Reality vs Adventure

Maintaining the balance may be challenging, but worst case I have the upper hand as the superior being.  It is much like a mafia racket; you're spot on. And the mafia has existed a long time and many of the most prominent crime families have lived long, rich lives.  However, in this scenario the "racket" wouldn't be totally one-sided like before. I would offer protection from foreign threats, and if they wished, crush foreign rivals. 
Arbitrary symbols of "wealth" such as gems, precious metals, or currency would have no value to me as giant, nor would a luxury fabrics or extravagant wardrobes.  Wouldn't even need a t-shirt.  I'd good with a pair of shorts and running shoes, which ideally I would have brought with me before becoming stranded.  My greatest assets would be human capital and control over it: based on what you have told me (and I now agree with this) I would need to maintain an equilibrium with the tiny people in order to meet my physical needs and survive.  Taking a hundred cows (as you referenced) wouldn't be necessary when they instead agree to build a hundred factory farms, each with a workforce to match. Child labor laws are for them to work out not me.  Even if I wanted to, it would be unrealistic for me to regulate such things
But you haven't come up with a better solution or even a suitable alternative than I have to the question: how else to satisfy male sexual needs as a lone giant amidst of race of people the size of ants or even smaller?   As a fully developed adult male with a healthy sexual appetite, masturbating wouldn't fulfill the totality of it, and like any guy, I would still masturbate a lot anyway.  Wouldn't you?  And wouldn't you take advantage of the situation, like any proper guy would? Top down orders to their government and volunteers (which includes a brothel) being out of the question, there would no choice but to crouch down and take what I need by force.  Gently pinching the tiny women in between my fingers and lowering them into my collection jar.  Any husband or father screaming in objections tempts fate by gaining my notice. With a hundred or so wives and daughters trapped in a glass bottle in my pocket, yes, I would stop at around that number.  Having enough tiny beings who can satisfy any inexplicable whims, caprices, and urges I have, at any time, by making them do any unspeakable yet stimulating thing on or to my penis to make me ejaculate -- that would serve both to satisfy my male sexual needs and fuel my sense of machismo.  As a male you imagine it as unpleasant because it's another guy's dick.  But they are women.  
Truth told, I would even keep second glass collection jar in my pocket, containing tiny men who I use as a focus for all my frustrations.  I could think of plenty of fiendish ideas to prank them that wouldn't be harmful: tapping my fingernail on the glass, shaking them.  I'm a pretty active guy; there would be no showers.  As mentioned, putting them to work cleaning my sticky, smelly feet at the end of each day would feel absolutely delightful.  And that scale, everything would be magnified to them, so they may want gas masks or hazmat suits.  But then, what fun is that for me?  😃  Again, you see it as probably cruelly unpleasant: is it that, or is it just harmless fun at their expense?

Sorry but that's not it either.
 
The people sitting at the table were her kidnappers, and had forced her to refer to them as her parents. She didn't think, and her real parents disappeared.

You pretty much got it. To get the exact answer look at his letter. Take the first word from the first line. The second word from the second line. The third word from the third line, and the fourth word from the fourth line.
There's your answer.

