#1 Edited by Noone301994 (3927 posts) - - Show Bio

Random encounter, Captain America thinks that V is a terrorist, fight to the death or KO, both get all of their equipment, who would win?

Round 1: Comic versions

Round 2: Movie versions

vs.

#2 Edited by SheenLantern (6253 posts) - - Show Bio

So this is Comic Cap vs. Movie V?

Comic Cap would stomp Movie V.

Movie V would equally stomp Movie Cap.

EDIT: Comic Cap would stomp Comic V even harder.

#3 Posted by Veshark (9058 posts) - - Show Bio

Movie Cap vs Movie V?

Or are these comic versions?

#4 Posted by WaveMotionCannon (5181 posts) - - Show Bio

Cap

#5 Posted by OmgOmgWtfWtf (6954 posts) - - Show Bio

Movie Cap beats Movie Vendetta.

Comic Cap stomps Comic Vendetta.

#6 Posted by SheenLantern (6253 posts) - - Show Bio
#7 Edited by Thedarklordpandamonium (4825 posts) - - Show Bio

So this is Comic Cap vs. Movie V?

Comic Cap would stomp Movie V.

Movie V would equally stomp Movie Cap.

EDIT: Comic Cap would stomp Comic V even harder.

Well said.

#8 Posted by SSJLozza (1528 posts) - - Show Bio

Random encounter, Captain America thinks that V is a terrorist, fight to the death or KO, both get all of their equipment, who would win?

vs.

He'd be right in thinking V is a terrorist. Blowing up the houses of parliament is an act of terror, and I don't understand why so many little anonymous freaks seem to idolise him (I'm guessing it's V, not Guy Fawkes). Well actually I do it's because they're c**ts, but anyway... Cap stomps.

#9 Posted by Noone301994 (3927 posts) - - Show Bio

I changed it

Round 1: Comic versions facing each other

Round 2: Movie versions facing each other

#10 Posted by Ratatat (697 posts) - - Show Bio

round 1.steve wins

round 2.V wins

#11 Posted by dondave (34566 posts) - - Show Bio

Cap

Online
#12 Edited by Noone301994 (3927 posts) - - Show Bio

@ssjlozza:

@ssjlozza said:

@noone301994 said:

Random encounter, Captain America thinks that V is a terrorist, fight to the death or KO, both get all of their equipment, who would win?

vs.

He'd be right in thinking V is a terrorist. Blowing up the houses of parliament is an act of terror, and I don't understand why so many little anonymous freaks seem to idolise him (I'm guessing it's V, not Guy Fawkes). Well actually I do it's because they're c**ts, but anyway... Cap stomps.

Have you even seen V for Vendetta? The government was out of line and killing innocent people. The anonymous "freaks" idolize him because in the movie (and comics) he stood up to tyranny just like Anonymous is doing.

#13 Posted by SSJLozza (1528 posts) - - Show Bio

@noone301994:

Omg please don't tell me you're a supporter of anon? If you think we have tyranny mate you should look back across history and see how well we have it. The government weren't all that bad if I remember rightly, and anyway why would you put blowing up the houses of parliament (an act of treason) in a film and claim the guy doing it is good? Treason is the worst crime possible, and the houses of parliament are a genuine symbol of democracy and government in my country.

#14 Edited by SSJLozza (1528 posts) - - Show Bio

@ssjlozza:

@ssjlozza said:

@noone301994 said:

Random encounter, Captain America thinks that V is a terrorist, fight to the death or KO, both get all of their equipment, who would win?

vs.

He'd be right in thinking V is a terrorist. Blowing up the houses of parliament is an act of terror, and I don't understand why so many little anonymous freaks seem to idolise him (I'm guessing it's V, not Guy Fawkes). Well actually I do it's because they're c**ts, but anyway... Cap stomps.

Have you even seen V for Vendetta? The government was out of line and killing innocent people. The anonymous "freaks" idolize him because in the movie (and comics) he stood up to tyranny just like Anonymous is doing.

and let's not forget, that mask is the face of Guy fawkes- a man who wanted to destroy parliament in order to put a Catholic on the throne of England. yeah sounds very anti "tyranny".

#15 Posted by SheenLantern (6253 posts) - - Show Bio

@ssjlozza said:

@noone301994:

Omg please don't tell me you're a supporter of anon? If you think we have tyranny mate you should look back across history and see how well we have it.

Then I hope you don't cry at your mother's funeral, then. Since there are people who have lost their entire families.

Just because we could have it worse does not mean we don't have the right to want better.

#16 Posted by SSJLozza (1528 posts) - - Show Bio

@sheenlantern:

That's a childish analogy. I'm talking about throughout history. In the majority of the Western hemisphere we literally get to decide between us who rules the nation, and in America, and to some extent here in the UK, who rules our local constituency/state. Never before have we had so much freedom, but some people still consider that Tyranny. We're as free as we ever could be without anarchy, and with anarchy comes the death of all but the strongest, since everyone (including the evil amongst us) can do whatever they like.

#17 Posted by Noone301994 (3927 posts) - - Show Bio

@ssjlozza said:

@noone301994:

Omg please don't tell me you're a supporter of anon? If you think we have tyranny mate you should look back across history and see how well we have it. The government weren't all that bad if I remember rightly, and anyway why would you put blowing up the houses of parliament (an act of treason) in a film and claim the guy doing it is good? Treason is the worst crime possible, and the houses of parliament are a genuine symbol of democracy and government in my country.

Am I a supporter? Not exactly. Do I support them standing up to tyranny? Absolutely. Anonymous uses the masks and dresses like V to be revolutionary like the character, not like Fawkes, even if that's where V got it from. They are just using the symbol.

