Austin 3:16; fake or not, they at least were some of those who made it fun for me to watch. But like you say it's not something I would ever sit and watch nowadays. I guess it was also sort of a novelty item of my life back then; being a kid, I didn't know of anything else, so I thought WWF was the baddest thing out there < : - O