Intervening is a responsibility if one side is clearly in the wrong and putting others in danger. That wouldn’t be authoritative of me. That would be a moral obligation. Giant or not. And if there isn’t a clear aggressor, then we have the full capability to try and understand both sides and see if you can diffuse it somehow. Taking a side at that point w/o a clear aggressor would not make me feel obligated to interfere unless of course they go to war and one side wants to torture, enslave, rape, and genocide the other. Then again, I would be obligated to interfere.
It seems your main argument is to control them first before they have the chance to attack you or involve you in their conflicts. That is a failed human perception. Paranoia. You have clearly shown paranoia and the need to subjugate out of fear and for pleasure. That is a package deal for you.
Fantasies need careful consideration. Usually fantasies are perfect. Reality isn’t. If you are loved and respected, attention can be turned to other important matters and be very productive. Your reign will last much longer and stronger if they respected you. You propose a life of quarreling. Subjugation from fear is nothing but opportunity for conflict. Your proposal invites conflict in order to justify your intentions.
The little people have feelings too and if it was their wife or daughter in that bottle stuck in your pocket, damn right some will retaliate. And a few can turn into many. And that is what I mean how you would justify your complete rule over them, by instigating it all. If they rise up, in return you retaliate back and crush them. Yes they will be afraid. In these situations, anger will boil over. Then peace of mind over abuse becomes more important than life itself. They would rather die than be subjugated to any more cruelty. You then lose the reign.
Once you reduce their population, there wouldn’t be many to rule over at that point. Or they will be so terrified and pissed, they will become scattered nomads in hiding and possibly even make an underground network to thrive, repopulate, and either outlive you, or take out your eyes while you sleep.
But let’s say they attacked you from the start without you doing anything. Would you be justified to counter attack? Of course you would. But like any unknown animal in it’s own habitat, you have to respect its boundaries because you don’t know what it is capable of. Honor those boundaries and try to offer a sign of peace or leave it be. But if they want to chase you to the end of their tiny world relentlessly, then sure, you have the right to slay the beast. And from there you have to make the choice to either rule benevolently or malevolently. Or not rule at all, that is a choice also.
Abusing others has nothing to do with survival. There is a difference between surviving and thriving. To thrive is to evolve. To survive is the fight or flight response. It isn’t rational. It doesn’t take the time to look at the whole picture. Being quick to react instead of being rational is a devolved sate. It is the most raw form of humans and other animals.  And since it is just you and your DNA can’t mix with one 1000 times smaller than you, then evolving is redundant. You become a basic animal just trying to survive. Your state of mind becomes devolved. That is if you choose to make the little people enemies or abuse them. But if you work together, maybe you can save your humanity and evolve and thrive together. You mark will be left for the rest of their future generations in helping them with things that they couldn’t ordinarily do given your strength. That would be a legacy worth having, instead of having them make monuments for you that they will want to tear down once you are gone.

If they had enough technology to create more giants, then they also have the technology to destroy one. So it would be a lot easier to take out one giant than to have to deal with many of them later. Look at the USA with the greatest arsenal in the world, but infiltrating its satellites and energy sector would cripple it and all that supreme artillery would be useless. They would have to fly blind and drop bombs directly over enemy territory because they wouldn’t be able to launch missiles from anywhere. Not from a carrier, jet, tank, or from absolutely anything, at least not with any accuracy. So with the right technology, your giant size would become irrelevant.
What exactly would be the best way to rule for the longest period of time? For this topic you give two options, but there is always a third to not rule at all. But in this situation, to rule by demoralizing them always ends violently. And through our own history, leaders like that usually create turmoil in their own sphere of power and can even fall from the inside. But since it’s just you and them, your reign to demoralize them can only last so long as they have something to lose. Once they feel they have nothing to lose anymore, whether it be population, pride, sense of purpose, then they will revolt. And you say you will try to keep them at bay and only take so much so they wouldn’t feel the need to retaliate. And that is a 50/50 chance you fuck it up and get too greedy, or take one too many women, or eat 100 too many cows. You have no idea their toleration levels.
You would think they would be too demoralized to do anything. But they aren’t all in chains under constant watch. You can’t monitor their every move. And remember, in those situations people would flee and go underground. From there they will build resistance. You can’t possibly keep an eye on every one of them so far above. And once they break away, you can demoralize the cities all you want, but that resistance will continue to grow. Reigns like that always go up in flames because there is no other way around it.
If you don’t rule in that manner and decide to rule another way, then you are ingrained in their society and become their protector. And it does take more effort and intelligence, but it will last longer. It lasts longer because their existence would mean something and they become productive. We are talking about one civilization right? Because if there were more groups spread out around the planet, there will obviously be conflict brewing eventually. And we can go on about that situation. But this is one group or civilization. Heck, maybe they have allies! That’s why you need to be rational from the start.
The intelligence that requires you to reign in peace is rational. It has purpose other than self, and becomes a very productive society. The easy way is to use force. That cripples rational thinking. There is no rational thinking when you openly desire to abuse them. Rational thinking starts when you look at all the options: stay away, help their civilization, try to peacefully assimilate? Rational thinking also includes what to do if they attack, what if they involve me in their conflicts? But all of the above rational thinking goes away the moment you decide to act first without any evidence of them plotting and subjugate them out of paranoia and pleasure.