Treason huh? So despite the fact that the government tortured and killed thousands of people in that story and was completely tyrannical the houses of Parliament still shouldn't have been blown up? Okay so if someone was trying to overthrow the Nazi regime by blowing up some Congressional buildings in Berlin they wouldn't have been good guys b/c they were committing treason?

You think that because previous governments have been worse oppressors than now that makes it okay? So as long as they aren't at Nazi level tyranny it must be okay right? Look at America right now man... They are spying on everyone, tearing our constitution apart, constantly lie for their own agenda, screw over the civilian population with heavy taxes to pay for pointless wars and then the TSA molests us at the airports to combat the very same terrorists that are now being armed by the Obama administration in Syria right now...

I don't want to get into this... But to say V was an insane radical who had no right to blow up buildings to combat a terrible tyrannical government just b/c "it could have been worse for them" doesn't make much sense to me.

#18 Edited by SSJLozza (1528 posts) - - Show Bio

@noone301994 said:

@ssjlozza said:

@noone301994:

Omg please don't tell me you're a supporter of anon? If you think we have tyranny mate you should look back across history and see how well we have it. The government weren't all that bad if I remember rightly, and anyway why would you put blowing up the houses of parliament (an act of treason) in a film and claim the guy doing it is good? Treason is the worst crime possible, and the houses of parliament are a genuine symbol of democracy and government in my country.

Am I a supporter? Not exactly. Do I support them standing up to tyranny? Absolutely. Anonymous uses the masks and dresses like V to be revolutionary like the character, not like Fawkes, even if that's where V got it from. They are just using the symbol.

Treason huh? So despite the fact that the government tortured and killed thousands of people in that story and was completely tyrannical the houses of Parliament still shouldn't have been blown up? Okay so if someone was trying to overthrow the Nazi regime by blowing up some Congressional buildings in Berlin they wouldn't have been good guys b/c they were committing treason?

You think that because previous governments have been worse oppressors than now that makes it okay? So as long as they aren't at Nazi level tyranny it must be okay right? Look at America right now man... They are spying on everyone, tearing our constitution apart, constantly lie for their own agenda, screw over the civilian population with heavy taxes to pay for pointless wars and then the TSA molests us at the airports to combat the very same terrorists that are now being armed by the Obama administration in Syria right now...

I don't want to get into this... But to say V was an insane radical who had no right to blow up buildings to combat a terrible tyrannical government just b/c "it could have been worse for them" doesn't make much sense to me.

You consider taxes in America high? you should try living in the UK... I'm not saying things are perfect now as you seem to be implying but to call the modern system of government in America tyranny is absurd. All things are relative, and if we call this tyranny then what was the feudal system? What was the system of Slave and Master? What was Nazism? Communism? etc etc. A nation which elects it's representatives on an equal basis, where every adult citizen without serious mental deficiency can vote and where no one is legally allowed to be judged on grounds of race, gender, or religion can't be considered tyranny by any definition of the word. Could things be better? Yes, but they are far better than they've ever been not just in Nazi Germany, but anywhere in the world at any time pre 20th century.

The problem is having never experienced any worse everyone assumes that what they're experiencing must be terrible simply because it's not quite tailored to their absolute ideal. As for V, he was a terrorist whether or not you agree with the system in place the houses of parliament are a real place housing the government here in the UK. When such an iconic monument to freedom is destroyed it takes on a meaning deeper than mere film. Also whether or not the government in the film engaged in questionable acts, his decision to annihilate the symbol of governance was absurd and unjustified. It wasn't even as though he had a better alternative lined up.

#19 Posted by Noone301994 (3927 posts) - - Show Bio

@ssjlozza said:

@noone301994 said:

@ssjlozza said:

@noone301994:

Omg please don't tell me you're a supporter of anon? If you think we have tyranny mate you should look back across history and see how well we have it. The government weren't all that bad if I remember rightly, and anyway why would you put blowing up the houses of parliament (an act of treason) in a film and claim the guy doing it is good? Treason is the worst crime possible, and the houses of parliament are a genuine symbol of democracy and government in my country.

Am I a supporter? Not exactly. Do I support them standing up to tyranny? Absolutely. Anonymous uses the masks and dresses like V to be revolutionary like the character, not like Fawkes, even if that's where V got it from. They are just using the symbol.

Treason huh? So despite the fact that the government tortured and killed thousands of people in that story and was completely tyrannical the houses of Parliament still shouldn't have been blown up? Okay so if someone was trying to overthrow the Nazi regime by blowing up some Congressional buildings in Berlin they wouldn't have been good guys b/c they were committing treason?

You think that because previous governments have been worse oppressors than now that makes it okay? So as long as they aren't at Nazi level tyranny it must be okay right? Look at America right now man... They are spying on everyone, tearing our constitution apart, constantly lie for their own agenda, screw over the civilian population with heavy taxes to pay for pointless wars and then the TSA molests us at the airports to combat the very same terrorists that are now being armed by the Obama administration in Syria right now...

I don't want to get into this... But to say V was an insane radical who had no right to blow up buildings to combat a terrible tyrannical government just b/c "it could have been worse for them" doesn't make much sense to me.

You consider taxes in America high? you should try living in the UK... I'm not saying things are perfect now as you seem to be implying but to call the modern system of government in America tyranny is absurd. All things are relative, and if we call this tyranny then what was the feudal system? What was the system of Slave and Master? What was Nazism? Communism? etc etc. A nation which elects it's representatives on an equal basis, where every adult citizen without mental serious deficiency can vote and where no one is legally allowed to be judged on grounds of race, gender, or religion can't be considered tyranny by any definition of the word. Could things be better? Yes, but they are far better than they've ever been not just in Nazi Germany, but anywhere in the world at any time pre 20th century.

