unforum

[krystyn]

"Your issues have issues!"

[thebruce]

I heard that before! ... now where from...

[THe_Smakus]

OH for the love of long posts...

[thebruce]

Re: OH for the love of long posts...

[Daddy]

Very deep thread here—nice to see how Bungie's goal to tell a great story (per Bungie's Jason Jones in a piece the Discovery Channel did a while back) has been met with a community that appreciates and "feels" it.

Regarding J^2 now… I understand how folks have grown attached to these characters but we're not too sure who J^2 really is. Hell, I like him just because he sounds like MC. Before I get into detail, my point is that J^2 might have a little 'dirt' on him (or at least in his past). I read through this whole thread and did not come across anyone who mentioned how Thin called Jim, "Old pal". It's a little tough to hear (nice job to "TheBruce" for getting it in the transcript), but he definitely says it. Obviously, this suggests that Thin and Jim go back a while. So they're either pals from the Spartan I program or pals from some other common activity involving Thin—which I can't imagine being legal, given Thin's character. I'm leaning towards the Spartan I program connection; this would explain how Thin was capable of capturing Jan and killing Jim. Now, we know the Spartan I's were disbanded (wouldn't want too many Gillies running around, would you?). So what exactly happens to people who are HIGHLY trained for most of their lives to be a military's killing machines (who are a bit screwed chemically) that are thrown back in a 'normal society'? Black Ops? Should Thin, Jim & Gil have started an accounting or law firm by that name? Not likely. I don't think they're left with much choice: they do what they know how to do in whatever capacity they can find or is presented to them. And not only is Jim an 'old pal' of Thin's he's also connected to McKaskill who was caught by Melissa on the Apocolypso receiving/sending secret messages from/to "bad people" (as described by Melissa). BTW, why the hell is Jim still running? Jan is way too old to become a Spartan at this point so why is he scared they'll find her? Maybe he's running because of something else, something he did in the past that has to do with Jan--like a kidnapping.
Which leads to my overall feeling that J^2 is a good guy running from a bad past. Stuff eventually catches up though…

There's just so much odd stuff about this though that has to be mentioned. If Jim & Thin really are old pals then Aunt Gladys would know about him too. That's how she probably knew about Sharfie's. Why lead Jan to Sharfie's then? And Aunt Gladys has a strong accent (Southern, I believe) while Jim has none at all. Siblings raised separately or not siblings at all? Who knows…

I need a job at Bungie damn it.

BTW, there's no such thing as 'good and evil'-- just strong animals and weak ones..

[FreemanCorporeal]

Re: OH for the love of long posts...

[Mukaikubo]

Not precisely accurate, if you're talking about "The Jigsaw Man" by Larry Niven (one of the best SF shorts ever!).

Guy is charged with several unspecified minor offences. Goes to jail, trial in the morning. Organlegger (Abducts people, carves them up, sells organ for beaucoup $$$) in the next cell blows himself up with a fake leg, Guy escapes through the hole and out into a hospital. Gets to the room with all the harvested organs in it, goes Thin Kinkle on the glass tanks, is finally brought down, and stands trial- for the parking violations. The court knows, but doesn't care about his rampage. After all, if he manages to be found innocent of the parking charges they have the willful destruction of guvmint proppity to get him on. He goes into the organ banks, either way.

[GabrielBlade]

Hey, I like Gillie. She can come over for tea at my place any day! [/humour]


Seriously, though, this thread got real deep. I guess that's what you get when something of this magnitude happens.

[pcs me]

Re: OH for the love of long posts...

[Master of 7s]

[Kagehi Kossori]

It should be pointed out that depression was once considered am act 'chosen' by the person experiencing it. Society saw people intentionally harming themselves and others as a result of it and lacking an understanding of the underlying cause mis-labeled it as an evil. This was perfectly reasonable, until the underlying causes where understood and 'oops' it turned out the reason for it was often outside of the control of the person experiencing it. Good and evil are just terms. Good is often a bit vague, since it can cover only those things actively promoting a stable society or more generically as anything not evil. Evil is equally vague, usually meaning anything dustructive and unjustified, which causes some sort of harm. However, it is also used quite often to label things that are border line and arbitrary with respect to specific groups and their attutudes about things. To use one of your own examples, many states have statutory rape laws that say something like 16 years + 5. I.e. as long as you are both from that state and no more than 5 years appart in age, you can be 21 and sleep with someone that is 16, but for some reason you are not allowed to film it or take photos. Huh?!? So, where exactly is the line drawn between good and evil in that case? It is entirely arbitrary and 300-400 years ago such a standard didn't even exist at all or was commonly ignored where it did exist (which resulted in a lot less confusion, but was definitely for psychologic and even physical reasons not always harmless). The problem is that when you apply abstract terms like good and evil, reason goes out the window, since the very meaning of the terms implies inflexibility. Something isn't wrong because of ... it just *is*. People that describe those concepts as actual real things and not mere abstractions make me really nervous. You never really know where they personally draw the lines or, as is not entirely uncommon, where they might suddenly decide to redraw the line, for no better reason than they woke up that morning and 'felt' it would be better at some other arbitrary point.

One should not abandon emotion, but one should recognize when circumstances can create negative results, even in cases where everyone agrees on the standards to live by. The mere fact that something is emotionally traumatic should not dictate the logic used to set such standards. The term evil is 99.99% emotional. It has no rational definition. That is why we use inappropriate, harmful, dangerous, psociopathic, etc. and don't just label everything disturbing as evil. Each of those other terms are specific about 'why' the situation or activity is a problem, they don't just dance around like a two year old proclaiming, "Well, because!".

[Scumbag]

Yeesh.

Maybe its a good thing I ain't had the time to keep up with ILB. I tear up during the fossilized-dog episode of Futurama, for crissake. I'd prolly be bawling.

[Master of 7s]

[FreemanCorporeal]

[Phaedra]

Evil