There are a lot of things I can propose that you haven’t thought about because you are not rational or sympathetic. And it isn’t anything new. Even things you think you can place in your favor, you will still underestimate the little people. I can pop many ideas into your head, and different scenarios, but it will come down to your unescapable authoritarian views that just aren’t realistic in any possible manner.
You jumped from ruling them abusively to proposing a spy network. So now you see your first proposal isn’t a reality? Tell me, how would you propose a realistic approach to infiltrate them? Do you want to move on to infiltration techniques?
The females you carry in your pockets, you will be untouchable for how long? Your days are numbered. They want their women back. Once again you propose retaliation. Everything you propose is a path to retaliation.
You are dreaming and fantasizing if you think you are the great persuader to turn tribe against tribe. And use a spy network after you admitted to wanting to rule them malevolently. So now we are discussing spy networks. After you have gained rationality? Intelligence?
First, you would have no idea which side to persuade. Like you said, they are nothing to you. Their ideas mean nothing. They are ants. Now you are considering them as being an equal? People you think you can persuade?
And your irrational behavior at the start to control them eliminates any possibility to gain any influence in the so called world if there are others.

Update on book
I've been reading it the past few days. It is definitely complex. More so than Lord of the Rings. It does bring a creepy fear factor from so many things happening especially when Gods are involved. Great characters. Plot is yet to be emphasized so I keep wondering, which could make or brake it for me. But the mystery just won't allow me to quit. It is very unique. 

That's not a hard choice at all.  Cyanide kills fairly quickly but bleach mixes with the acid in your stomach releasing toxic Chlorine gas into the esophagus, mouth, nose and lungs...  not to mention the alkaline burning of the bleach itself.  It would be a slow and excruciating way to go, 
 
On topic I don't listen to either of them but I don't harbour any ill feelings.  I'm just not interested

A lot of games these days are getting to the point where photorealism is close to the real thing. But, most games you can still tell they're games. But, what if we ever get to a point where video games are so photorealistic, that it causes people to believe it's real. I can't wait to play games that are photorealistic. But, then again, idk. It may be too uncanny to play something that looks so real. Especially if it involves combat, guns and stuff. Imagine horror games, my goodness that'd up the fear factor for sure. 

Nukes? no. Space shuttles? no. Automobile? no. Human's greatest achievement was the NES. Even aliens marvel at it as on of their world wonders. 

You weren't rude. You were honest. Sometimes the truth hurts. Hell all a girl needs to get a record contract is blonde hair and at least B cup tits. Auto tune will fix her voice.

It's been one month for me!!! Over 100 posts. I'm catching up @The Blackangel 

It's been one month for me!!! Over 100 posts. I'm catching up @The Blackangel 

In Skyrim last night, I realized I was “going through the motions” rather mindlessly on a quest, and that the experience was becoming repetitious. So, I randomly looked at a tree stump and thought, “playthroughs don’t have to be repetitious; I can stroll over and examine this tree stump right now.” So I did, and was quite startled when I saw ants moving all over it. I never noticed ants crawling on stumps on any previous playthroughs, and I’ve been playing this game monthly for years. It was a cool moment.
What are some small details like these which you have spotted only after a long time in a game environment?
@kingpotato @killamch89 @skyfire @The Blackangel @Alyxx @DylanC
 

Something weird happened to me in FF8 this year that I had never once seen before. A fucking Bite Bug farted on me. I know it farted because that’s what it said at the top of the screen.
😐😑😐

Wow, that looks like a good series. I just bought book 1 Gardens of The Moon! 