The problem is having never experienced any worse everyone assumes that what they're experiencing must be terrible simply because it's not quite tailored to their absolute ideal. As for V, he was a terrorist whether or not you agree with the system in place the houses of parliament are a real place housing the government here in the UK. When such an iconic monument to freedom is destroyed it takes on a meaning deeper than mere film. Also whether or not the government in the film engaged in questionable acts, his decision to annihilate the symbol of governance was absurd and unjustified. It wasn't even as though he had a better alternative lined up.

The definition of tyranny is cruel and oppressive rule by a government. Just because it isn't as bad (debatable) as previous ones doesn't mean they shouldn't be pointed out or protested. The governments now aren't making the same mistakes as the previous ones. They are giving people a false sense that they are free, they are here to protect us, and that everything is okay while they slowly take rights away little by little for a "justified" reason. For example:

"The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed."Adolf Hitler (Nazi Germany)

Patriot Act, NDAA, Persecution of whistle blowers, TSA pat-downs, indefinite detention without trial, media censorship, militarization of police, domestic drone use, widespread citizen surveillance, FEMA internment camps, internet censorship, gun control, food control (U.S.A)

You are just angry because he destroyed British monuments. I don't want to argue about this part b/c if they made a movie about a revolutionary man who combated tyranny by blowing up monuments from my mother country, I would be upset too, so I can understand where you are coming from about that. However, to say that it's bad to criticize them now b/c it could have been, and has been, worse in the past, is as you guys say, rubbish.

#20 Edited by SSJLozza (1528 posts) - - Show Bio

@ssjlozza said:

@noone301994 said:

@ssjlozza said:

@noone301994:

Omg please don't tell me you're a supporter of anon? If you think we have tyranny mate you should look back across history and see how well we have it. The government weren't all that bad if I remember rightly, and anyway why would you put blowing up the houses of parliament (an act of treason) in a film and claim the guy doing it is good? Treason is the worst crime possible, and the houses of parliament are a genuine symbol of democracy and government in my country.

Am I a supporter? Not exactly. Do I support them standing up to tyranny? Absolutely. Anonymous uses the masks and dresses like V to be revolutionary like the character, not like Fawkes, even if that's where V got it from. They are just using the symbol.

Treason huh? So despite the fact that the government tortured and killed thousands of people in that story and was completely tyrannical the houses of Parliament still shouldn't have been blown up? Okay so if someone was trying to overthrow the Nazi regime by blowing up some Congressional buildings in Berlin they wouldn't have been good guys b/c they were committing treason?

You think that because previous governments have been worse oppressors than now that makes it okay? So as long as they aren't at Nazi level tyranny it must be okay right? Look at America right now man... They are spying on everyone, tearing our constitution apart, constantly lie for their own agenda, screw over the civilian population with heavy taxes to pay for pointless wars and then the TSA molests us at the airports to combat the very same terrorists that are now being armed by the Obama administration in Syria right now...

I don't want to get into this... But to say V was an insane radical who had no right to blow up buildings to combat a terrible tyrannical government just b/c "it could have been worse for them" doesn't make much sense to me.

You consider taxes in America high? you should try living in the UK... I'm not saying things are perfect now as you seem to be implying but to call the modern system of government in America tyranny is absurd. All things are relative, and if we call this tyranny then what was the feudal system? What was the system of Slave and Master? What was Nazism? Communism? etc etc. A nation which elects it's representatives on an equal basis, where every adult citizen without mental serious deficiency can vote and where no one is legally allowed to be judged on grounds of race, gender, or religion can't be considered tyranny by any definition of the word. Could things be better? Yes, but they are far better than they've ever been not just in Nazi Germany, but anywhere in the world at any time pre 20th century.

The problem is having never experienced any worse everyone assumes that what they're experiencing must be terrible simply because it's not quite tailored to their absolute ideal. As for V, he was a terrorist whether or not you agree with the system in place the houses of parliament are a real place housing the government here in the UK. When such an iconic monument to freedom is destroyed it takes on a meaning deeper than mere film. Also whether or not the government in the film engaged in questionable acts, his decision to annihilate the symbol of governance was absurd and unjustified. It wasn't even as though he had a better alternative lined up.

The definition of tyranny is cruel and oppressive rule by a government. Just because it isn't as bad (debatable) as previous ones doesn't mean they shouldn't be pointed out or protested. The governments now aren't making the same mistakes as the previous ones. They are giving people a false sense that they are free, they are here to protect us, and that everything is okay while they slowly take rights away little by little for a "justified" reason. For example:

"The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed."Adolf Hitler (Nazi Germany)

Patriot Act, NDAA, Persecution of whistle blowers, TSA pat-downs, indefinite detention without trial, media censorship, militarization of police, domestic drone use, widespread citizen surveillance, FEMA internment camps, internet censorship, gun control, food control (U.S.A)

You are just angry because he destroyed British monuments. I don't want to argue about this part b/c if they made a movie about a revolutionary man who combated tyranny by blowing up monuments from my mother country, I would be upset too, so I can understand where you are coming from about that. However, to say that it's bad to criticize them now b/c it could have been, and has been, worse in the past, is as you guys say, rubbish.

Past systems have been much worse than they are now, that is indisputable. What we call a ghetto in the modern UK, or US, or any 1st world nation would have been considered luxury by the lower classes of the 19th century and previously (they were also way more dangerous, with both London and New York having numerous murders daily during some periods of the 18th century). If we go back further it gets even worse. Knights weren't all chivalry and honour they were medieval gangsters but far more brutal. If a Lord or a Knight wanted sex with a peasant girl he'd have it regardless of whether she wanted it, if he thought she might tell someone he might cut her tongue out, or perhaps hang her saying she was trying to rob him, after all his word was law. You literally couldn't walk through whole areas of London, Manchester, New York, Paris etc in the 18th and 19th century without encountering numerous starving people begging for bread, drunk on gin or high on morphine.

If you disobey authority nowadays, you may have to pay a fine or go to prison, had you insulted or disobeyed your Lord in medieval times you'd be decapitated or worse. Have you ever seen Game of Thrones out of interest? I only ask because that's a very honest depiction of medieval Britain. I'm not attacking you at all, and it's not because they are British monuments, it is however partly the fact that anonymous are largely based in America and Europe and not Britain as far as I know at least, and so it annoys me a bit them wearing the face of a man who very nearly changed history for the worse here in Britain, it's like if we were wearing shirts with Lee Harvey Oswald on them.

If we are to put a label such as tyranny on something we have to have something to compare it to, and the logic can't practically be if it's not perfect it's tyranny. You can go to the shop without fear of being robbed, or raped if your a woman (unless you live in an extremely dangerous area, and as I've said even modern day ghettos don't compare).

The fact is things don't just appear to be getting better, they actually really are. We may not have all the freedoms we would like but we have more than we've ever had before and that prevents it from being tyranny. If you can safely say that you don't fear for your life on a daily basis than you have it better than 90% of the population of both Britain and America in the 19th century and previously.

#21 Posted by Noone301994 (3927 posts) - - Show Bio

@ssjlozza said:

@noone301994 said:

@ssjlozza said:

@noone301994 said:

@ssjlozza said:

@noone301994:

Omg please don't tell me you're a supporter of anon? If you think we have tyranny mate you should look back across history and see how well we have it. The government weren't all that bad if I remember rightly, and anyway why would you put blowing up the houses of parliament (an act of treason) in a film and claim the guy doing it is good? Treason is the worst crime possible, and the houses of parliament are a genuine symbol of democracy and government in my country.

Am I a supporter? Not exactly. Do I support them standing up to tyranny? Absolutely. Anonymous uses the masks and dresses like V to be revolutionary like the character, not like Fawkes, even if that's where V got it from. They are just using the symbol.

Treason huh? So despite the fact that the government tortured and killed thousands of people in that story and was completely tyrannical the houses of Parliament still shouldn't have been blown up? Okay so if someone was trying to overthrow the Nazi regime by blowing up some Congressional buildings in Berlin they wouldn't have been good guys b/c they were committing treason?

You think that because previous governments have been worse oppressors than now that makes it okay? So as long as they aren't at Nazi level tyranny it must be okay right? Look at America right now man... They are spying on everyone, tearing our constitution apart, constantly lie for their own agenda, screw over the civilian population with heavy taxes to pay for pointless wars and then the TSA molests us at the airports to combat the very same terrorists that are now being armed by the Obama administration in Syria right now...

I don't want to get into this... But to say V was an insane radical who had no right to blow up buildings to combat a terrible tyrannical government just b/c "it could have been worse for them" doesn't make much sense to me.

You consider taxes in America high? you should try living in the UK... I'm not saying things are perfect now as you seem to be implying but to call the modern system of government in America tyranny is absurd. All things are relative, and if we call this tyranny then what was the feudal system? What was the system of Slave and Master? What was Nazism? Communism? etc etc. A nation which elects it's representatives on an equal basis, where every adult citizen without mental serious deficiency can vote and where no one is legally allowed to be judged on grounds of race, gender, or religion can't be considered tyranny by any definition of the word. Could things be better? Yes, but they are far better than they've ever been not just in Nazi Germany, but anywhere in the world at any time pre 20th century.

The problem is having never experienced any worse everyone assumes that what they're experiencing must be terrible simply because it's not quite tailored to their absolute ideal. As for V, he was a terrorist whether or not you agree with the system in place the houses of parliament are a real place housing the government here in the UK. When such an iconic monument to freedom is destroyed it takes on a meaning deeper than mere film. Also whether or not the government in the film engaged in questionable acts, his decision to annihilate the symbol of governance was absurd and unjustified. It wasn't even as though he had a better alternative lined up.

The definition of tyranny is cruel and oppressive rule by a government. Just because it isn't as bad (debatable) as previous ones doesn't mean they shouldn't be pointed out or protested. The governments now aren't making the same mistakes as the previous ones. They are giving people a false sense that they are free, they are here to protect us, and that everything is okay while they slowly take rights away little by little for a "justified" reason. For example:

"The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed."Adolf Hitler (Nazi Germany)

Patriot Act, NDAA, Persecution of whistle blowers, TSA pat-downs, indefinite detention without trial, media censorship, militarization of police, domestic drone use, widespread citizen surveillance, FEMA internment camps, internet censorship, gun control, food control (U.S.A)

You are just angry because he destroyed British monuments. I don't want to argue about this part b/c if they made a movie about a revolutionary man who combated tyranny by blowing up monuments from my mother country, I would be upset too, so I can understand where you are coming from about that. However, to say that it's bad to criticize them now b/c it could have been, and has been, worse in the past, is as you guys say, rubbish.