What are your feelings on fast travel in games? Sometimes they work really well, but other times it's a chore to figure out and a chore to do. For example, RDR2 is annoying, in that to fast travel, you have to be at an outpost. So, you have to sometimes travel for minutes to get to the nearest outpost and then fast travel to the next location, which can take nearly a minute in itself. 
Just give us an option to fast travel to locations from our menu. I understand maybe having to open up an area first before it can be traveled to, but at least make it a quick option in the menu once its been opened. 
I know I'm just ranting at this point. But I've become a lazy gamer lol. I just want to get to the gameplay as fast as possible and not be stuck going from one place to another just to get to another location. 
What are your feelings on this? 

They say bad seed never dies. Every now and then, one falls through the cracks. There's a lot of abusive fuckers out there that need to fall through those cracks. 

AC Odyssey, I had a lion who fought with me through everything. Major battles, skirmishes, skilled mercenaries, and went on travels with me. It was always there. All them pics I took. All the moments together. Then I was on some castle walls up in a mountain. I jumped off and the lion jumped after me and died. After all that, I wanted it to have a glorious death, but followed me off the edge. I was heartbroken. I don't know if I can ever love such a wonderful beast again. 

What the hell does that mean? The only way I can think of that they could be related is like a brick of blow or junk to a bottle of whiskey.

Every game needs a female character to choose from. I'm sick of the same ol macho tuff man who is the biggest and baddest asshole or the perfect handsome white boy who is always the righteous. I choose female every time. Days of male pride are over and needs to be humbled. 

When kids get violent and do things like school shootings, the blame always goes to things Marilyn Manson and Doom. It’s never a parenting or bullying problem. But when a kid excels and gets into Harvard, then they had amazing parents.
Kid does good: parents are to blame.
Kids do bad: parents are innocent and it’s something else.
 
Pick and choose when and where it’s comfortable to be a parent. If your kid’s a fuckup it’s not the parents fault, but if the kid ends up being the dean of Harvard the parents get all the credit.
Cowardly. Pathetic.

I think I’m a prime example of video games not causing violence, being that I’m a clinically diagnosed sociopath. I play some of the most depraved, gruesome games imaginable. And I derive pleasure from picturing people in more pain and suffering than most can fathom. But never once have I acted on it. The game Hatred doesn’t give me the thoughts that I should try it just for whatever reason. I don’t care enough about people to waste the time and energy on them. All the planning and time it would take to set up a location to do it isn’t something I care to waste time on either. I can do it in game, and dream it up even worse in my mind, and I’m satisfied. It takes little energy and I get to experience what I want. The only time I would express any of these desires is if someone broke into my house. I’ve gone on record with the cops that anyone breaking in will not leave alive. It is my 100% intention to kill them. And I will succeed in ending a human life.
Did video games have anything to do with any of this? Not a god damn thing. Actually the opposite. They actually STOP ME from acting on my desires. The violence I get to experience in game keeps me in check. So I can straight up tell you that violent games can actually be a good thing.

For years now politicians have been making these very unwarranted accusations against gaming and gamers to protect themselves and/or organisations that support them against backlash and action that might affect their wallets.  It's not just games either but also music, TV shows, movies and even books.  It's well known amongst the gaming community that is in spite of decades worth of evidence and studies that prove that is a complete it's a complete crock of crap that they, naturally just choose to ignore.  
 
So yeah, when you go onto a gaming forum and one of the first things you do is start a discussion throwing in that very bullshit is a bit like walking in a sports stadium being the only one wearing the rival teams shirt.  Some of us might get a little irritated.