Past systems have been much worse than they are now, that is indisputable. What we call a ghetto in the modern UK, or US, or any 1st world nation would have been considered luxury by the lower classes of the 19th century and previously (they were also way more dangerous, with both London and New York having numerous murders daily during some periods of the 18th century). If we go back further it gets even worse. Knights weren't all chivalry and honour they were medieval gangsters but far more brutal. If a Lord or a Knight wanted sex with a peasant girl he'd have it regardless of whether she wanted it, if he thought she might tell someone he might cut her tongue out, or perhaps hang her saying she was trying to rob him, after all his word was law. You literally couldn't walk through whole areas of London, Manchester, New York, Paris etc in the 18th and 19th century without encountering numerous starving people begging for bread, drunk on gin or high on morphine.

If you disobey authority nowadays, you may have to pay a fine or go to prison, had you insulted or disobeyed your Lord in medieval times you'd be decapitated or worse. Have you ever seen Game of Thrones out of interest? I only ask because that's a very honest depiction of medieval Britain. I'm not attacking you at all, and it's not because they are British monuments, it is however partly the fact that anonymous are largely based in America and Europe and not Britain as far as I know at least, and so it annoys me a bit them wearing the face of a man who very nearly changed history for the worse here in Britain, it's like if we were wearing shirts with Lee Harvey Oswald on them.

If we are to put a label such as tyranny on something we have to have something to compare it to, and the logic can't practically be if it's not perfect it's tyranny. You can go to the shop without fear of being robbed, or raped if your a woman (unless you live in an extremely dangerous area, and as I've said even modern day ghettos don't compare).

The fact is things don't just appear to be getting better, they actually really are. We may not have all the freedoms we would like but we have more than we've ever had before and that prevents it from being tyranny. If you can safely say that you don't fear for your life on a daily basis than you have it better than 90% of the population of both Britain and America in the 19th century and previously.

Well you do have a point about past tyranny, that medieval stuff in England sounds brutal... And yet it reminds me of the way the police and high authorities treated civilians in the movie V for Vendetta. Remember when Evey Hammond was walking the streets of London at the beginning of the movie and the two cops approached her and attempted to "punish" her for breaking curfew? They would have gotten away with her mistreatment just like the Knights would have in medieval times because of government tyranny.

I'm not sure how to respond about your points about ghettos and safety going to the market. Just b/c crime and insanity on the streets is better regulated now doesn't really have much to do with tyranny does it?

We do (did) have more freedoms than we ever have and it is much safer in civilian life but now our rights are slowly being taken away from us. This is very evident. Anonymous is trying to do something about it. Their attire, even if it can be argued is unnecessary or stupid, doesn't discredit the message and goal that they are trying to achieve. I mean if V didn't blow up those buildings and didn't dress up as Fawkes would you still have negative views and opinions about someone trying to help the country and the people? Even through rational methods?

#22 Posted by SSJLozza (1528 posts) - - Show Bio

@noone301994:

The point about the level of danger in bad areas of modern day vs olden days was just meant to re-enforce the idea point that things are better all round, but yes I can see it was kinda irrelevant. I actually think the way in which people were treated in that movie was terrible- I wouldn't go as far as to say as bad as in medieval times, but certainly worse than it has been for centuries in the 1st world. My main problem with anonymous aside from their very questionable methods, is that they say they speak for the people with no real grounds for making such claims. The fact that they attack (verbally and via cyber connection) democratically elected governments and then claim to speak for the people without any proof that they are doing so seems a bit hypocritical to me.

I honestly understand where you are coming from and I know that we have problems I just think that using words like Tyranny to describe modern politics seems a bit extreme. My main gripe with V is not actually so much the character (although I really don't see what destroying parliament could achieve at that point apart from total anarchy) but the maker of the film for effectively conveying what I see as scare tactics. the fact that he/she chose such an iconic place to be destroyed made it seem as though they were commenting not just on the politics of the film but on modern British politics, and whilst our government is far from perfect I don't think they're that terrible really.

Anyway fundamentally I really don't think anonymous can succeed, they are outmatched in money, resources and tbh support. They seem to think the world will rise up and support them like so many other groups have across the ages, and I just don't think there's any reason to believe that it will happen.

#23 Posted by Noone301994 (3927 posts) - - Show Bio

@ssjlozza said:

@noone301994:

The point about the level of danger in bad areas of modern day vs olden days was just meant to re-enforce the idea point that things are better all round, but yes I can see it was kinda irrelevant. I actually think the way in which people were treated in that movie was terrible- I wouldn't go as far as to say as bad as in medieval times, but certainly worse than it has been for centuries in the 1st world. My main problem with anonymous aside from their very questionable methods, is that they say they speak for the people with no real grounds for making such claims. The fact that they attack (verbally and via cyber connection) democratically elected governments and then claim to speak for the people without any proof that they are doing so seems a bit hypocritical to me.

I honestly understand where you are coming from and I know that we have problems I just think that using words like Tyranny to describe modern politics seems a bit extreme. My main gripe with V is not actually so much the character (although I really don't see what destroying parliament could achieve at that point apart from total anarchy) but the maker of the film for effectively conveying what I see as scare tactics. the fact that he/she chose such an iconic place to be destroyed made it seem as though they were commenting not just on the politics of the film but on modern British politics, and whilst our government is far from perfect I don't think they're that terrible really.

Anyway fundamentally I really don't think anonymous can succeed, they are outmatched in money, resources and tbh support. They seem to think the world will rise up and support them like so many other groups have across the ages, and I just don't think there's any reason to believe that it will happen.

Well anonymous says that they represent all of us that believe in civil liberty and fair treatment. But I can see why you question that b/c I'm sure most wouldn't like a group like anonymous to represent them.

Yeah I didn't see what the point of blowing up the parliament buildings was... Saying that the governments are tyrannical may not be exactly true as of now but like I said before, we are slowly losing our rights and we sure are getting close. I feel really sorry for you guys because you technically don't have a constitution... They can do whatever they want without crossing boundaries. At least with us we can say "Stop that's unconstitutional" (even though that wont work)

I agree that they won't succeed and there's not much they can do but I still like the idea of their organization and what they represent. I know a lost cause when I see one, I'm not going to be donating money or anything anytime soon, but again it's the message that the government has lied and done bad things and we should stand up for our rights and be aware because knowledge is power.

#24 Edited by Joygirl (18715 posts) - - Show Bio

O.o Why are people acting like Movie V > Comic V? Comic V was a bona fide superhuman, not just a badass.

#25 Edited by SSJLozza (1528 posts) - - Show Bio

@noone301994 said:

@ssjlozza said:

@noone301994:

The point about the level of danger in bad areas of modern day vs olden days was just meant to re-enforce the idea point that things are better all round, but yes I can see it was kinda irrelevant. I actually think the way in which people were treated in that movie was terrible- I wouldn't go as far as to say as bad as in medieval times, but certainly worse than it has been for centuries in the 1st world. My main problem with anonymous aside from their very questionable methods, is that they say they speak for the people with no real grounds for making such claims. The fact that they attack (verbally and via cyber connection) democratically elected governments and then claim to speak for the people without any proof that they are doing so seems a bit hypocritical to me.

I honestly understand where you are coming from and I know that we have problems I just think that using words like Tyranny to describe modern politics seems a bit extreme. My main gripe with V is not actually so much the character (although I really don't see what destroying parliament could achieve at that point apart from total anarchy) but the maker of the film for effectively conveying what I see as scare tactics. the fact that he/she chose such an iconic place to be destroyed made it seem as though they were commenting not just on the politics of the film but on modern British politics, and whilst our government is far from perfect I don't think they're that terrible really.

Anyway fundamentally I really don't think anonymous can succeed, they are outmatched in money, resources and tbh support. They seem to think the world will rise up and support them like so many other groups have across the ages, and I just don't think there's any reason to believe that it will happen.

Well anonymous says that they represent all of us that believe in civil liberty and fair treatment. But I can see why you question that b/c I'm sure most wouldn't like a group like anonymous to represent them.

Yeah I didn't see what the point of blowing up the parliament buildings was... Saying that the governments are tyrannical may not be exactly true as of now but like I said before, we are slowly losing our rights and we sure are getting close. I feel really sorry for you guys because you technically don't have a constitution... They can do whatever they want without crossing boundaries. At least with us we can say "Stop that's unconstitutional" (even though that wont work)

I agree that they won't succeed and there's not much they can do but I still like the idea of their organization and what they represent. I know a lost cause when I see one, I'm not going to be donating money or anything anytime soon, but again it's the message that the government has lied and done bad things and we should stand up for our rights and be aware because knowledge is power.

Yeah I can see where you're coming from, and I'm sure a lot of anonymous members (if they have members, I'm not really sure actually) have the best interests of the people at heart. I also understand that we here in the UK and you guys in the US are losing rights, and that we have to do something to combat that. Personally I think education is the answer, but not through illegal hacking, rather investigative journalism and the will of the people to educate themselves. The main problem in Britain and America at the moment is that people just don't know enough about the world around them, again they know more than in yesteryear and I wouldn't by any means say that things are terrible, just that they could be better and we should strive to make them so. The reason why people like George Bush, Tony Blair etc get into office is because people are so ignorant. That's partly down to the government deliberately withholding info and also the lack of will from most of us to actually research parties and their policies.

What I can't stand though are the Liberal Democrats in this country, who actively went directly against their former policies once they entered the coalition government. I don't know if you know this but in the UK atm we have a system ruled by two parties, with one taking precedence due to gaining more votes overall. Anyway the lesser party has betrayed everyone that voted for them by changing virtually all of their policies to fit in with the dominant one, so basically students like me are having to pay significantly more in fees than ever before. It's a bit like with Obama, he promised you change, and the only change you got was erosion of civil liberties.

Our nations are undoubtedly flawed and we need some changes, I just believe we are over all quite lucky and that a coup is not the answer.

#26 Posted by Veshark (9058 posts) - - Show Bio

Wow...I think this is the most drastic thread derailment I've ever seen :O

#27 Posted by Batman242 (4860 posts) - - Show Bio

@veshark said:

Wow...I think this is the most drastic thread derailment I've ever seen :O

#28 Posted by Noone301994 (3927 posts) - - Show Bio

@ssjlozza said:

@noone301994 said:

@ssjlozza said:

@noone301994:

The point about the level of danger in bad areas of modern day vs olden days was just meant to re-enforce the idea point that things are better all round, but yes I can see it was kinda irrelevant. I actually think the way in which people were treated in that movie was terrible- I wouldn't go as far as to say as bad as in medieval times, but certainly worse than it has been for centuries in the 1st world. My main problem with anonymous aside from their very questionable methods, is that they say they speak for the people with no real grounds for making such claims. The fact that they attack (verbally and via cyber connection) democratically elected governments and then claim to speak for the people without any proof that they are doing so seems a bit hypocritical to me.

I honestly understand where you are coming from and I know that we have problems I just think that using words like Tyranny to describe modern politics seems a bit extreme. My main gripe with V is not actually so much the character (although I really don't see what destroying parliament could achieve at that point apart from total anarchy) but the maker of the film for effectively conveying what I see as scare tactics. the fact that he/she chose such an iconic place to be destroyed made it seem as though they were commenting not just on the politics of the film but on modern British politics, and whilst our government is far from perfect I don't think they're that terrible really.

Anyway fundamentally I really don't think anonymous can succeed, they are outmatched in money, resources and tbh support. They seem to think the world will rise up and support them like so many other groups have across the ages, and I just don't think there's any reason to believe that it will happen.

Well anonymous says that they represent all of us that believe in civil liberty and fair treatment. But I can see why you question that b/c I'm sure most wouldn't like a group like anonymous to represent them.

Yeah I didn't see what the point of blowing up the parliament buildings was... Saying that the governments are tyrannical may not be exactly true as of now but like I said before, we are slowly losing our rights and we sure are getting close. I feel really sorry for you guys because you technically don't have a constitution... They can do whatever they want without crossing boundaries. At least with us we can say "Stop that's unconstitutional" (even though that wont work)

I agree that they won't succeed and there's not much they can do but I still like the idea of their organization and what they represent. I know a lost cause when I see one, I'm not going to be donating money or anything anytime soon, but again it's the message that the government has lied and done bad things and we should stand up for our rights and be aware because knowledge is power.

Yeah I can see where you're coming from, and I'm sure a lot of anonymous members (if they have members, I'm not really sure actually) have the best interests of the people at heart. I also understand that we here in the UK and you guys in the US are losing rights, and that we have to do something to combat that. Personally I think education is the answer, but not through illegal hacking, rather investigative journalism and the will of the people to educate themselves. The main problem in Britain and America at the moment is that people just don't know enough about the world around them, again they know more than in yesteryear and I wouldn't by any means say that things are terrible, just that they could be better and we should strive to make them so. The reason why people like George Bush, Tony Blair etc get into office is because people are so ignorant. That's partly down to the government deliberately withholding info and also the lack of will from most of us to actually research parties and their policies.

What I can't stand though are the Liberal Democrats in this country, who actively went directly against their former policies once they entered the coalition government. I don't know if you know this but in the UK atm we have a system ruled by two parties, with one taking precedence due to gaining more votes overall. Anyway the lesser party has betrayed everyone that voted for them by changing virtually all of their policies to fit in with the dominant one, so basically students like me are having to pay significantly more in fees than ever before. It's a bit like with Obama, he promised you change, and the only change you got was erosion of civil liberties.

Our nations are undoubtedly flawed and we need some changes, I just believe we are over all quite lucky and that a coup is not the answer.

Well I am glad that I could get you to agree with me and acknowledge that they are taking away our rights.. But don't you think there is a reason for that? They are doing this on purpose. They don't want us to be prepared or able to fight back when disaster strikes and they want full control over us. Once economic collapse, war, or disease breaks out they will declare martial law and use that disaster as an excuse to rule over us in an even more cruel way, similar to Nazi Germany. Why do you think they are slowly taking away rights now? So that when the time comes, people will already be conditioned to these lack of rights and won't mind when they TRULY start doing a number on us. For example, the airport security. Does the TSA really need to grope everyone's genitals all day long? No they don't and don't listen to their BS, "Security and safety purposes" is it truly necessary to pat down an 8 year old girl? Is she a terrorist? Or an 85 year old woman? I mean come on... It's such a joke. They are doing these things because they can, not for safety. If they truly wanted to keep people safe they wouldn't start all of these unnecessary wars and then arm the very same Al-Qaedan terrorists years later (Syria) and then at the airport claim to be combatting those terrorists by making the airport security insane. Like I said before, to acknowledge that they are trying to take away our rights and passing legislation that flip flops with what their party does (hurts the people), you have to be able to see the purpose... It's not like they gain economic benefits from taking away our rights... The government has a plan to screw over the people and like you said, they don't want us to be educated, nor do they want us to be armed, aggressive, or aware.

If you knew all of the horrible, stupid, and contradictory things about the American government has done you would think very differently about a coup. If these people are deliberately trying to screw us over and take advantage of us, why keep them in Congress? Or the White house? They will just keep doing these things but in a different way.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

-Thomas Jefferson

#29 Posted by SSJLozza (1528 posts) - - Show Bio

@ssjlozza said:

@noone301994 said:

@ssjlozza said:

@noone301994:

The point about the level of danger in bad areas of modern day vs olden days was just meant to re-enforce the idea point that things are better all round, but yes I can see it was kinda irrelevant. I actually think the way in which people were treated in that movie was terrible- I wouldn't go as far as to say as bad as in medieval times, but certainly worse than it has been for centuries in the 1st world. My main problem with anonymous aside from their very questionable methods, is that they say they speak for the people with no real grounds for making such claims. The fact that they attack (verbally and via cyber connection) democratically elected governments and then claim to speak for the people without any proof that they are doing so seems a bit hypocritical to me.

I honestly understand where you are coming from and I know that we have problems I just think that using words like Tyranny to describe modern politics seems a bit extreme. My main gripe with V is not actually so much the character (although I really don't see what destroying parliament could achieve at that point apart from total anarchy) but the maker of the film for effectively conveying what I see as scare tactics. the fact that he/she chose such an iconic place to be destroyed made it seem as though they were commenting not just on the politics of the film but on modern British politics, and whilst our government is far from perfect I don't think they're that terrible really.

Anyway fundamentally I really don't think anonymous can succeed, they are outmatched in money, resources and tbh support. They seem to think the world will rise up and support them like so many other groups have across the ages, and I just don't think there's any reason to believe that it will happen.

Well anonymous says that they represent all of us that believe in civil liberty and fair treatment. But I can see why you question that b/c I'm sure most wouldn't like a group like anonymous to represent them.

Yeah I didn't see what the point of blowing up the parliament buildings was... Saying that the governments are tyrannical may not be exactly true as of now but like I said before, we are slowly losing our rights and we sure are getting close. I feel really sorry for you guys because you technically don't have a constitution... They can do whatever they want without crossing boundaries. At least with us we can say "Stop that's unconstitutional" (even though that wont work)

I agree that they won't succeed and there's not much they can do but I still like the idea of their organization and what they represent. I know a lost cause when I see one, I'm not going to be donating money or anything anytime soon, but again it's the message that the government has lied and done bad things and we should stand up for our rights and be aware because knowledge is power.

Yeah I can see where you're coming from, and I'm sure a lot of anonymous members (if they have members, I'm not really sure actually) have the best interests of the people at heart. I also understand that we here in the UK and you guys in the US are losing rights, and that we have to do something to combat that. Personally I think education is the answer, but not through illegal hacking, rather investigative journalism and the will of the people to educate themselves. The main problem in Britain and America at the moment is that people just don't know enough about the world around them, again they know more than in yesteryear and I wouldn't by any means say that things are terrible, just that they could be better and we should strive to make them so. The reason why people like George Bush, Tony Blair etc get into office is because people are so ignorant. That's partly down to the government deliberately withholding info and also the lack of will from most of us to actually research parties and their policies.

What I can't stand though are the Liberal Democrats in this country, who actively went directly against their former policies once they entered the coalition government. I don't know if you know this but in the UK atm we have a system ruled by two parties, with one taking precedence due to gaining more votes overall. Anyway the lesser party has betrayed everyone that voted for them by changing virtually all of their policies to fit in with the dominant one, so basically students like me are having to pay significantly more in fees than ever before. It's a bit like with Obama, he promised you change, and the only change you got was erosion of civil liberties.

Our nations are undoubtedly flawed and we need some changes, I just believe we are over all quite lucky and that a coup is not the answer.

Well I am glad that I could get you to agree with me and acknowledge that they are taking away our rights.. But don't you think there is a reason for that? They are doing this on purpose. They don't want us to be prepared or able to fight back when disaster strikes and they want full control over us. Once economic collapse, war, or disease breaks out they will declare martial law and use that disaster as an excuse to rule over us in an even more cruel way, similar to Nazi Germany. Why do you think they are slowly taking away rights now? So that when the time comes, people will already be conditioned to these lack of rights and won't mind when they TRULY start doing a number on us. For example, the airport security. Does the TSA really need to grope everyone's genitals all day long? No they don't and don't listen to their BS, "Security and safety purposes" is it truly necessary to pat down an 8 year old girl? Is she a terrorist? Or an 85 year old woman? I mean come on... It's such a joke. They are doing these things because they can, not for safety. If they truly wanted to keep people safe they wouldn't start all of these unnecessary wars and then arm the very same Al-Qaedan terrorists years later (Syria) and then at the airport claim to be combatting those terrorists by making the airport security insane. Like I said before, to acknowledge that they are trying to take away our rights and passing legislation that flip flops with what their party does (hurts the people), you have to be able to see the purpose... It's not like they gain economic benefits from taking away our rights... The government has a plan to screw over the people and like you said, they don't want us to be educated, nor do they want us to be armed, aggressive, or aware.

If you knew all of the horrible, stupid, and contradictory things about the American government has done you would think very differently about a coup. If these people are deliberately trying to screw us over and take advantage of us, why keep them in Congress? Or the White house? They will just keep doing these things but in a different way.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

-Thomas Jefferson

I don't necessarily know all the terrible things that they've done, but I do know that the quality of life in America has improved considerably for all elements of society compared to just 50-100 years ago. Some rights have been lost, and security measures can sometimes be too stringent I agree, but I think that is more a sign of poor judgement than impending totalitarianism. I certainly see no evidence to suggest things would ever be as bad as Nazi Germany. The things you're talking about are out of order and shouldn't be taking place, but it's quite a leap from overzealous security measures to Kristallnacht.

#30 Posted by Noone301994 (3927 posts) - - Show Bio

@ssjlozza: I do agree with you that they aren't as bad as there has been, and things seem to be better as far as safety and "freedom" go, but trust me, they are definitely getting there. With these current systems, current legislation being pushed, current economy, and current leadership, things can't go anywhere but down from here.

At the beginning of this conversation it seemed like you thought that V didn't have to recommend the people rise up and take back the British government when it was arguably worse than Nazi Germany, but now I don't think that was what you were arguing for. The fact that I got you to acknowledge that the system and government wasn't a benevolent entity has satisfied me enough to end this. Well.. that and the fact that the NSA is probably eavesdropping on this topic and I don't want to be put on some list to be disappeared later on.

So I am going to end this to avoid adding insult to injury and making things worse for expressing my opinions, which are frowned upon and slowly being taken away. Nice discussing with you.

#31 Edited by CheeseSticks (2387 posts) - - Show Bio

V wins the second round, just look at the scene were he's against 6 or 7 armed men.

#33 Posted by never give up (9495 posts) - - Show Bio

Captain America most likely wins both rounds. Well unless V has prep.

#34 Posted by Regular_Joe (183 posts) - - Show Bio

Cap. Both.

#35 Edited by never give up (9495 posts) - - Show Bio

Mainly because of Winter Soldier lol